The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Israel must pay for crimes > Comments

Israel must pay for crimes : Comments

By Antony Loewenstein, published 9/2/2009

The extensive use of white phosphorus in a densely populated Gaza was a war crime, according to Amnesty International.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
As much as I agree with the sentiment of this article, for the most part, using phrases like "The Jewish state, like any other nation, should be held to account for its actions" injects a religious-ethnic element which is entirely unnecessary.
Posted by Kurt, Monday, 9 February 2009 12:29:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“it is difficult to recall a comparable slaughter of civilians in so little time"

1. We can name quite a few: Ruanda, Bosnia, Zimbabwe, India/Pakistan, etc. etc.
2. The word "slaughter" implies a deliberate intention to kill. While there was the intent to kill Hamas terrorists, I do not think there is any sane person, including the author, who believes that there was any deliberate attempt to kill civilians on behalf of Israel.
3. On the other hand, there was a deliberate effort by Hamas to see as many Palestinian civilians dead as possible (in order to accuse Israel as they now do). Deliberately shooting from civilian concentrations, deliberately grabbing children into the midst of armed Hamas fighters, deliberately mining homes and forcing families to stay there, deliberately killing civilians (especially those affiliated with the Fatah opposition) in order to increase to hospital casualty-count.

You keep talking about "occupation" while there was no occupation in Gaza for some years (and negotiations are underway for ceasing occupation in the west-bank as well).
You keep talking about a "blockade" while only arms, ammunition and goods that can be used to produce rockets, or to dig tunnels through which to kidnap Israeli soldiers, are blocked, as well as preventing terrorists from going out for military training in Iran, then coming back with advanced bomb-making skills.

Even when goods do arrive, the Hamas takes them all to itself, they care nothing whatsoever about the 1.5 millions civilian Palestinians, their victims.

If you have any sympathy for Palestinians, take the Hamas mafia away from them.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 9 February 2009 1:07:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religious-ethnic tension and Israel are inseparable at this moment in time.

Kurt, I readily accept that it is more diplomatic to refer to Israel, rather than "the Jewish state" in discussions of its policies and activities (if only to avoid ad-hominum attacks by posters who confuse criticism of Israel with antisemitism). The fact remains, most ministers in the current Israeli government seem to have fewer reservations in this regard than either you or I.

All of the current front-runners in the imminent Israel elections are promoting a "Jewish state", where the majority of voting Israelis are Jews. These politicians promote this view because they believe it will help them get elected. I wish they would be replaced in tomorrow's Israeli election by a government of a less extremist nature, but I would not bet on it.

I expect that, in our rapidly changing international climate, the newer, further-right government of Israel will be significantly isolated internationally, in a short period of time.

Israel is one nation, overall population about 7 million. If we look solely at the issue of religion, there are some 1.8 billion Muslims in the rest of the world, living in nations of every political shade and style. In addition, there are many nations which identify in some regard as Christian, whose citizens are also horrified by the actions of Israel against Gaza.

There are also many Israelis of different religions (including Jews) who do not support current Israeli policy. And then there are the millions of people of other faiths around the world who are appalled by the indiscriminate slaughter of Gazan men, women and and children, and wanton destruction of Gazan property in December and January.

I fully expect that significant pressure will be brought to bear against Israel's past and current treatment of Palestinians, by June of this year. I hope that the outcome is a smooth, orderly and timely transition to a more humane approach to diplomacy between Israelis and Palestinians.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Monday, 9 February 2009 2:36:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who wants to see how discredited Ant Loewnstein is need only refer to the following links:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24720821-5001031,00.html
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2009/02/this-weeks-loew.html
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2009/02/loewenstein-wrong-again.html
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2009/02/dumb-and-dumber.html
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2009/02/ignorant-audience-now-dumber.html
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2009/01/boring-but-easy.html
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2009/01/loewenstein-massacres-truth-again.html
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2009/01/editor-required.html
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2009/01/antony-loewenstein-under-resourced.html

His capacity for getting facts right is basically non-existent.
Posted by AJFA, Monday, 9 February 2009 5:10:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Antony Loewenstein has a damm sight more Creditability than the people like you, who parrot the men from the ministry ie the well oiled
Israeli propaganda machine AJFA.
By the way what do the initials stand for?
Posted by John Ryan, Monday, 9 February 2009 5:23:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel should pay for defending itself. Rubbish! Hamas are the recognised terrorists who should be brought to book if it takes generations.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 9 February 2009 6:09:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The vast majority of global human rights groups disagree"

So what, Ant? The "vast majority" of global human rights groups won't even condemn the death penalty for apostasy, or stoning for adultery, or defend the right of Dutch filmmakers to make films, or the right of Danes to draw cartoons, or the idea that Jews have a right to defend themselves.

