Israel/Lebanon: Israeli Indiscriminate Attacks Killed Most Civilians

[Mohamed]

(Jerusalem, September 6, 2007)
Israel/Lebanon: Israeli Indiscriminate Attacks Killed Most Civilians

No Evidence of Widespread Hezbollah ‘Shielding’


Israel’s indiscriminate airstrikes, not Hezbollah’s shielding as claimed by Israeli officials, caused most of the approximately 900 civilian deaths in Lebanon during the July-August 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Human Rights Watch investigated more than 500 of the deaths.

“Israel wrongfully acted as if all civilians had heeded its warnings to evacuate southern Lebanon when it knew they had not, disregarding its continuing legal duty to distinguish between military targets and civilians,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Issuing warnings doesn’t make indiscriminate attacks lawful.”

The 249-page report, “Why They Died: Civilian Casualties in Lebanon during the 2006 War,” represents the most extensive investigation to date of civilian deaths in Lebanon during the war. In five months of research, Human Rights Watch investigated 94 cases of air, artillery and ground attacks by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to discern the circumstances surrounding the deaths of 510 civilians and 51 combatants, nearly half the at least 1,109 Lebanese deaths during the conflict. Of the approximately 510 Lebanese civilian deaths investigated by Human Rights Watch, at least 300 were women or children. Human Rights Watch visited more than 50 Lebanese villages and interviewed 316 victims and eyewitnesses, as well as 39 military experts, journalists and Israeli, Lebanese government and Hezbollah officials.

Human Rights Watch found that a simple movement of vehicles or persons – such as attempting to buy bread or moving about private homes – could be enough to cause a deadly Israeli airstrike that would kill civilians. Israeli warplanes also targeted moving vehicles that turned out to be carrying only civilians trying to flee the conflict. In most such cases documented in the report, there is no evidence of a Hezbollah military presence that would have justified the attack.

“Hezbollah fighters often didn’t carry their weapons in the open or regularly wear military uniforms, which made them a hard target to identify,” Roth said. “But this doesn’t justify the IDF’s failure to distinguish between civilians and combatants, and if in doubt to treat a person as a civilian, as the laws of war require.”

Human Rights Watch’s research shows that the IDF’s repeated failure to distinguish between civilians and combatants cannot be explained as mere mismanagement of the war or a collection of mistakes. The evidence suggests that Israeli officials must have known that their assumption regarding the absence of civilians in southern Lebanon was erroneous. There were numerous media reports of a continued civilian presence in the south, and Israel’s own experience in past conflicts showed that not all civilians are willing or able to leave their homes according to the timetables of a belligerent military force. In fact, despite IDF warnings, many civilians remained in southern Lebanon during the war, yet the IDF often seemed not to take that fact into account in making its targeting decisions. Indiscriminate attacks were the frequent result.

The IDF also targeted people and civilian buildings associated in some way with Hezbollah’s political or social structures, regardless of whether the targets constituted valid military objectives under the laws of war, also known as international humanitarian law. Under international humanitarian law, civilian members of Hezbollah lose their protected status only if they are taking a direct part in the hostilities. Hezbollah’s political and social structures may be targeted only if they are being used for military purposes and attacking them offers a “concrete and direct” military advantage.

Human Rights Watch research shows that the IDF struck a large number of private homes of civilian Hezbollah members during the war, as well as various civilian Hezbollah-run institutions such as schools, welfare agencies, banks, shops and political offices. In the densely populated southern suburbs of Beirut, Israeli warplanes attacked the offices of Hezbollah’s charitable organizations and its parliamentarians, its research center, and multi-story residential apartment buildings in areas considered supportive of Hezbollah. Statements by Israeli officials strongly suggest that the IDF deliberately hit entire neighborhoods because they were seen as pro-Hezbollah, rather than specific Hezbollah military targets as required by the laws of war.

“Israel’s treatment of all parts of Hezbollah as legitimate military targets flies in the face of international legal standards and sets a dangerous precedent,” Roth said. “To accept the argument that any part of Hezbollah can be targeted because it aids the military effort would be to accept that all Israeli institutions that aid the IDF can be targeted. The end result would be a weakening of the protection of civilians.”

Human Rights Watch’s on-the-ground investigation refutes the argument made by Israeli officials that most of the Lebanese civilian casualties were due to Hezbollah routinely hiding among civilians and using them as “human shields” in the fighting. Hezbollah at times did fire rockets from, and store weapons in, populated areas and deploy its forces among the civilian population. That violated its legal duty to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians the hazards of armed conflict. In a few cases documented by Human Rights Watch, these Hezbollah violations led to civilian deaths. However, in contrast to this unlawful endangering of civilians, Human Rights Watch found no evidence in these cases of the separate legal violation of shielding, which is the deliberate use of civilians to render combatants immune from attack. The various film clips and photos published by the IDF and its allies do not provide that evidence.

Hezbollah also fired from the vicinity of United Nations outposts on an almost daily basis, which often led to Israeli counterstrikes. For observation purposes, the UN outposts tended to be located on hilltops, which also offered strategic positions for Hezbollah to fire at Israel. However, insofar as Hezbollah commanders or fighters chose those locations to launch attacks because the proximity of UN personnel would make counterattack difficult, that would constitute shielding. That the motives of Hezbollah combatants may have been mixed does not preclude that finding. Further investigation is needed in this regard.

With these few exceptions, Human Rights Watch found that Hezbollah stored its rockets in bunkers and facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys; ordered its fighters and civilian officials away from populated civilian areas as soon as the fighting started; and fired its rockets from pre-prepared positions outside villages. In the vast majority of airstrikes resulting in civilian deaths investigated by Human Rights Watch, there was no Hezbollah military presence or activity to justify the attack.

In their investigations, Human Rights Watch researchers conducted detailed interviews with multiple witnesses, cross-checking testimony with people who had not spoken with each other and often testing it in details that would have been hard to concoct and coordinate. The researchers also conducted on-site inspections of attack sites, examining them for signs of Hezbollah presence or the types of weapons used. For each site visited, Human Rights Watch researchers photographed the site, documented any forensic evidence found, and collected the GPS coordinates. Whenever possible, Human Rights Watch researchers also visited the cemeteries where those killed in Israeli strikes were buried, to examine whether their gravestones identified them as civilians or as “martyrs” or “fighters” for Hezbollah or other armed groups. Because family members typically relished the “martyr” or “fighter” label for any loved one who died fighting, gravestones provided important evidence about who was and was not a combatant.

The report makes the following main recommendations:


Israel should revise its military policies that effectively treat all persons remaining in an area following evacuation warnings as combatants, so that in the future it targets only people or structures that constitute valid military objectives under the laws of war. Israel’s Winograd Commission, in particular, should investigate this issue.


Hezbollah should take all feasible measures to ensure that Hezbollah forces do not place civilians or UN personnel at unnecessary risk by deploying in, firing from or storing weapons in populated areas. The Lebanese government should investigate these practices. (Human Rights Watch’s report on Hezbollah’s deliberate and indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian areas of Israel also calls for the Lebanese government to investigate those practices).


The United States should investigate Israel’s use of US-supplied arms in violation of the laws of war and suspend the transfer of those arms that have been used unlawfully, as well as funding or support for such materiel, pending certification by the US State Department that Israel has stopped using such arms in violation of the law and has changed the military doctrine behind that misuse.


Syria and Iran should not transfer to Hezbollah any material, including rockets, which Hezbollah has used in violation of the laws of war, until Hezbollah commits that it will not use them as such and in fact ceases such use.


The secretary-general of the United Nations should establish an international commission of inquiry to investigate reports of violations of the laws of war by all parties to the conflict, including possible war crimes.