The Ant is an expert in self-abasement.
Posted by Parser, Monday, 9 February 2009 11:27:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Hamas are the recognised terrorists ..."?

Leigh, your comment that
"Hamas are the recognised terrorists who should be brought to book if it takes generations."

Sounds to me like unthinking vengefulness. Are you an Israeli? Do you support Zionism? Do you believe in human rights for all, or are you happy to limit the scope of the commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill" to the people you think are deserving of life? Do you think Hamas members deserve to live? Their families?

Israel's attack on Gaza was disproportionate and indiscriminate. If Israel spent the money on Gaza that it spends on armaments from the US, many Gazans would be thanking Israel instead of cursing them.

All for the sake of votes at tomorrow's election!
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 10 February 2009 8:41:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When will Lowenstein and other apologists for Hamas, Hezbollah, et al, including the UN, apply the same standards to Israel's enemies as they do to Israel? Hamas openly and enthusiastically targets civilians and civilian targets. They aim to maim and kill as many civilians as possible. The fact they have limited success is irrelevant. The idea of proportionality is nonsense - it means a never-ending cycle of escalating tit for tat violence. This isn't a game Mr Lowenstein, the people who die or are horribly burnt and injured when hit by Hamas missiles or suicide bombers are real people, not numbers to be talied. So if Hamas kills a thousand Israelies is an armed Israelie response then okay? What if it's 'only' 100? 10? How many before its 'okay' for Israel to defend itself?

Amnesty International has no legal standing to make findings of criminal guilt. Its statements are expressions of opinion. It is misleading and disingenious for Mr Lowenstein to pretend that the simple use of phosphorous is a war crime - it isn't. There are many valid and legal reasons for Israel to use white phosphorous but of course Mr Lowenstein isn't interested in exploring those.

International Law that does not apply to and restrain ALL parties to a conflict is not a law in anything other than name. When will the leaders of Hamas be tried for war crimes? When will Mr Lowenstein criticise Hamas with the same zeal that he uses to attack Israel?

Antony you know you can argue a point whilst still canvassing the validity and counter arguments of both sides to a conflict? Your articles are embarrassingly poorly researched, poorly argued and laughingly biased. I don't mean this to just have a go at you. But really, you're a 'journalist, author and blogger'? Well then so am I -but it doesn't make either of our arguments any more valid than they otherwise would be. Maybe instead of doing a couple of history units in your undergraduate Arts degree you should study and graduate in Law before you start making findings of criminal guilt.
Posted by Paulie, Tuesday, 10 February 2009 10:44:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You think proportional response is nonsense, but you are ignorant of international law.

Paulie, whoever you are, your claim that "Israel must pay for its crimes" is "poorly researched, poorly argued and laughingly biased", does you no credit, as your comment appears at least equally so. Do you think you are setting an example of impartiality with your unfounded assertions? Your grammar is passable, but your composition wants evidence of the very qualities you mention: research, argument and lack of bias.

Perhaps you would care to comment more impartially on the item below:

"UN to resume Gaza aid operations

"The UN is to resume delivering aid in Gaza after it said Hamas returned humanitarian supplies seized from UN warehouses last week. But the UN Relief and Works Agency said that the earliest it could resume deliveries was Wednesday because the Israeli-controlled crossing points are closed for the country's elections. The agency suspended shipments on Friday after Hamas seized 200 tonnes of rice and flour, 3,500 blankets and more than 400 food parcels from a distribution store. Hamas denied it confiscated any supplies, calling it a mistake due to a lack of co-ordination. On Monday, UN officials reiterated their call for Israel to lift the blockade on Gaza and open the crossings to urgent supplies. The top UN official in Gaza criticized Israel on Monday for blocking the shipment of paper to print textbooks for a new human rights curriculum that will be taught to children in all grades in the Palestinian territory."

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/function/0,,12215_cid_4015563,00.htm
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 10 February 2009 5:52:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor,

The reason why Israel imposes a blockade is to prevent weapons smuggling by Hamas. Do you think allowing Hamas to get more rockets into Gaza to fire into Israel, thereby forcing another war is a responsible or humanitarian thing to do?

What is implied in your argument is the idea that Israel is a cruel state controlled by genocidal Jews. Is this really how you think of Jews? Do you realise how anti-semitic it is to attribute such horrible motives to Jewish peoples?
Posted by AJFA, Tuesday, 10 February 2009 7:11:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enough, time to boycott the Tel Aviv Zionist regime.
http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-israel.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/10/naomi-klein-boycott-israel?commentpage=1
'nuf said.
Posted by MX, Tuesday, 10 February 2009 7:39:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good Evening Folks,

It does no good to cast slurs on people for
merely expressing an opinion. After all this
is supposed to be a Forum of social and political
debate and a wide variety of opinions is to be
expected. Personally, I'm a great fan of the
author's. He does his homework, and in my humble
opinion, knows what he's talking about.