The report builds on Human Rights Watch’s August 2006 report, “Fatal Strikes: Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon.” In a report issued last week, Human Rights Watch addressed indiscriminate and deliberate Hezbollah rocket attacks on civilian areas of Israel in violation of the laws of war. In a forthcoming report, Human Rights Watch will address Israel’s unlawful use of cluster munitions in Lebanon during the 2006 conflict.



© Copyright 2006, Human Rights Watch
From
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/09/06/isrlpa16781.htm

[Capn_Birdseye]

Why am I not surprised by this posting?

Whose War Crimes?
Evidence from Lebanon about how Hezbollah use civilians.

Monday, December 11, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST A few scenes from modern warfare:
Mohammad Abd al-Hamid Srour moved missiles across southern Lebanon under cover of a white flag. Hussein Ali Mahmoud Suleiman used the porch of a private home to fire rockets. Maher Hassan Mahmoud Kourani dressed in civilian clothes, hid his Kalashnikov in a tote bag and stored anti-aircraft missiles in the back of a green unmarked Volvo. The three men, all members of Hezbollah, were captured by Israel during last summer's war.
Now their videotaped interviews form part of a remarkable report by retired Lieutenant Colonel Reuven Erlich of Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents, onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif

The most persuasive evidence here is photographic, so we urge readers to access the report itself on the Web site of the American Jewish Congress (ajcongress.org (http://www.ajcongress.org/)). Hezbollah's headquarters in Aita al-Shaab, for instance, sits in the heart of the village. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's office and home are in a densely built neighborhood of Beirut. In the town of Qana--site of an Israeli bombing on July 30 that killed 28 and that Hezbollah's apologists were quick to label a "massacre"--an arms warehouse can be seen adjacent to a mosque. There are photographs of rockets in the back seats of cars, missile launchers adjacent to farm houses, storage bunkers hidden beneath homes. There is also a trove of before-and-after photography demonstrating the precision of most Israeli bombing. The report also shows how the use of civilian cover was explicitly part of Hezbollah's strategy. "[The organization's operatives] live in their houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories," said Mr. Nasrallah in a TV interview on May 27, several weeks before the war. "You can't destroy them in the same way you would destroy an army."

Exactly what Mr. Nasrallah means is illustrated in the testimonials of the captured fighters. Asked why Hezbollah would risk the destruction of civilian areas by firing from them, Mr. Suleiman replied that while in theory private homes belonged to "the residents of the village . . . in essence they belong to Hezbollah."
Perhaps that's true; if so, then Mr. Nasrallah has effectively declared everyone and everything in southern Lebanon to be his fief. Our sense, however, is that not all southern Lebanese were delighted to have their livelihoods appropriated for Hezbollah's political purposes, even if they were too intimidated to register a protest. Either way, it is Hezbollah, not Israel, that is guilty of war crimes here.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif

Beyond the war in Lebanon, these images suggest how Islamists seek to use the restraint of Western powers against them. They shoot at our civilians from the safety of their own civilian enclaves that they know we are reluctant to attack. Then if by chance their civilians are killed, they call in CNN and al-Jazeera cameras and wait for America or Israel to be denounced for war crimes. Hezbollah is a cowardly organisation that uses women and children as shields in its fight against Israel. None of this means the U.S. shouldn't continue to fight with discrimination and avoid civilian casualties. But it means our political leadership needs to speak as candidly as Israelis now are speaking about this enemy strategy, so the American people can understand and be steeled against this new civilian battleground.

[Allegro]

Really???

So where are the Hizbullah terrorists are numbered?

Most of the "900" are just Hizb-terrorists and the few others are civilians who were captived by the Hizb-terrorist to be used as human shields.

http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/07/30/hezbollah-rocket/

We have already learned that Hizb'allah has forcably kept civilians in their villages and towns after the IDF had told the civilians to leave the areas to be bombed. Hizb'allah has done this for the purpose of causing civilian casualties from Israeli munitions.

Reasonable assessments show that only FEW of those death tally were civillians.

[MidtownGuy]

More birdbrain propaganda from the premier rogue state in the Middle East, Israel.
What was done to Lebanon was a crime against humanity. Killers.

[Capn_Birdseye]

More birdbrain propaganda from the premier rogue state in the Middle East, Israel.
What was done to Lebanon was a crime against humanity. Killers.
Open your eyes MTG to what is actually happening rather than taking the simplistic (& incorrect) line that Israel is the rogue state!
For years Syria occupied Lebanon and had to be prised out of this once-peaceful small sovereign state but even then it refused to give up causing mayhem & misery as it carried out a campaign of political asassination.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6933985,00.html

The rogue states of the Middle East are easy to identify: Syria & Iran who both sponsor terrorism in the region and share the same publicly declared objective: the destruction of Israel & the Jews. Time you woke up to the facts MTG!

[212]

Both Israel and Hezbollah disgraced themselves. Neither wants to own up to the crimes (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/12/isrlpa16381.htm).

[BrooklynRider]

Israel has zero credibility. The sooner this country shrugs end the poisonous relationship with this state the better. How many times have we caught them spying on us? How much money does AIPAC spend to interfere with our election process? A rogue nation indeed.

This country needs to divest itself of all involvement in the Middle East.

[Capn_Birdseye]

This country needs to divest itself of all involvement in the Middle East.
One reason it won't: OIL

As Alan Greenspan said the other day, oil was the main reason for "regime change", (what a lovely little democratic phrase that is!), in Iraq.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Lebanon was part of the French Syrian Mandate following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Gained independence in 1943.

The most diverse country in the Middle East.

Ethnicity:
Arab 95%, Armenian 4%, other 1%

Religion:
Muslim 59.7% (Shi'a, Sunni, Druze, Isma'ilite, Alawite or Nusayri)
Christian 39% (Maronite Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Copt, Protestant)

Pre 1975 civil war, Lebanon was called the "Switzerland of the Middle East" and Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East."

Lebanon was involved in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but signed an armistice with Israel in 1949. Lebanon did not participate in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

The Lebanese government is a confessional republic, whereby political posts are apportioned by religion. The president must be a Maronite Christian, prime minister Sunni, speaker of parliament Shi'a. Trouble brewed in the years before civil war, mainly because there had not been an official census since 1932, and mistrust led to the formation of religious militias.

In 1969, Egyptian president Nasser brokered the Cairo Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Agreement). Following the 1970 Black September expulsion from Jordan, the PLO relocated to Lebanon to conduct attacks against Israel. By agreement, the Lebanese government was to control the PLO military, and the PLO was to have administration over only the refugee camps. But that was not the case.

The PLO (Fatah) became more radicalized, and set up a de-facto state in southern Lebanon, sometimes referred to as Fatahland. They were opposed by the Shi'a, supported by the Sunni and Druze. From there, the PLO carried out attacks into Israel.

In 1970, the PLO attacked a school bus across the border, killing 12.

In response to the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, Israeli commandos raided the PLO in Beirut, killing several leaders.

1974: Kiryat Shmona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryat_Shmona_massacre), Ma'alot/url].

1978: Israel [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Litani]invaded southern Lebanon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre) A military success, but political failure.

1982: Israel invades Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_war). The PLO was removed from Lebanon to Tunisia, but Syria blocked the 1983 accord between Israel and Lebanon. The PLO was soon replaced by Hezbollah, with funding from Iran and Syria that continues to the present. It's central ideology is the destruction of Israel.
our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no ceasefire, and no peace agreements


Israel is an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions...There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel.Hezbollah secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah



All these countries (including Lebanon) and groups share responsibility for what has happened in Lebanon. But of course, Israel is the rogue nation.

What a crock.

[kliq6]

More birdbrain propaganda from the premier rogue state in the Middle East, Israel.
What was done to Lebanon was a crime against humanity. Killers.

Your nuts, Syrian government along with Hamas and Hez are the killers here. Israel is far from perfect and probally should not have been created in that location in the first place buts its there now and these terrorists have to deal with it.