As for the 'war crimes' issue... as I've stated
previously in other posts, the matter should be
left up to an independent international committee
to investigate the matter and decide whether in
fact war crimes were committed and by whom - both
Israel and Hamas should come under the committee's
scrutiny. Senior UN officials and Human Rights
Groups are calling for an investigation.
It should proceed.

When all the facts are in, a judgement will be made.
The only innocents in a war are the victims - of
both sides.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 10 February 2009 8:48:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJFA,

Israel is a state: a corporate body with neither soul nor sense - no more human than a carrot, in my opinion.

If you confuse a state with the people who are elected to its government, or otherwise hold power to run it, that is your mistake, not mine.

If the people who currently are called upon to govern, who make up the overwhelming majority of Israel's so-called democratic legisature, are of one particular religious faith, then I call that a remarkable coincidence for a democratic government. Similar circumstances prevail in other nations. Some democracies have assured particular races and religions a voice in their legislatures, but Israel is the only state I know of which is touted as a democracy and whose written policies also advocate majority control by one religious group.

I could be mistaken about this policy position. I would be glad to be corrected, with cited and accessible evidence to the contrary concerning Israel. All I have ascertained at this stage is the Israel does not have a constitution, per se, but rather a set of "Basic Laws", comprising a constitution in the making.

Israel and other nation-states are corporate entities, but followers of any religious faith are individual people. I can look an individual in the eye and tell him or her my opinion of their action(s). States have no eyes and no conscience. States are neither alive nor dead; they are outside these two categories.

With the Israeli election today, I expect that Israel will become more isolated as a nation, until its elected members can face the fact that Palestinians deserve to be treated as individuals with human rights; rights which are preferebly enshrined in enforceable laws.

After migrating to Australia in the '70's, I lost contact with the Jews I grew up with, some of whom were close friends. I often wonder what they would think of Israel's actions. I am hard put to believe they would advocate current Israeli policies and actions toward Palestinians. I believe they would be supporting Jewish organisations like B'Tselem.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 11 February 2009 10:41:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I call that a remarkable coincidence" ... "I would be glad to be corrected"

What coincides here, is that "Jewish" is both a name of a nation and a name of a religion.

Hitler did not care about religion, only about race, so he executed Christians and atheists of a Jewish origin just the same. The state of Israel was formed in order to protect Jewish nationals from the likes of Hitler. It coincides that most of them have links with the Jewish religion and follow it to varying degrees: some very strictly, some not at all, and everything in between and around.

The Israeli nation, or tribe if you will, welcomes people of other religions so long as they are willing to be loyal to the tribe. Coincidentally it is assumed, on practical grounds, that those of the Jewish religion are extremely likely to be loyal, so they are accepted automatically while others are questioned.

It is a pity that Palestinians - many of whom are former tribe-members, of Jewish origins (that stayed on their land and converted to Islam due to economic pressures) have shown themselves to be least likely loyal to the Jewish tribe and state (by "loyal" I refer to minimum standards, such as not placing bombs in buses and schools) - otherwise they could have long ago been included in the thriving Israeli nation (even while maintaing their Muslim religion or none, that's not the point).

As for the election-results, although bad, they look slightly better than expected by early poles, but there is a clear pattern: in towns and cities in the south of Israel that were exposed to Hamas missiles, and the closer they are to Gaza, the right-wing got more votes. This is the effect of trauma, and Hamas are very happy with the results: the last thing those hooligans want to see is an agreement with Israel that gives Palestinians their own state and takes Palestinians out of their misery - that would leave them with no roll.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 11 February 2009 12:42:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If the people who currently are called upon to govern, who make up the overwhelming majority of Israel's so-called democratic legisature, are of one particular religious faith, then I call that a remarkable coincidence for a democratic government. Similar circumstances prevail in other nations. Some democracies have assured particular races and religions a voice in their legislatures, but Israel is the only state I know of which is touted as a democracy and whose written policies also advocate majority control by one religious group."

This is yet another slur on the state of Israel. Israel's elections are free and democratic. There are Arab and Muslim members of Parliament as well as Jews. The only reason most parliamentarians are Jews is that most of the population is Jewish.

"Israel and other nation-states are corporate entities, but followers of any religious faith are individual people. I can look an individual in the eye and tell him or her my opinion of their action(s). States have no eyes and no conscience. States are neither alive nor dead; they are outside these two categories."