[MidtownGuy]

Far from nuts.
Israel is a rogue nation, it used white phosphorous and cluster bombs to burn and maim civilians. It flouts international law at every chance it gets. Not a rougue nation? THAT is the crock, zippy.
Just as Beirut was getting back on its feet, the Israelis go and destroy it again with no concern for civilian life. And they're supposed to be better than the people who blow up buses? No moral high ground here.

[kliq6]

Israel has zero credibility. The sooner this country shrugs end the poisonous relationship with this state the better. How many times have we caught them spying on us? How much money does AIPAC spend to interfere with our election process? A rogue nation indeed.

This country needs to divest itself of all involvement in the Middle East.

Your last line I couldnt agree with you more. We should stay out of it and let the two sides do as they please. Outside of Oil we dont need that region and the sooner and faster we solve our energy needs the safer and better the US will be

[ZippyTheChimp]

THAT is the crock, zippy.The crock is that while I and others have acknowledged multiple responsibility for conditions in the Mideast, you seem to think Israel is the sole aggressor.

Even your comment that Hamas are assholes seems to marginalize their responsibility. Is that like saying Paris Hilton is an asshole (who cares), or Rudy Giuliani is an asshole (we should care)? Hamas is an elected government. They are ROGUE.

Nothing to say about Syria, Iran, Hezbollah? How about Kuwait, that maintained a servant Palestinian society until after the first Gulf war, when they kicked them out? Or Saudi Arabia, that suddenly want s to solve the Palestinian problem because they fear Iran?

Truth is, the Arab states have helped maintain the status quo of Palestinians because it suits their purposes regarding Israel [correction: Zionist Entity]. Maybe the UAE can put up a few less penises in the desert, and throw some wealth at the Palestinians.


Just as Beirut was getting back on its feet, the Israelis go and destroy it again with no concern for civilian life.Lebanon had no trouble with Israel before the PLO and Hezbollah.

As kliq6 said, Israel is there. It's not going away. After two horrendous world wars, we didn't exactly create a perfect world order.

[MidtownGuy]

The crock is that while I and others have acknowledged multiple responsibility for conditions in the Mideast, you seem to think Israel is the sole aggressor.

Glad you used "seem", because I never said anything like "sole agressor". I have emphasized Israel's culpability, just as you have been downsizing it (though you claim to have "acknowledged multiple responsibility"). Half-heartedly for sure. The balance is needed in this discussion. It's not frequently present in American discussions of the situation. It's always that blind mantra: terrorist terrorist terrorist.
I would like to see American aid (and sympathy) going to something more useful and more justifiable than propping up an apartheid state like Israel, with its despicable religionist foundation. Religion and democracy don't mix well.

[ZippyTheChimp]

My responses in these threads are usually reactive to blanket statements like rogue state.

As for US foreign aid recipient (removing the skewed numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan):
1. Israel
2. Egypt
3. Colombia
4. Jordan
5. Pakistan

Strange that the US has not pressured Egypt for its blatantly racist press. If that was the case in Israel, several UN delegates would spontaneously have puppies.

[BrooklynRider]

I think I agree with Zippy that perhaps citing Israel alone as a rogue state made it seem an isolated distinction. It is a rogue state amongst rogue states. I no longer distinguish Israel from other troublesome nations in the region. Syria, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia. I don't think there is any reason to invest American dollars in any of these places. If private investors want to invest - go for it. I'd rather see my tax dollars go to helping Americans.

I can't reconcile the repeated reports of Social Security insolvency, 47 million uninsured Americans, sky rocketing college tuitions, crumbling infrastructure, and porous borders, with the appropriations for foreign aid, war funding, and pentagon spending.

Back on topic... I guess I no longer see Israel as a persecuted, victimzed state needing our help. They have nuclear weapons at a time when we are attacking every country around it for having nuclear weapons. The double standard is incredible. There have been more near unanimous UN resolutions against Israel that this country (solely) vetoed.

Let that part of the world fight it out. The only know violence. They only react to violence. Let them all kill each other. It sounds harsh. However, I'd rather they killed each other than sending our sons and daughters over their to get killed for nothing.

[Capn_Birdseye]

I no longer distinguish Israel from other troublesome nations in the region. Syria, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia. I don't think there is any reason to invest American dollars in any of these places.
Troublesome? Interesting word BR, lets take a look at "troublesome" Saudi Arabia for example. They provide 18% of the US's oil needs, have a trillion US dollars in US banks, and a further trillion US dollars on the NY Stock Exchange. Not worth upsetting I'd say if I was an American!

[investordude]

This thread disturbs me. Israel isn't perfect, and they made mistakes in Lebanon, but let's take some of your points:

0) I think I'll grant Israel made mistakes in Lebanon, but are they much different than our mistakes in Iraq? Other than that this time, they realized occupying the country was too costly to justify. Are we a rogue state? Just curious, how many of you commenting on this are actually Americans and not just Europeans who have sour grapes that America's tradition of defending freedom have made it more powerful in the 20th century?

1) given Israel's massive military advantage, you're telling me that a fatality count of 900 was the result of "indiscriminate attacks." That's a remarkably low death count for a war that didn't go very well where the enemy used human shields, even if it hasn't been exaggerated.

2) The guys think the only US interest in the region is oil. Ummm, did Afghanistan have oil? What happenned when we ignored the opportunity to defend freedom and help create a free society after the fall of the Soviet occupation? Hey, they didn't have oil, what's the worse that could happen?

3) Does anyone seriously believe that if we abandon Israel the surrounding states will like us more, or suddenly become effective? Is Israel the reason Saudi Arabia builds palaces for its leaders and impoverishes its people. They managed to fight each other for 700 years before Israel was created.

4) Pakistan is probably where Osama bin Laden is hiding. They provided material support to the Taliban. They are an ally of the US and Britain and have cordial relations with most of our friends, including Israel. Israel, in other words, has probably less to do with the extremism that created the London bombers or the 9/11 hijackers than British influence. Should we abandon Britain as a rogue state?

5) Has it occured to you that the reason there is no peace in Israel, ultimately, is that if the Arab states or Iran allowed a Muslim state over there to become democratic, they would all fall? Maybe they are therefore doing everything they can to stop the evolution of a democratic state in Palestine and Lebanon? Maybe the US is good and the terrorists are bad. I know -- crazy talk.

You guys have voted with your feet. If the US and Israel are the rogue states, why don't you go live in a civilized nation like Syria?

[Capn_Birdseye]

not just Europeans who have sour grapes that America's tradition of defending freedom have made it more powerful in the 20th century?
Let's be clear about one thing, the US is not "defending freedom" as you call it, it is simply protecting its own interests, nothing particularly wrong in that but lets not unjustifiably claim the high moral ground!


2) The guys think the only US interest in the region is oil. Ummm, did Afghanistan have oil?
Take a look at the words out of Cheney's mouth:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.htm

[investordude]

I got a 404 on the link you have.

[Capn_Birdseye]

In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.

Now it all starts to fit into place ......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,579174,00.html

[investordude]

This goes right to the heart of why America is right about Israel and Europe is not. When you treat people with dignity and reward freedom, you create genuine friendships and allies that can last through tough times. In Afghanistan, we failed to uphold those values, and so our attempt to help their economy with a pipeline didn't really do much (it's also not the reason for Al Queda).

So, the remark that the US is only helping Israel for its own interest is true, but what differentiates us from other powers is we view the expansion of liberty as our ultimate interest. We fall short of that ideal, including with regard to the Israeli Palestianian conflict, but we do our best.

Just look at it this way - Hugo Chavez ultimate insult to the US is that we are an "empire." Every country in Europe would view the same comment as the ultimate compliment, whereas the US has always know freedom is what ultimately matters - even if we sometimes fail.

Bush is an idiot, but America's tradition of respecting friendly democratic allies at all costs precedes him and was the best decision of US foreign policy in the 20th century. It will also outlast him, and future presidents will learn and be more sincere about carrying that ideal forward.