Nation states are not corporate identities. They are instead an outcome and expression of political power. In a democratic nation such as Israel, most policies are more or less aligned with majority opinion.

I don't understand how you can seperate the people and a democratic nation state. With China you can do this because it is not a democracy, so the Chinese people don't have the power to vote for or against government policies. But the fact is a majority of Israelis understandably have full support for Israel's right to defend herself against terrorists. Every nation and its citizens have a right to be protected from terrorists. Israelis are no different.

Israel is therefore entitled to take whatever measures will promote her safety, and that includes waging wars against terrorist organisations dedicated to her destruction.
Posted by AJFA, Wednesday, 11 February 2009 1:59:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJFA,

Can you answer two questions please?

1) According to the Israeli daily, 'Ha'aretz,'
Israel's all-out assault on Gaza had been
planned six months earlier.

How come?

And -

2) Why does Israel not agree to a two-state solution,
obey international law and end their illegal occupation
beyond the 1967 borders
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 11 February 2009 9:40:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I intend no "slur on the state of Israel".

AJFA, you reply that "Nation states are not corporate identities". The word I used is entities, not identities. In any case, you have entirely missed my point.

However formally or informally a group is organised, it has no life except in a metaphoric sense. That's no problem for me. I am happy to vote in the next Australian election, or at a duly constituted meeting of a corporate body or other group whose process I am entitled to seek to influence by such means. I do try to keep my perspective, and recognise the limitations of my vote and other involvement in decision-making and conflict resolution. I am hoping, now I have explained myself, you are assured that I meant no disrespect.

My concern is that current Israeli policy results in criminal acts against Palestinians. The recent invasion of Gaza provides robust evidence of indiscriminate and disproportionate force used against the Gazans.

While Israel, like any other state, is justified in defending itself against attack, the sensible way to do so is by employing diplomacy to avoid war, rather than using wars to win elections, as seems to be the case with the current Knesset leaders.

It seems to me like the unfolding Knesset election will result in further international isolation of Israel, as a nation. I am hoping that the new Israeli government reevaluates the dubious wisdom of defending itself from attack by escalated military response, rather than by diplomacy.

But the newly elected MK's seem on the average, more militant. The recognised leaders are negotiating with the extremist Avigdor Lieberman, whose view is paraphrased by Neve Gordon as

"Whoever is not loyal to the state, according to what Lieberman and his friends believe is loyal, their citizenship can be stripped."

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=30358
Israeli election results analysed

AJFA, Do you agree with Mr Lieberman?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 12 February 2009 9:08:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sir Vivor,

Yours is a voice of reason, one of many, including
from Israel itself.

I was watching 'Lateline,' on the ABC last night.
A journalist from the Israeli newspaper, 'Ha'aratz,'
painted a rather grim picture of the area's
future. He said that he still believed peace was
possible, but his children no longer believed in
peace.

We can only hope that his belief proves to be the
right one. That peace will be strived for and
eventually achieved with the help of the international
community and US support.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 12 February 2009 10:02:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

"1) According to the Israeli daily, 'Ha'aretz,'
Israel's all-out assault on Gaza had been
planned six months earlier. How come?"

It is inevitable that Israel would have to make plans to attack the terrorist groups committed to its destruction all the time, so that when they commmit more terrorist attacks, they can be defeated.

"2) Why does Israel not agree to a two-state solution,
obey international law and end their illegal occupation
beyond the 1967 borders"

The Israeli government is happy to negotiate a two-state solution, but it has always maintained that terrorism would have to stop permanently for this to ever occur. That's fair enough. It's not fair to ask Israel to recognise a Palentinian state when the Palentinians won't commit to an end of terrorist activities.

Sir Vivor,

Israel has tried displomacy. It even offered the Palentinians most of the land they demand back in 2000, but was repaid with scorn and terrorist attacks. Also, when the ruling Gaza government is Hamas, an anti-semitic organisation whose main purpose is to destroy Israel, tehre's really not much to talk about.

In terms of Mr Lieberman's statement, whether I agree with him would depend on what he means by being "not loyal" to the Israeli state. Certainly, anyone planning, inciting, promoting, assisting or participating in the preparation or execution of terrorist attacks against the nation state of Israel does not deserve to have citizenship of Israel.
Posted by AJFA, Thursday, 12 February 2009 1:38:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel-Palestine events back in 2000 aren’t as clear-cut as you say, AJFA. Here’s an “unbiased” summary from the US Council on Foreign Relations:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/CGME_transcript.html

“July 2000: Camp David
“In July, U.S. President Bill Clinton hosts two weeks of intense Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers substantial concessions, including withdrawal from more than 90 percent of the occupied territories, possible partition of Jerusalem's Old City, and a Palestinian state in the area of withdrawal. According to U.S. negotiators involved, Palestinian President Yasir Arafat turns down the deal. Though Arafat is often blamed for the summit's failure, many Palestinians argue Barak was offering something that he couldn't deliver and that didn't satisfy their requirements for a deal: pre-1967 borders and a recognized "right of return." The summit ends with a Trilateral Statement to serve as a framework for future negotiations, though subsequent efforts by Clinton and others to rekindle the process yield little.