[Capn_Birdseye]

When you treat people with dignity and reward freedom, you create genuine friendships and allies that can last through tough times.
I would be interested for you to quote some examples of this.


what differentiates us from other powers is we view the expansion of liberty as our ultimate interest.I don't think so. The ultimate interest of the US is always driven by economics and/or military strategy, nothing wrong with that but please, please don't try to claim the high moral ground on this, you are doomed to failure.


Just look at it this way - Hugo Chavez ultimate insult to the US is that we are an "empire." Every country in Europe would view the same comment as the ultimate complimentYou're a bit behind the times, no European country nowadays wants to be called an empire-builder, in fact those that had empires, such as Britain, France & Holland, have long disposed of them. Its almost a dirty word.


whereas the US has always know freedom is what ultimately matters - even if we sometimes fail .... and kill thousands/millions of people in the process?


Bush is an idiot, but America's tradition of respecting friendly democratic allies at all costs precedes him and was the best decision of US foreign policy in the 20th centuryYou mean like the US "respected" Britain, France & Israel during the Suez crisis? The US threatened its (quote), "friendly democratic ally" Britain, with actions that would destroy our sterling currency unless we withdrew - the actions of a friendly ally?
It was only last year, 2006, that Britain finally paid off its loan to the US for WW2 - no Marshall Plan for Britain, unlike Germany & the rest of Europe!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/29/65945/550


It will also outlast him, and future presidents will learn and be more sincere about carrying that ideal forward.I don't think for one moment that anything will be learnt, more is the pity!

[investordude]

How about Germany, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea - all nations liberals thought we should abandon to tyranny? And, oh yes, Britain and France - we saved them twice in just the past century. capn, I think you're the one whose off base if you think British people are fuming because they owed us some money from WW2. The Suez Canal crisis threatened a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union - it was important that we stop that so Eisenhower did.

I realize modern Europeans realize empire is bad. My point is no country that has ever had the power of the United States has realized empire is bad. The guy who has less power has always been aware of it :)

As for people dying in war, I agree Iraq was a mistake, but many more people will die if we abandon Israel. Here's the sequence of events that would follow:

1) Israel and its neighbors would fight a bloody, very serious war. Best case scenario I'd guess 10 million dead over 10 years. More likely scenario, a nuclear exchange in the middle east.
2) Other US allies will question whether the US will come to their aid if their survival is threatened, as will people who don't like our more vulnerable ally. A likely outcome of that is a full scale war in Korea and across the strait of Taiwan. And NATO and Russia would get into an arms race. And we'll get another war in the Balkans just for fun. You do realize the reason Europeans are peaceniks these days is they feel confident the US can protect them, right?

Go USA!

[Capn_Birdseye]

How about Germany, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea - all nations liberals thought we should abandon to tyranny?
I don't recall the US doing much to prevent Hitler & the Nazi's gaining power in Germany, in fact the US was very reluctant to enter WW2 until Pearl Harbour occured - the US seemed prepared to abandon the German people, Jews, other minority groups, and indeed the rest of Europe, to their fate under Nazism - it was left to Britain to fight the Nazi's on their own. Many US politicians and diplomats wanted to keep the US out of the whole war - in fact the US (foolishly), never declared war on Germany or Italy, it was they that declared war on the US after the US had declared war on Japan in December 1941.
You quote South Korea, but what about Vietnam? What about Laos? What about Cambodia and the genocide under Pol Pot? What about Cuba, just off the coast of Florida? "Abandoned to tyranny" I'd say!


And, oh yes, Britain and France - we saved them twice in just the past century.Thank you. Would you like me to fall to my knees like some grateful Iraqi? None of your "saving" came without a price tag - I'm glad we could afford to pay you back at last in 2006 after 60 years of indebtedness. It's funny how US foreign policy seems to be centred around money!


capn, I think you're the one whose off base if you think British people are fuming because they owed us some money from WW2.They are. It has taken Britain 60 years to repay its debts. I believe the US used this as a tool to bankrupt Britain, bring it to its knees financially so that the US could then assume dominance in global terms.


The Suez Canal crisis threatened a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union - it was important that we stop that so Eisenhower did.It certainly did not. The Soviet Union in 1956 was too busy brutually putting down the Hungarian Uprising with tanks - another case of "abandoned to tryanny" - we never saw the US intervene there did we as a civilain population longing for freedom were being butchered in the streets.
Interesting question - how would the US have reacted if say in the 1960's or 1970's, the Soviet Union had decided to invade and take over the Panama Canal? Would the US have stood back and let it happen?


Europeans are peaceniks these days is they feel confident the US can protect them, right? Go USA!No we don't feel confident that the US will protect us - the US only protects its own national interests, period.
Example - The British government has foolishly permitted the US government to have a early-warning nuclear missile shield built in the UK. Will it protect the UK - answer: No. It is designed simply to give an early warning to the US. Of course having the shield in the UK means we are now targetted by Russia for a first strike should war commence, so in effect the US has placed us, their ally, on the firing line but without any benefits attaching! Great deal uh?

[investordude]

That's what happens when liberals run foreign policy. I'm still unimpressed that anyone in Britain besides you has hard feelings towards the US over WWII.

[BenL]

If he was in any way representative of British people, I think I'd have to emigrate.

[ZippyTheChimp]

no Marshall Plan for Britain, unlike Germany & the rest of Europe!The UK received more Marshall Plan money than any other country, 40% more than #2 France, and over 2 times the amount to Germany.


I don't recall the US doing much to prevent Hitler & the Nazi's gaining power in Germany, in fact the US was very reluctant to enter WW2 until Pearl Harbour occuredAt least once they entered the war, the US actually began fighting it. It seems the British and French, after declaring war, were reluctant to engage the enemy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War)


It has taken Britain 60 years to repay its debts. I believe the US used this as a tool to bankrupt Britain, bring it to its knees financially so that the US could then assume dominance in global terms.The US had over 50% of the total wealth and industrial capacity of the world in 1946. Britain, and most of Europe, was already on its knees.

What is this, Peabody's Improbable History?

[investordude]

This is actually one thing Israelis could learn more from America about - don't give people welfare unless they are working sincerely for a good job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/world/middleeast/02orthodox.html?hp

If someone privately wants to pay these guys to sit around and do religious studies, that's one thing, but if they are having 7 children, and they get PAID MORE MONEY for the number of children they have, then that's going to cause huge problems down the line.

Europe actually does something equally stupid with baby bonds. I don't understand why people don't attack the idea of Clinton suggesting we should pay people to have babies. If you're having a kid to get $5000 instead of to raise a loving family despite all the sacrifices it takes - society should be getting you to stop - not paying you a reward. That kid will grow up, and chances are he won't be a positive contributor to society when he does. One thing Giuliani did right in cleaning up New York was getting rid of the welfare system - Israel should do the same.

[Capn_Birdseye]

"The Marshall Plan ... is not a philanthropic enterprise ... It is based on our views of the requirements of American security ... This is the only peaceful avenue now open to us which may answer the communist challenge to our way of life and our national security."
(Allen W. Dulles, The Marshall Plan)

Dulles says it all! The Marshall Plan was all about American security and fighting Communism - as usual.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
That the Marshall Plan is not a philanthropic enterprise adds no validity to your contention:
no Marshall Plan for Britain, unlike Germany & the rest of Europe!


The Marshall Plan was all about American securityIn geopolitics, when does any country not act in its own interests?

[Capn_Birdseye]

At least once they entered the war, the US actually began fighting it. It seems the British and French, after declaring war, were reluctant to engage the enemy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War)
I can't speak for the French but Britain, although grossly unprepared for war, especially against Nazi Germany, which had the largest most efficient fighting machine in the world, fought as best it could, on its own for three long hard years.
American cinema, and some historians, have portrayed the winning of WW2 in Europe simply as an American victory, with scant respect shown or given to the bravery of the British or Canadians. I am not minimising the courage and success of American forces, quite the contrary, but history should not be distorted in this way.
http://www.50connect.co.uk/Britsaway/d-dayremembered1.asp


The US had over 50% of the total wealth and industrial capacity of the world in 1946. Britain, and most of Europe, was already on its knees.
Not surprising considering that the continent of europe has been one big battlefield for seven years with most of its infrastructure and means of production destroyed!

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
I have no intention of taking this thread off-topic with an expanded discussion about WWII.

You made a statement concerning the Marshall Plan that is incorrect, and I responded to it.

My contention that all countries act in their own interests stands, be it WWII, the Suez Canal, or the Middle East.

[Capn_Birdseye]

^
My contention that all countries act in their own interests stands, be it WWII, the Suez Canal, or the Middle East.
I agree.

[Alonzo-ny]

And, oh yes, Britain and France - we saved them twice in just the past century. Go USA!

Im sick of this issue, you think you came over out of the goodness of your heart and told us to take a break? This is one reason no one respects america because of dumb stupid moronic disrespectful comments like this. Maybe if you decided to come help us before your own country was attacked then less people may have died but as usual looking after american interests at the expense of others. You must be very proud.

[lofter1]

So Britain fought Germany for the sake of American freedom and independence?

And France took sides with the colonies against Great Britain because they were thinking of how nice it would be for the colonists?

Countries always act in their own self-interest. Sometimes that works out for the good of others as well.

[Alonzo-ny]

This is true but it deeply offends me that the general american walks around with a massive chip on their shoulder about how they single handedly won the wars and takes enormous pride in saying that to me. Excuse me for being passionate about it but anyone who says this is a complete ignorant moron, and almost all my american friends say and seem to believe it and they are generally educated as well so i dont know what that says about this society. My grandfather was almost killed on 3 occasions and thousands of other british people werent so lucky defending our country, for what, so some ignorant idiots can suggest we pathetically couldnt save ourselves.

[lofter1]

Understood ^

Most logical people would realize that the Brits, American and Russians working together defeated the Germans -- not to mention the help & courage from citizens of a dozen or more other countries who were under attack from the Germans. And that none would have been likely to bring down Hitler and his war machine on their own.

[Alonzo-ny]

Exactly, we were on the same side and won! I just wish it would be received that way and we can all have a beer and toast each other.

[BrooklynRider]

Well, actually in America there were three factions: (1) Those who were pure isolationists seeking neutrality - the majority (2) Those who admired the Nazi's and their Aryan /pure breed philosophy AND vocally and finacially supported them, (3) Those who wanted to provide aid and support to Britain immediately.

Americans do have a warped sense of history. We never entered the war to "help" Europe. We entered the war against the Japanese. When we did, Germany and Italy declared war on us. It was only then that we were "at war" with Germany. We engaged in the lend / lease program to help the British. That was pretty much it.

I don't think the war could have been won as it was without Americans. At the same time, the Americans could not have won it alone.

Our citizens were not bombed and saw no collateral damage. I was born in 1962 and we were taught that the Americans led the Allies to victory. We rebuilt Europe through the Marshall. We created the United Nations. Were were and remain the benevolent peace-maker. The goal in school is to get A's, so I did master American perspective history.

Then of course, I began to read independently and learn a more objective history that wasn't as American-centric as I was taught. While I think some of the criticism of the American world view is fair, it is not fair nor accurate to paint us all with such a broad brush - particularly New Yorkers. There are a lot of ignorant and paradoxicly nationalistic people in this country. I was taught that were were the "best educated people in the world" and that "nationalism does not exist in the U.S. because we are an immigrant nation."

For better or worse, this is definitely a country of contradictions. Lately, I think it is for worse.:(

[investordude]

BrooklynRider, based on your above response, America was selfish for staying out of WWII earlier. We should have been preemptive about war.

Sounds to me like your sophisticated New Yorker education is the same revisionist nonsense that Bush uses to justify preemptive war today. The left said at the time "why should we help an ally that is often belligerent with a history of racism and imperialism just because they are democratic and Germany is not?" while Roosevelt pleaded unsuccessfully for us to enter the war because ignoring human dignity will end up causing evil to reach America. The only difference is the current ally is Israel and at the time it was Britain. I realize you don't like Bush, but the idea America was selfish because we wanted a diplomatic solution is the same as what Bush thinks is wrong with us not invading Iran.

And by the way, the real lesson for Britian and the US in WWII is we should never sell out the freedom of others for expedience with dictators - if we hadn't sold out Sudetenland, I think war could have been avoided. Likewise, today, we shouldn't sell our Israel for a conflict they have nothing to do with.

I'm surprised you guys haven't managed to blame Israel for Musharraf taking power - clearly they are the source of all of Pakistan's woes - not the jihadists and extremists and hatemongers against democracy and against India.

[BrooklynRider]

I think your response takes some personal jabs at me, which I am just not going to add creedence to with a response.

I am student of history and the facts are the facts. Americans were isolationist at the time and preferred neutrality to war. Americans didn't have polled opinions on whether we ought to pursue "diplomatic solutions" or not. Americans still had WWI fresh on their minds and wanted nothing to do with another war on a continent an ocean away. The feeling was that we had our own problems to deal with and had already jump started our economy well before we entered the war.

The challenge at home was the imperialist aspirations of Germany (which threatened us and was a strong argument for joining Britain) AND the great investment of American Corporations and banks into the booming economy of Germany in the early thirties, when America was not a good investment bet (which was a strong argument for supporting Germany - or at least declaring neutrality). Average americans saw the horrors of WWI in their lifetime and simply did not want to return to Europe.

As for Israel, it is hardly a fair comparison. Great Britain has been around for a millennium or more. Israel for 60 years. Great Britain is in the hands of its native Anglo-Saxons, Israel was created as a Jewish state seeing a land overrun with both Zionists and very frightened Jews from the afermath of WWII.

When and how exactly did "Irsael" become the great ally of the USA? Where? How? When? THAT is the big myth. Britain created Israel - not the USA. They became a darling of the US Military Industrial Complex, yes. But they are no ally. How many times have we seen Israeli spies arrested, convicted and jailed? How many times have we seen British spies arrested, let alone convicted and jailed?

Israel does not comply with iternational law. It has frittered away every viable option for peace - always failing on some detail seemingly chosen precisely to hinder peace.

I think it takes a certain type of mind that can argue for pre-emptive war WITHOUT ANY TRUE EVIDENCE OF THREAT. I can't see a situation existing now or in the last century that required preemptive war. Knowing what I know about events leading to WWII, I'd even assume that I'd have been on the side of isolation. Almost all people in that camp wholeheartedtly supported the war - when we were attach by JAPAN - NOT GERMANY!

[BrooklynRider]

And by the way, the real lesson for Britian and the US in WWII is we should never sell out the freedom of others for expedience with dictators - if we hadn't sold out Sudetenland, I think war could have been avoided.

By the way, the U.S. did not sell out the Sudetenland. We were in a stance of neutrality at the time. That action was of the British, Neville Chamberlain to exact. So, I imagine you meant to say that the real lessson for BRITAIN IN WWII was...

The U.S. was even running Lend / Lease at that time. We didn't even take a good look over there until Winston Churchill replaced Chamberlain.

[investordude]

Sorry - I'm actually a little bit unsure which part you think was personal, but I'm not intended to be personal. I just think your logic is the same as the logic Bush would have used against people pushing for diplomacy today - why is it different?