“September 2000: New Violence Erupts
“Ariel Sharon, the head of the Likud Party and formal opposition leader, makes a September visit to the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem-also the site of Islam's third-holiest site, the al-Aqsa Mosque. Sharon's presence provides the spark that ignites a round of fighting, dubbed the "second intifada" by Palestinians. Unlike the 1987 rising, however, this conflict is marked from the beginning by fewer mass demonstrations and a much greater use of firearms and suicide bombs. This, in turn, leads to harsh preventive measures by Israel, including the reoccupation of parts of the West Bank, air strikes, targeted killings, and the construction of a barrier separating Palestinians from Jewish population centers in the West Bank.”

Details crucial to both Israelis and Palestinians are glossed over. AJFA, can you fill in the blanks and/or connect the dots, from your viewpoint? I’m hoping you’ll be able to explain what seems to me to be cruel, stupid and criminal behaviour of some IDF troops in Gaza, and entrenched support of IDF war crimes by leaders of major Knesset parties.

& Foxy, thanks for the kind words.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 12 February 2009 9:35:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunate name could be mistaken for some one who actually cares.
the facts are that Palestine is a region not a state.
it has no real form of government as its only recognised by an act of america( g bush) not a sovreign nation.
Not that thats any excuse for the protectionist policies it is forced to undertake just to survive. Get real.
Posted by thomasfromtacoma, Friday, 13 February 2009 1:01:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't dispute that account. Whatever you think of Sharon's provocative move, the Palestinian response was completely irrational. And yet Israel's critics accuse Israel of not acting proportionately!

Sir Vivor, I am also skeptical whenever I hear of Israel being accused of this or that, simply because it usually emerges that the accusations are completely false. Remember that strike inside a school which killed 40 people which really never was? Even members of organisations such as the UN and Amnesty International buy the lies of Palestinians, or even lie themselves.

Here's some info on the school strike which didn't even go in the school and didn't kill anyone: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25004467-20261,00.html

Likewise, some accusations don't make any sense. Like the ones where Israeli soldiers were accused of spray painting Palestinian homes with obscene messages. What are the chances of combat troops carrying spraypaint and having the time to engage in such activities?

So as you can see, I am extremely skeptical of most accusations against Israel. I think that you should be too.
Posted by AJFA, Friday, 13 February 2009 8:28:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Press reports often beg for skepticism.

AFJA, while it seems unlikely to you that soldiers would carry spray paint, it is possible.

A report I saw on Australian SBS TV showed a chicken farm that had been commandeered by IDF troops as a fire base. The chook sheds must have been in the field of view, so they were demolished. The owner, on return, found dead and dying chickens in crushed cages. It looked as though tanks or other treaded machinery had been used to level the buildings, as there were treadmarks on the metal which had been walls and roofs.

The owner found graffiti scored into the walls of his home: racial vilification of Palestinians. The star of David was also carved into the walls.

Evidence of racial vilification points to the root of this conflict. It is aggravated by Hamas and other militant factions launching rockets into Israel, but it is further aggravated by Israeli and other parties, who vilify Israeli and Palestinian Arabs and anyone who does not agree with their vision of Israel.

Israeli leaders and policymakers are the people who should be working toward a cure, and the removal of Palestinians from the Holy Land is not only wrong in my eyes, it is an easily argued act of genocide. What despicable government is famous for using that cure?

Like a man in court who claims to beat his wife because she aggravates him into doing so, any Israeli who claims aggravation as a defense against war crimes may find a jury unsympathetic.

The possibility of trials is real. See
http://www.alternet.org/audits/126724/?page=entire

"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann would coordinate the defense of any soldier or commander charged with a war crime. In any case, the United States would veto any effort by the UN Security Council to refer Israelis to the International Court at The Hague."

AFJA, Without a change in policy and diplomatic approach, Israel will become ever more isolated and its citizens ever more confined.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Saturday, 14 February 2009 8:14:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor,

we seem to be going in circles. You have this utopian belief that Israel can settle the dispute with the Palestinians by means of diplomacy and negotiation when that approach has failed before. Secondly, there's really not much to talk about when the government of Gaza is an anti-semitic terrorist group dedicated to wiping out Israel.