Here's a brief history of how Israel and the US became allies (though I personally find it more remarkable that Britain and the US have overcome fighting 2 wars to become the strongest joint allies for freedom, and a testament to how the shared values of human dignity and justice can overcome historical problems and uplift mankind)

1) we were NOT originally strong allies - we oppossed them in the Suez crisis for example. Ironically, it was France that provided most of the basic backing for the original IDF, and it was Mirage jets in 1967 war that won it.
2) Egypt sided with the Soviets, mainly because Nasser was a dictatorial nut. That caused America to draw cautiously closer to Israel, and we were rightfully overjoyed to see a small democratic state defeat the forces of tyranny or Soviet expansion in 1967.
3) By 1973, we were still very uncomfortable with Israel, but realized we could make Egypt a friend by prevailing on them to stop short in wiping out a hostile enemy. After the oil crisis, other nations, like France, concluded that money was more important and started selling Israel out.
4) Since that time, the US has tried desparately to make friends with Arab states, including Sadaam Hussein and the mujahadeen. But Israel, as a democracy that strives to create decency in the world, is the only country that is a steadfast ally. They are a steadfast ally because we share a common agenda for peace and freedom, and they treat people with as much dignity and respect as the war allows.

[Alonzo-ny]

Ive read to many horror stories, seen horrible documenteries about how palestinians are treated like second citizens, maybe even less, by israelis to believe that they believe in treated people with dignity.

I think it was BBC, i read that almost all israeli soldiers have been randomly violent against palestinians. Shooting, beating inocent people for no reason. Women and children. One of their reasons was boredom. BOREDOM. You say its a dignified nation. I also say a documentry which filmed palestinians being forced into the indignity of waiting for hours at countless checkpoints IN palestine just to get home. Israeli citizens stoning palestinians for no particular reason other than their ethnicity. How about the one guy who was told he couldnt leave his house because the entrance pathway was in israel but his house in palestine, i mean what is that?? there are countless more things like these ive seen filmed or reported on and it disgusts me.

[investordude]

There are atrocities committed by Israel, but I'm inclined to discount anything the BBC produces on this subject - the radicalization of England's Muslim community prohibits objectity in the British media.

Still, I'm not denying there's a problem in Palestine. But consider Ireland before peace was brokered in the 1990s. England did bad things even though Ireland was not surrounded by hostile dictatorships who were entirely dedicated to preventing freedom from blossoming in the region. In fact, Israel is remarkably level headed - if the terrorism epidemic reaches the level of daily rocket attacks on London or New York, we would flatten the country indiscriminately regardless of how man people needed to die, and we would do it with a lot less care to prevent innocent people from being killed.

Finally, I'd argue that Israel has, at great sacrifice and risk, prevented the kind of atrocities in Palestine that are occurring in Iraq. War sucks, but to the extent the Israeli's can, I think they are trying. Palestine, at the end of the day, is Israel's Iraq - why are we so high and mighty when nobody in Palestine is drilling holes into their neighbors skulls, etc? Ask yourself if you'd rather live in Israel or Saudi Arabia/Syria/Iraq (as a local, not an expat with different rules)?

The truth is our commitment to liberty in Israel, while imperfect, is an astonishing success at creating a great friend in a region that's pretty hostile to the west.

[Alonzo-ny]

Hmm having watched BBC my whole life i find them to be 100% more objective than the american media. The radicalization of muslims hasnt changed the media its been consistant from when i was young. And not just the bbc, channel 4 has shown some brilliant reports on many subjects. I dont really think there is a base for what you are saying about the BBC. especially if you havent lived there and watched it every day.

For the record, the BBC got info from another report regarding the troops violence and the checkpoint, stoning events were on tape, i saw them with my own eyes.

[Capn_Birdseye]

I dont really think there is a base for what you are saying about the BBC. especially if you havent lived there and watched it every day.
As someone who watches the BBC regularly I can vouch for the fact that they are biased in their news reporting - even "insiders" admit it!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

In my view BBC stands for the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.

Take the blinkers off alonzo-ny!!!

[investordude]

I wasn't trying to argue that BBC is more biased than US media. But one thing that's nice is in the US nobody pretends to be neutral any more, and people talk openly about the bias of different news sources. I personally think that's better - you get a large debate that way. Nobody is confused Fox or the NYTimes have a particular point of view, for example.

I read the Israel Lobby book that Israel is somehow a sacred cow, but I just don't see it. Some examples seem downright silly - he cited an example of Jewish control that the Polish embassy in the US wouldn't support using their embassy facilities for an anti-Israel group. Why would the government of Poland want to allow its embassy to be used to support a group that would create confusion between Poland and its US/Israeli allies? I thought there were many examples like this where the book saw conspiracies where there isn't one.

Jimmy Carter, a former President of the United States, wrote a scathing book about Israel. Stephen Spielberg made a movie highly critical of one of Israel's most popular counter terrorism actions and people went to watch it. Some people criticized ideas they disagreed with, but that's different than the idea of censoring them or having some power to influence them. In contrast, I get the feeling people in Europe are genuinely afraid they will be killed if they take a view sympathetic to Israel, or at least persecuted by radical labor unions. And that's pretty obvious in BBC's coverage of world affairs.

[Alonzo-ny]

Im not wearing blinkers I havent seen any blatant bias. You are one of many people hell bent on making your point without real discussion. Give me a case of bias.

[investordude]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml

Here's an egreious example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1183312,00.html

Anyone with explosives attached to them should be arresed - period. Is this different from Fox News thinking Israel is the best thing since the iPhone - not really. But people talk openly about Fox being biased in the US.

[MidtownGuy]

BBC's coverage of world affairs is much more comprehensive and accurate than any US mainstream media news organization.
I travel Europe a lot and I love talking politics with folks... I think people in Europe have a much clearer perception of conditions in the Occupied Territories than Americans do, definitely regarding actual conditions on the ground. Europeans aren't afraid of displaying any particular view, but they're definitely better informed on international politics, so sympathy toward Israel is going to be less knee-jerk than you find here.

[MidtownGuy]

Fox isn't even a real news channel though. I wouldn't say they are the conservative version of the news, I'd say they are the pravda version. Nothing more than a propaganda arm of the power elite.

[investordude]

I agree BBC has better global coverage. That's a fair critique. But I think where is applies best is in places where the US doesn't have a strong interest, like Burma, or in places we are keeping quite about our influence, like Somalia.

In the case of Israel, American news pays a lot of attention, and I don't see any evidence that Americans don't know that there are human rights violations and injustice in the occupied territories. They talk it on the news here regularly every few weeks. The real debate is how do you fix that - Americans have the good sense to realize you don't throw a democracy under the bus because there is injustice in a war zone. I think most Europeans actually feel the same way but are afraid to talk about it. You don't see US universities trying to boycott Palestine, or persecuting Iranian professors, or issuing fatwahs against Salman Rushdie, or stabbing people like Theo van Gough. There is no violence in the domestic US debate, so people keep their heads that democracy matters while also realizing something has to be done on Palestine.

[Alonzo-ny]

"A week earlier, when a 12-year-old boy, Abdullah Quran, was stopped while unwittingly carrying explosives at an army checkpoint, Israeli embassies called news editors to insist they cover the story and warn that failure to do so would be viewed as bias against Israel."

This is what i dont like, not doing what they say means your bias? Thats disgusting. and parading youngs boys around criminal or not is also disgusting.

Im sure it is hard to be completely unbias and i am sure no news agency is but the BBC does great coverage and in my opinion one of the best. Compared to the US horribly bias, US-centric broadcasting.

[MidtownGuy]

In the case of Israel, American news pays a lot of attention

90% one-sided coverage. Vague mentions of 'human rights' abuses in Palestine, always framed as Israel's "reaction" or "response" to something or other, do not qualify as comprehensive explanation and reportage on the daily realities of the most brutal occupation in the world.

You're right, Americans have been drilled about the value of Israel's democracy, but the problem is that they have not been sufficiently impressed with the reality it exacts on the other side of the Wall.


You don't see US universities trying to boycott Palestine, or persecuting Iranian professors, or issuing fatwahs against Salman Rushdie, or stabbing people like Theo van Gough. There is no violence in the domestic US debate, so people keep their heads that democracy matters while also realizing something has to be done on Palestine.

Wow, there are so many problems in that confused statement that I'm not sure I can really adress it and still get my work done!

[investordude]

When you says Israel is the most brutal occupation in the world, that's the kind of head scratching nonsense that I think most Americans rightly shrug off as silly. I don't even think you can make a credible argument that Israel's occupation of Palestine creates more hardship than the current missions in Iraq/Afghanistan. It's like when the UN human rights report looks at Syria, Burma, North Korea, etc - and focuses the vast majority of the time on Israel. It's just bogus.

War sucks, but I don't believe there is any truth to the idea Americans are unaware of the problems in Palestine.

[MidtownGuy]

Your statements reveal an utter ignorance of the day to day hardships in the territories. Your words suggest only a vague idea of some kind of unpleasantry going on, but one which you do not think reaches to the level of Syria (a whole different thing anyway)?:confused:
Comparison to Iraq/Afghanistan is inappropriate for obvious reasons.

[MidtownGuy]

but I don't believe there is any truth to the idea Americans are unaware of the problems in Palestine

Oh, I disagree completely. It isn't that they're unaware that there are problems, it's that they don't comprehend the nature or the scope. I've had conversations with many Americans who weren't even aware of the frequent inability of Palestinian children to attend school, deprivation of water rights, wanton bulldozing of homes, inability to tend to crops for food, restriction from using most roads, refusal to allow ambulances passage through checkpoints to reach hospitals, oh gosh it goes on and on. I will say this again: these things are never the focus of American mainstream coverage of events there; news items are almost always a report on the latest terrorist attack within Israel, the latest rocket shot across the border by a rebel group,
or the latest failure among Palestinians to make a rational choice in leaders (not hard to understand given the prevailing circumstances).
In-depth news stories on any of the atrocities in the OT's committed by Israelis are incredibly rare in the mainstream news here. It's just a fact, and quite frankly we don't really have in-depth news stories on ANYthing contrary to the interests of large advertisers and sponsors of news programs in the USA. That's another reason why the BBC rocks: they aren't owned by GE or some mega-conglomerate connected to the war machine.

[investordude]

I'm sorry, I really don't see a difference between Iraq and Palestine. Do you really believe the BBC is immune from corporate influence? I would actually argue a government owned press furthers the interest of politically connected companies. In the US, there are many different media owners and they have agendas reflected in their coverage, but people talk about that so people can make up their own mind after hearing different points of view.

[MidtownGuy]

Really, no differences that you can see?

Iraq: 5 years, Iraq's situation (social, economic, geopolitically, militarily) in the past was way different than the situation that has existed in Palestine. In Iraq there's a civil war going on, the economy and resources are just not even comparable. I don't need to state the obvious.

Palestine: An occupation that is decades long, intergenerational, obliterates all normal trade and commerce, land disputes over tracts that are almost on top of each other, the building of settlements in the West Bank. This is a completely different situation than Iraq. They are apples and oranges, just not useful subjects of a comparison. Like I said, the differences are clear and numerous.

[investordude]

Midtown, you are saying that there is a difference in brutality on the part of Israel. Even if you assume that there is something unjust about the state of Israel (which I don't, but I think you do), right now, Israel is trying to create a democracy in the face of a violent insurgency. They are failing, just like we are failing in Iraq. But to be honest, I think conditions in Palestine are and always have been light years better - they are very bad but noone is having skulls drilled into their heads or wide spread genocidal gangs roving free, etc. The "atrocities" you mention are basically actions Israel has taken to prevent genocidal gangs are were necessary.

I'd also argue very strongly (and I imagine most people including in the Arab world would agree with this) that the moral justification the Israelis have for being there is more unambiguous than the US had in invading Iraq under entirely false pretenses. Jews fled to British Palestine to escape extermination and persecution, they tried to live peacefully with Palestinians when they arrived, that didn't work, so there was the creation of a separate state free from British imperialism and genuinely free and democratic. We went into Iraq for reasons I don't understand.

[MidtownGuy]

right now, Israel is trying to create a democracy in the face of a violent insurgency.

Are you really nuts? Is that how you see it? an insurgency? Then we have nothing more to discuss, I'm engaging with a hopeless cause.

GOODBYE, at least for today. I'm through with you.

[Ninjahedge]

Investor, you really have to start reading up on some of this stuff.

You don't and say that any other source besides Fox and Friends that you go to has this mythical bias that would invalidate anything you read there is a weak attempt to try and validate your issue ignorance and unwillingness to learn things that go against what you want to believe.

Most of us here do not believe Israel to be the uber-evil that some would proclaim it to be, but it is not exactly handling things right. They are hell bent on being the aggressor and we are financing them to help them achieve this.

Would Palestine do the same if the tables were turned? Maybe. Actually, quite possibly, but they ARE NOT turned and introducing a polar opposite "what if" does not validate the unjust measures that have been used so far.

Israel does not have to be "best buds" with the Palestinians, but they are oppressing them. So long as they keep doing this, they will never fully be at peace. There will always be some small group that will fight them.




But, back to your statements. I really cannot read them. The first line in almost every one of them is confrontary, aggressive and reeks of intolerance and/or global ignorance.


I wasn't trying to argue that BBC is more biased than US media. But one thing that's nice is in the US nobody pretends to be neutral any more, and people talk openly about the bias of different news sources.

You say this as if it were a good thing??!?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...183312,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1183312,00.html)

Anyone with explosives attached to them should be arresed - period.

Then you post from the Guardian?


But I think where is applies best is in places where the US doesn't have a strong interest, like Burma, or in places we are keeping quite about our influence, like Somalia.

MORE does not mean BETTER.


I'm sorry, I really don't see a difference between Iraq and Palestine.

That was just plain silly. You have to base your observation. "In regards to XXX, I do not see any difference". For you to not see any difference between a multigenerational political and religious displacement and a civil war/insurgency sparked by the aggressive removal of a dictator you REALLY must get out.....


Israel is trying to create a democracy in the face of a violent insurgency.

And that is just being mish-mosh silly.

They have a democracy, but noe that has been taught to hate everyone around them. So they elect people that will have no tolerance for the people around them. Realize that a TRUE democracy is really just a "mob rule" kind of situation. Don't throw it around as if it was the best system and inferred as the fairest "good" system out there (white hat).

They have their own system. They are not trying to establish anything really. They are shoving people out, taking all the resources, and then trying to tell them how to set up their own government.

I know you are going to reply to all of this, but please, don't bother. I have only had the patience to read about the first 2 or three sentences in one of your postings before your obvious bias and "unintentional" bile comes streaming through.

Do yourself a favor and work on your diplomacy first, your sources second. Once you get both of them, you may be able to post something controversial without getting everyone angry AND not reveal your ignorance on the details of the subject at hand.

[investordude]

I'm certainly not angry with you, and I absolutely agree with the fact Israel isn't handling things right. Didn't I say that multiple times? The Guardian is great, and the fact that I read it should help you put to rest the idea that I get all my news from Fox & Friends (which is a terrible show that I've never watched to completion). I think its stupid to have government subsidize or run broadcast news though - a truly free press that serves Britian well in its print journalism (like the Guardian) would also serve it well in broadcast media. And YES, it is a good thing that there are multiple points of view presented in US news. I read the NYTimes, etc, and Fox and the Daily Show and Real Time and a variety of European publications and blogs and then I make up my own mind.

Where we disagree is in the idea that because Israel has issues that we should throw them under the bus for countries that aren't really our friends, don't share our values, and spread extremism in Europe. What's strange to me is you accuse me of intolerance but seem so unhinged by discussing with someone you disagree with - I don't think our disagreement is really that big even.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Israel does not have to be "best buds" with the Palestinians, but they are oppressing them. So long as they keep doing this, they will never fully be at peace. There will always be some small group that will fight them.
The only sentence I agree with is the last one, the rest, with respect, is simply your mistaken opinion.