Unfortunately, the world is such that reasoning with terrorists does not work. As a result, they must be defeated. It is my belief that peace between Israel and the Palestinians will be impossible before the Palestinians are tired of losing their friends and families and decide to renounce terrorism. Peace is impossible for as long as there are terrorists committing terrorist attacks.

Given this, I am amazed that you persist in blaming Israel for doing what is necessary in protecting itself against terrorism. If Hamas really loved peace, why would they continue firing rockets after Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire? It is interesting that you believe that Israel should work towards peace, but you don't seem to apply the same rules to the Palestinians.

Finally, I don't think it has occurred to you that all these stories about Israel such as the spraypainting episode are made up to make Israel look bad. And the media and people like you buy it up, wanting to believe the worst, even when you are proven wrong, such as the school story. This is proof of your anti-Israel bias.
Posted by AJFA, Saturday, 14 February 2009 8:38:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel can be divided into land, government and people. That is perhaps simplistic, but no more so than you asserting that you have proof of my anti-Israel bias, or that my views are utopian.

I disapprove of what the Israeli government is doing, as do many Israelis. You can read their concerns in many places on the internet. Neve Gordon, Uri Avnery and many others across a wide spectrum of occupations, ethnicities, faiths and nationalities are concerned about Israel's aggression in Palestine.

Because I disapprove of Israel's actions does not make me anti-Israeli, any more than disagreeing with policies and actions of the Australian government makes me anti-Australian.

I disapprove of Hamas' civil and international crimes, as well. Because the US and Israel refuse to recognise the freely and fairly elected Hamas administration of Gaza, dealing in an orderly manner with those crimes becomes extremely difficult, as does reaching agreement about how to get on with life, so that Palestinians enjoy rights which they are granted under the UN Charter: the same rights as Israelis and Australians should enjoy.

But my opinion matters little in the greater scheme of things. The balance of opinion in the wide world does matter.

Israeli representatives have already started negotiating indirectly with Hamas, with Egypt acting as an intermediary. I expect, with the change of administration in the US, Israel and Hamas will arrive at a ceasefire agreement.

I do not think it is utopian to believe in the necessity of a resolution of this conflict which lgives both the Israeli and Gazan governments a basis for further peacebuilding. If Israel veers away from peacemaking, it will become isolated and its citizens unwelcome and perhaps persecuted elsewhere.

AFJA, not all the news stories are made up, and Israel does indeed look bad. The Israeli government has admitted using white phosphorus, and there is also evidence of DIME ordnance used against civilians.

As I have said before, there is robust evidence that Israel has committed war crimes against the people of Gaza, and the balance of world opinion sees Gazans as more the victims
Posted by Sir Vivor, Saturday, 14 February 2009 1:26:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Because the US and Israel refuse to recognise the freely and fairly elected Hamas administration of Gaza, dealing in an orderly manner with those crimes becomes extremely difficult, as does reaching agreement about how to get on with life, so that Palestinians enjoy rights which they are granted under the UN Charter: the same rights as Israelis and Australians should enjoy."

How about Hamas recognising Israel? Why does recognition have to be one way only?

It's funny that you mention world opinion. Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt have acknowledged that Hamas was the aggressor.

But ultimately, world opinion dosen't matter. In fact, the whole concept of Israel is founded on the belief that world opinion is not enough to protect Jews. Did world opinion prevent the Holocaust?

Ultimately, by firing thousands of rockets into Israel, Hamas gave Israel no choice. Allowing the rockets to keep wounding and killing civilians was not an option. But any half-hearted measures against Hamas would have simply prolonged conflict. Only by inflicting big blows on Hamas would Israel succeed in stoppping Hamas from firing rockets.

This indisputable truth show that notions of Israel's "disproportionate" are false. Anything less would have been ineffective.

Of course, the loss of Palestinian civilian life is regrettable. But the numbers here were also inflated by Hamas, and once again the world media never questioned their calculations. But since Hamas hides within civilian areas, it is unavoidable.

The real wonder is how few Palestinian people were killed, given how many missiles Israel fired at Hamas sites and tunnels
Posted by AJFA, Saturday, 14 February 2009 4:29:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the statement is made that Israel must pay for crimes. How do you put a whole nation on trial? When a nation elects agressive leaders to protect them from enemy attacks should it only be the leaders put on trial, when they represent the majority will of the people. Is it fair to only put the leaders on trial when the people are their supporters and accomplices?
Posted by sharkfin, Saturday, 14 February 2009 8:44:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFJA, what authority backs your personal opinion?

I'm OK about admitting I will never know all the details and may miss essential elements, the crux of an issue. My efforts at reducing my ignorance of Israel's attack on Gaza are limited to reading a wide range of sources. There is little other access in Tasmania, well out of the range of Hamas' comically inaccurate rockets.

That the rockets are comically inaccurate in no way diminishes the terror they may cause: terror which I believe is amplified and exploited by some Israeli politicians, for their political gain.

One telling fact is the number if Israelis killed by these thousands of rockets. In a January editorial in the Australian titled "Stopping the rockets a necessity", Foreign editor Greg Sheridan writes:

"ISRAEL has taken the fateful step of a ground offensive in the Gaza Strip because ultimately the threat it faces from Hamas is strategic, even existential.

Hamas has fired more than 6000 mostly Qassam rockets into Israel over the past four years.

They have killed only about two dozen people, although in other acts of terrorism Hamas has killed hundreds of Israelis."

Greg's further argument seems pretty much in line with your own, AFJA, so I hope you can accept the arithmetic which follows from his statistics:

6000 rockets over 4 years averages to about 4 per day.

"about two dozen people over 4 years" averages to one death every other month.

If this represents, as Greg Sheridan states, "an existential threat", then it ought to be dealt with in an efficacious manner. I would suggest the diplomacy you argue against would be, would have been, a better option.

When the cruel and stupid assault on Gaza did not stop the rockets, the politicans then frantically negotiated, through Egypt, with Hamas; trying to achieve some results by the eve of the election and appear as winners on Israeli TV and newspaper front pages.

AFJA, have you read Joseph Heller's "Catch-22"? For me, that is the book brought to mind by this whole sorry, contemptible attack by Israel on Gaza.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Sunday, 15 February 2009 11:09:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor,

I agree with Greg Sheridan. The only reason more Israelis weren't killed is because Israel has a system which alerts civilians of incoming rockets, allowing them a few precious seconds to hide under cover.

There any many underground dugouts in parts of Israel because rockets are often fired. These also help prevent lives.

But no country should have to protect itself in this way from terrorists. If you lived in this way, would you tolerate rockets being fired all the time? Of course not. Yet this is what you expect Israelis to do, rather than attack the source of the rockets. Indeed, you even describe such efforts at self-defence as contemptible, revealing that you expect Israelis to endure what no person interested in their own survival would.

It is thanks to Israel that the Israeli toll is a lot lower. Trying to use the lower toll as justification for suggesting that Hamas is harmless and not a threat is fundamentally dishonest.

The facts destroy your argument. The Hamas Charter reveals that Hamas is a Jew-hating organisation which is not interested in negotiation with Israel:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

You think its reasonable to ask Israel to talk with this organisation?

Israel wants to exist, whilst Hamas wants to destroy Israel and kill her Jewish citizens. The goals of Israel and Hamas are theefore diametrically opposed, and cannot ever be reconcililed.

In other words, Israel and Hamas have nothing to talk about.
Posted by AJFA, Sunday, 15 February 2009 1:44:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But AFJA, Israel has been negotiating with Hamas all week. See:

http://www.alternativenews.org/content/view/1576/391/

"Dr. Mousa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of the Hamas Political Bureau As the Egyptian sponsored truce negotiations between Israel and Hamas appear to reach an agreement, Israel continues its military operations bombing several targets during the weekend and killing two Palestinians.

"Regarding the Egyptian truce negotiations Dr. Mousa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of the Hamas political bureau, declared that Egypt will announce a truce between Palestinians and Israelis within the next two days."

Reuters, a more mainstream news source, also reports - See:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKLE137562._CH_.2420
"Gaza truce stalls over Israeli hostage".

That article describes Egypt as a mediator in the peace talks.

AFJA, I do not think Israel is contemptible for seeking to defend itself. What to me is contemptible is the act of laying waste to a densely populated, highly restricted refugee population of civilians and civil infrastructure. Is that all the IDF is good for, is gratuitous acts of destruction prior to Israeli elections? Now, both Olmert and Livni will be at risk of arrest if they leave Israel, unless they restrict their travels to countries that will neither ask nor tell concerning contemporary war crimes. All that for a pre-election extravaganza, planned 6 months ahead by stupid, cruel people.

I suppose you could argue that, if they didn't attack Gaza, then the Avigdor Liebermans and other bottom feeders of the Knesset would have gotten even more votes.

I wish Israeli leaders had started negotiating in earnest and good faith with Hamas, after the January 2006 election. How likely was that, given the influence of its major friend and ally? See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/04/usa.israelandthepalestinians

"The 2006 election result was seen as an affront to the central premise of the Bush administration's policy in the Middle East - that democratic elections would inexorably lead to pro-western governments."