They have a democracy, but noe that has been taught to hate everyone around them. So they elect people that will have no tolerance for the people around them.So good of you to acknowledge they have a democracy! But it does not teach people to hate and oppress, nor does it encourage the election of intolerant representatives. You are really making outrageous statements here Ninja. Name me an arab state that is anywhere near as democractic or tolerant as Israel that is surrounded by enemies, some of whom have declared "to wipe Israel off the face of the earth". A tolerant turn of phrase eh?
http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/arabsinisrael/index.htm

[MidtownGuy]

But it does not teach people to hate and oppress,

Yes it does. Israeli children are surounded by a culture that is executing a brutal, decades long ccupation. The children are told it is necessary. They are constantly surrounded by excuse makers. The humanity of Palestinians is denied on a regular basis. Israeli leaders have called Palestinans 'cockroaches'. They are told terrorism is the reason for the occupation, instead of being told that the occupation is the reason for the terrorism.
Israeli children are taught that they are the "CHOSEN PEOPLE" (outrageous in 2007!!! this kind of thinking and teaching is a barrier to peace everywhere). These things teach and foster hatred and oppression. You are in denial, or very ignorant of what's happening over there, Capn.

[investordude]

Look, most Israelis are trying to end the occupation. Ehud Barak made a pretty dramatic effort to do so in 2000 with Bill Clinton. Ehud Olmert (who is one of the less tolerant leaders in recent memory) has now hinted he'd give up Jerusalem, even though personally I think that creates major security problems for Israel. Barak's effort for peace led to a second intifada.

They gave Palestine elections and they elected Hamas. As a result, the Palestinians send the Israelis bombs, and the Israelis send the Palestinians food and humanitarian provisions. And let's not get started about martyr mouse.

I do agree with you that there is some hatred in Israel as a result of the conflict, such as those who support Avidor Liebeman. This is very sad, but I also think its obvious that as a whole, Israeli society is aiming to create a vibrant democracy, and that the right wing parties, like the national front or the American religious right, will remain a negative force but a minority in Israeli politics.

Ask yourself whether you'd rather be a local (not a foreigner with different rules) in Saudi Arabia or Israel? Why doesn't hatred in Saudi Arabia (in practice, a closer US and British ally than Israel most of the time) arouse the kind of passion that Israel bashing does? The reason is simple - you want to throw a democratic society under the bus to save a few bucks on gasoline in the short term. That's immoral - and its to America's credit that we don't do it (though it would be nice if we stood up more strongly to the evils of Saudi Arabia and not just Iran).

[MidtownGuy]

As a result, the Palestinians send the Israelis bombs, and the Israelis send the Palestinians food and humanitarian provisions.

This is a tragic simplification and misrepresentation of the situation.


Ask yourself whether you'd rather be a local (not a foreigner with different rules) in Saudi Arabia or Israel?

First of all, let's strive to preserve the clear distinction between Israel and the territories it occupies. Once we do that, my response is simple. If I was an Israeli Jew, I'd pick Israel. If I was a Palestinian or any muslim, I'd choose Saudi Arabia over Gaza or a West Bank town like Jenin any day.


The reason is simple - you want to throw a democratic society under the bus to save a few bucks on gasoline in the short term. That's immoral -

You have some nerve. What I want is to force a pseudo-democratic country to cease the illegal occupation that is causing misery for both its victims and itself. I would also like to see it become a true democracy within its own legitimate borders; nurturing the lives of all Israeli citizens regardless of religion and/or ethnicity. Separate and unequal is crap.


though it would be nice if we stood up more strongly to the evils of Saudi Arabia and not just Iran

Trust me, I'm no fan of Saudia Arabia either. I'm actually more consistent than you; I don't support any state policy anywhere that favors one religion over another or fosters inequality..not in Saudia Arabia OR Israel! .:p

[Front_Porch]

Israeli children are taught that they are the "CHOSEN PEOPLE" (outrageous in 2007!!! this kind of thinking and teaching is a barrier to peace everywhere). These things teach and foster hatred and oppression.

Wow, I have a lot of reactions to this -- the first is that the idea that Abraham and his descendants were chosen for the covenant is central not just to the Torah, but the Koran as well ("Who but a foolish man would renounce the faith of Abraham?")

Second, how people in 2007 interpret the idea of "chosenness" varies wildly, even among Jews. The Reconstructionist movement finds it appallingly racist and has written it out of the prayerbook.

There's a different modern liberal strain of Jewish thinking (of which I'm a tiny part) that clings to the idea of "chosenness", but sees it as a moral prescription. It's not a statement of superiority; it's a mandate that we have special burdens to 1) live ethically to provide an example to all humanity, and to 2) repair the world through acts of justice.

In this viewpoint, the "chosenness" doesn't foster hatred and oppression, but actually imposes a burden that we must spend our lives fighting it.

In 2007, some of us interpret this as dictating a re-examination of traditional ideals of conduct in terms of say, gender discrimination, or discrimination against homosexuality, or oppression of others with a "religious" justification.

I have never lived in Israel, so I don't know what Israeli Jews are like, but I bet they come in all strains, just as I bet Palestinians do.

ali r.

[investordude]

Midtown and I disagree on US policy towards Israel as you can see, but I think he has a point about the education segregation. While I think Israeli schools can and should teach the history of Jewish philosophy as it is written instead of in a revisionist context that ignores the "chosen people" stuff, I do actually think there is a problem in Israeli education being segregated - most Jews and Muslims go to different schools until college. There's also a problem in that they don't force haredi students to really go to school instead of just learn the Torah in yeshivas that don't teach modern education - they should have compulsory integrated education like the US adopted after the 1960s.

The segregated situation is why it was news when Muslim schools would be allowed to call the displacement of Palestinains during the Israeli war of independence "the catastrophe" while Jewish students would not learn this. (It was a catastrophe - that's why its called war).

It would be better for Jewish society to teach both Jewish and Muslim students to consider themselves together as Israelis and patriots, and the school system is one area Israeli inclusiveness falls a little short I have to say. Of course, if you compare it to education in Saudi Arabia, its paradise, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't go further in creating a truly just society.

[MidtownGuy]

Wow, I have a lot of reactions to this -- the first is that the idea that Abraham and his descendants were chosen for the covenant is central not just to the Torah, but the Koran as well ("Who but a foolish man would renounce the faith of Abraham?")

I appreciate your thoughts on this but I just want to say that I don't subscribe to anthropomorphic concepts of God, with things like historical promises to certain people and such. I'm sorry, it just seems absurd to me. I find some of the moral teachings in historical literature like the Bible or Torah to be agreeable, and other teachings less so. Yes, Abraham is an historical figure...but how can we let the ancient events of a barbaric time prevent us, as modern homo sapiens, from finally achieving peace..not only in Palestine/Israel but wherever in the world that the nexus of government and religion is causing war.


Second, how people in 2007 interpret the idea of "chosenness" varies wildly, even among Jews. The Reconstructionist movement finds it appallingly racist and has written it out of the prayerbook.

There's a different modern liberal strain of Jewish thinking (of which I'm a tiny part) that clings to the idea of "chosenness", but sees it as a moral prescription. It's not a statement of superiority; it's a mandate that we have special burdens to 1) live ethically to provide an example to all humanity, and to 2) repair the world through acts of justice.

I think those are lovely prescriptions to live by, and indeed I try to behave this way.

It seems for a great many Jews there is another concept of chosenness that bears negatively on this situation, and that is the idea of the Zionist settlers and many others (either explicitly or in their hearts), that they are chosen to have that land and no one else. Whatever needs to be done to drive Palestinians from it is excused by their religiously based ideas. That's just terrible.

Some Orthodox groups who deplore the 'premature' establishment of the Zionist state of Israel as actually contrary to the covenant are also interesting to include in any discussion of this.