AFJA, if you are a voting Israeli, I can only express my sympathy for you. Your elected government is a shambles. I hope they can pull themselves together and get things right this time, but I am not betting on that prospect.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Sunday, 15 February 2009 5:01:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor, as a mature age historian going on 88, as well as a WW2 veteran, would like your opinion regarding my feelings also as as an historian.

As a mature age historian in a modern democracy might ask what is the correct way to analyse today’s political problems, particularly in the Middle East.

There is little doubt that today’s Middle East conflict is nothing like the major cause of both WW1 and WW2, both huge castrophies which rather disgustingly began mainly between two Western nations, Germany and France, finally both bringing in the rest of Europe and Russia, as well as the United states.

Speaking philosophically, today’s conflict, because it is so religious, is much more worrying because it is so lopsided, Western Christianity being gigantic in military capacity, while Islam, comprising the major anti-white Western forces, though huge in people power, is so pitifully low in regular armanents, maybe the terrorism could be justified.

The point is how does a trained historian go about this problem, which in some ways resembles my personal problem when I wrote a series on Westralian history called A Land in Need, in which some readers later told me I had been much too sympathetic with the murderous Aborigines who in the early days attacked white settlers homes and viilages which were not protected by the military.

To close on Iran, which so many of our OLO’s fully agree with the Bush terminology of Iran as an evil state, while personally I turn to the story two years ago about the Iranian female judge who angrily replied to a suggestion how Iran would be much better learning the American Way to true democracy, to which she hotly replied -

Yes, it is true that we could do with democracy, but certainly not fashioned on the American Way.

Should any democratic Aussie political historian these days should be allowed to think the same?
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 16 February 2009 1:02:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor,

I am not an Israeli, nor a Jew. I am an Australian who supports Israel's right to exist and her right to defend herself against terrorists.

"What to me is contemptible is the act of laying waste to a densely populated, highly restricted refugee population of civilians and civil infrastructure"

Israel has no chocie, because Hamas resides among that population. As I explained before, the real amazement comes from the fact that civilian casualities on both sides were so low.

Israel and Hamas have only been negotiating in terms of a ceasefire, not a lasting peace. As I explained before, Hamas will not ever seriously involve itself in peace talks until it changes its aims and objectives.

The reason Hamas negotiates ceasefires is because it wants Israel to stop attacking it, so that it can prepare more attacks on Israel by smuggling weapons, etc.
Posted by AJFA, Monday, 16 February 2009 2:41:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFJA, Israel has a choice, had a choice, will continue to have a choice. They can treat Palestinians like free human beings or they can treat them like prisoners.

Both Palestinians and Israelis have thrown away earlier chances to build on peaceful initiatives, but the strength is mainly in the hands of the Israelis and their allies. If the Israeli government wants power as well as the strength, they are going to have to try something novel, like a more earnest commitment to making peace than to making war.

Israelis and Hamas representatives are negotiating, and I expect they must continue to do so, not just for the sake of Gazans and Israelis, but for the region.

I don't expect either party will be deaf to the "backroom boys" from the US and Iran, but there are examples of nations who have walked a largely independant path in the shadow of influential powers.

AFJA, I think it's best to leave it there.

Bushbred,
you may need to give me a clearer statement of your question. The best I can make of it, in a brief sitting, is that you want to know what I think of Iranian democracy. I don't know enough about Iran or its government or history to express an opinion, beyond saying that they have the same rights and obligations under the UN Charter as does every other member nation, including the US and Israel.

Australia pursued a relatively US-independent foreign policy in the Whitlam era, and it seems as though our sovereign rights were not altogether respected. Surprise, surprise. Still, we fared far better than Allende's Chile. Does that help answer your question?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Monday, 16 February 2009 4:17:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred – you say : there is little doubt that todays Middle East conflict is nothing like the major cause of both WW1 and WW2. To the contrary, the cause is exactly the same.

Everybody wants peace. A piece of this land and a piece of that land.

Hitler wanted a piece of all the lands around him and the Palestinians and Jews are fighting over a piece of land.

Germany had crashed economically before the war. Reading some history of the area going back centuries it seems that there was always economic (territorial) rivalry between the Jews and the Germans.

Some history that would have caused the Germans to think that Poland was theirs (rightly or wrongly) -: The north of modern Poland was for nearly all of it’s history dominated by the Germans with contracting and expanding borders.
The German Teutonic order ruled the whole region from roughly the 13th to the 15thcentury before being ultimately subject to Polish authority although the German nobility continued to rule largely outside the reach of the Polish authority . Eventually most of the original teutonic German lands of Prussia returned to the GermanAuthority in the Prussian and Austrian Empires and after 1871 , in Germany.
Posted by sharkfin, Monday, 16 February 2009 10:27:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy