'Civilian Casualty'? It Depends (Dershowitz)

[wellst0nev0ter]

THE NEWS IS filled these days with reports of civilian casualties, comparative civilian body counts and criticism of Israel, along with Hezbollah, for causing the deaths, injuries and "collective punishment" of civilians. But just who is a "civilian" in the age of terrorism, when militants don't wear uniforms, don't belong to regular armies and easily blend into civilian populations?

We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished.

<snip>

The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. Some — those who cannot leave on their own — should be counted among the innocent victims.

If the media were to adopt this "continuum," it would be informative to learn how many of the "civilian casualties" fall closer to the line of complicity and how many fall closer to the line of innocence.

Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dershowitz22jul22,0,7685210.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Alan Dershowitz had lost me when he decided to shed his civil libertarian conceit and come out as strongly pro-torture. But now this recent piece of legalistic gymnastics has really made me despise him. He's not even scum. People like him are the creatures who feed on scum.

[TomClash]

1. He's a racist - pure and simple nt

[barb162]

18. like Hezbollah? like Hamas? like Al Aksa? like IJ?

I think he's not a racist. He is a great civil liberties lawyer and teacher

[wellst0nev0ter]

22. Do Civil Liberties Lawyers Advocate Torture?

perhaps his purported racism is best left to useless semantics arguements, but he is advocating a position he would never support were it applied to anyone else.

[TomClash]

24. Well done

I could not have said it better myself.

[wellst0nev0ter]

26. Thanx :)

now if you'll excuse me, I gotta bone up for the useless semantics arguements coming up shortly. . .

[barb162]

32. NOT at all well done

[barb162]

31. Stick to the article please

Racism? Torture? Where the heck is that in the article?

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Taking a writer's views into account is important, barb...

Would you suggest that pointing out stances held in past articles by someone with stinky views only be confined to when it's dealing with a writer who's antisemitic? I would hope not. Dershowitz is renowned for his support of the use of torture in some circumstancesand it is important to take those views into account when judging very contraversial and (to the vast majority of participants in this thread) disgusting attitudes towards civilians in a war-zone....

[TomClash]

27. Well, that's what HE would say.

But he is now an arrogant clown. If the "terrorist" were the Irgun, rest assured you he would not be for torturing them.

And, yes, the other groups you mentioned, with the possible exception of Hamas, have racist elements.

[Maat]

71. I disagree - he once stated that he was sorry the justices had ..

ruled in "Roe v. Wade" the way they did, while I was listening to him on the radio. He felt that women should have just waited until things were changed state-by-state. It was plain that the dire straits weren't affecting HIM. That's when I realized he was a consumate ASS.

I should make clear that I disagree with the idea that he is a great civil rights lawyer, and a friend to the disadvantaged.

[Andromeda]

58. No, he's not a racist.

[bemildred]

2. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Animal Farm, George Orwell.

[Gormy Cuss]

9. Exactly.

Two legs bad, in this case.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Unreal. The same "logic" used to justify Haditha.

"You might be a terrorist. You might be related to a terrorist. You might know a terrorist. You might know someone related to a terrorist. Therefore, I can kill you."

[itzamirakul]

63. This is also the logic that concerns me when we consider how many

Americans have dual loyalties.

[Dudley_DUright]

4. I have lost all respect for Dershowitz

He has completely lost his marbles.

[abester]

89. How did he gain yours in the first place???

Just wondering...

[Warren Stupidity]

5. It is the routine justification for blowing up civilians.

40 years later and good old dersh is mouthing the same bullshit used to justify our atrocities in vietnam. Torture the captives and kill the civilians and invent clever words to rationalize the crimes.

[BayCityProgressive]

8. I really enjoyed

His book "The Case For Israel". What is this that he supports torture? Do you happen to have a link for this? I believe many Lebanese are elderly, too poor ect to leave the area, just as some in the Katrina disaster were. I do however believe many who stayed were supporters of Hezbollah. Also, I am sure some people wanted to stay behind to make sure their homes were safe- an idiotic rationale but one many Americans do when there are disasters here (as if them being there is going to stop a missile from demolishing their home). I can see where some may not be innocent, but many many are and this article rubs me the wrong way.

[acmejack]

10. Dershowitz: Torture could be justified

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

n a 60 Minutes report, Dershowitz tells Correspondent Mike Wallace that torture is inevitable. “We can’t just close our eyes and pretend we live in a pure world,” he says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/17/60minutes/main324751.shtml

[BayCityProgressive]

11. thank you for this link

I strongly disagree with him on this...

[Orangeone]

12. Of course

He for anything that's bad for Arabs. If Jews were in danger of being tortured he would be against it...

[Crunchy Frog]

13. I heard him supporting it in an interview on NPR.

Sorry, I don't have a link for it, but I know what I heard.

[jonnyblitz]

14. I am currently reading a book that takes Dershowitz's book to

task. this one is by Norm Finkelstein and it is called "Beyond Chutzpah, On the Misuse of Antisemitism and the abuse of History". here is a link from the author's website to a discussion of the book if you are interested.

http://normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=55

[wellst0nev0ter]

16. The Obvious Plagiarism From That Quakademic Text

"From Time Immemorial" was proof enough for me. I used to take Dershowitz seriously, but then I knew somethings not quite right in the crows' nest when I read his novel "Just Revenge" where the main character gets away scot free for kidnapping and coercing a suicide of a Nazi expat. Obviously the punishment is too good for the ex-Nazi, but then where's the rule of law?

[cool user name]

83. He actually debates (and owns) Dershowitz on it.

Finding video ...................

[cool user name]

82. Dersh's book was a total fraud.

I'm sorry you liked it since it was plagiarized from another fraud.

Might want to check your sources next time.

[barb162]

33. You could be talking about suicide bombers ("blowing up

civilians" and all)

[Warren Stupidity]

48. I don't see any difference.

Suicide bombers are the means available to those without high tech weaponry. Blowing civilians up from 10,000 feet in the latest model fighter-bomber with precision laser guided bombs does not bestow any superior morality to the act than blowing civilians up using a beat up old car and a homemade bomb. At least the suicide bomber does not get to go home to his family after commiting his war crime.

I am sick of all of it, and I fear we are swiftly moving toward a generalization of the violence across the entire planet.

[cali]

6. What a sickening

and despicable rationalization for killing civilians.

[barb162]

19. Is a person shooting rockets into your country a "civilian"

because he/she isn't in the recognized armed forces. Is a suicide bomber a "civilian"

[wellst0nev0ter]

23. No, They Are Armed Combatants

but apparently Israel and its ask-no-questions supporters have trouble distinguising between the two so they seek the expediency of collective punishment. The only possible explanation for Israel's bombings of civilian targets is to get the whole country of Lebanon against them, in order to strengthen their justifications for them to continue with the highly expedient blanket bombings.

[barb162]

34. And when the "armed combatants" blend into civilian

populations, how are they to be stopped? Especially when their own governments seem to have no interest in stopping them?

[wellst0nev0ter]

37. Think Back To 1999

when there were no suicide bombings in Israel. It was an idyllic time when the PA was actively engaged in a diplomatic process with Israel, its civilian infrastructure was intact enough in order for them to effectively deal with Hamas terror group who were trying to derail the peace process, Palestinian prisoners were being released, and no new settlements were being built (although existing ones were expanding).

In other words, quit fucking antagonizing the civilian population. The Israelis made the same mistakes you seem to embrace wholeheartedly when back in 1982 their initial invasion was welcomed by the Shia of southern Lebanon, only to turn into militancy once they realize they are being occupied like the Palestinians. This lack of distinction between civilians and militants didn't work during the last 18 year occupation of Lebanon, how is it going to work now by destroying the entire country?

on edit: Sorry, there were no Palestinian suicide attacks in 1999 AND 2000 (note 12). I regret the error.

[barb162]

39. Your little link there doesn't support at all what you're writing

It was an idyllic time? Oh yeah? They were doing a moratorium and regrouping. And oh, they had a lot of pressure on them at the time.


From your link:
"In reality, the sharp decline in terrorist attacks, particularly the bloody suicide bombings, was due to the combined preventive counter-terrorist policy of the PA and Israel"
According to the September Palestinian Times, Hamas’ military wing has been undergoing an arduous process of rebuilding and restructuring following the assassinations of several of its top leaders in the last few years.

In January 1999: a Palestinian military court sentenced two Hamas members to 15 years of hard labor for preparing explosives for the July and September 1998 suicide bombings that killed 21 Israelis.

February 1, 1999: A Palestinian policemen and an eight-year-old girl were killed in a car chase after Hamas fugitives in Rafiah. The PA had reportedly been tracking the fugitives since the arrest of several members of an allied ‘Iz al-din al-Qassam cell. This incident marks the first time a member of the Palestinian security services was killed in a clash with Hamas.

May 24, 1999: In a crackdown on Hamas activists, Palestinian police arrested Sa’ed al-Arabeed, a senior member of ‘Iz al-din al-Qassam. Al-Arabeed, an aide to fugitive bomb-maker Mohammed Dief, was wanted by both Israeli and Palestinian security services. He and his assistant Khalil Sakani were arrested in a dawn raid on a Hamas hideout in Gaza.

Al-Arabeed had been in hiding since 1995, following a series of suicide bombings in Israel carried out under his direction. He allegedly assisted Hamas bomb makers Imad Akel and Yihye Ayyash. Suicide bomb attacks planned by Akel and Ayyash resulted in the deaths of scores of Israeli citizens.

August 8, 1999: The Palestinian Security services detained several Hamas activists in what it called “preventative” measures after renewing calls for terrorism against Israel by Hamas.

Among the detained was Abdelaziz Rantisi and Ahmed Nimr Hamdan. Rantisi was recently released after serving 15 months in jail. A third man, Ismail Abu-hanab, was detained in Gaza City after gaving an interview to a television station. Palestinian security sources said the arrests were in reaction to the group’s recent calls for terrorist action against Israelis.

[wellst0nev0ter]

43. *Grins*

what did I just say? Oh yeah

its civilian infrastructure was intact enough in order for them to effectively deal with Hamas terror group who were trying to derail the peace process

And you've just listed the instances where the PA has dealt with the Hamas terrorists, thereby supporting that conclusion. Mazel tov.

[barb162]

40. And suicide attacks are not the whole story of terrorist tactics

It's just one of many, many terrorist tools.

As far as antagonism is concerned , I suggest you read the Hamas Charter and note/realize that Hamas wants Israelis out of Israel.

[wellst0nev0ter]

44. And Arafat Was A Superterrorist

and the Israelis were able to deal with him in a peaceful manner.

As far as Hamas is concerned, Israelis should be among the last people to complain since the Israelis were backing Hamas during its incipient stages.

[barb162]

49. He was a corrupt piece of shit who stole from his own people.

He was no super terrorist in my book, just a terrorist who encouraged terrorism with his people but wanted money from the West at the same time, so presented a different picture to the West.


Israel backing Hamas in its infancy? That's an absurd non-point. That's like making the equally absurd argument that US backing of bin Laden and Afghan rebels in Afghanistan against Russia really means the US is to blame for 9-11. Completely ludicrous. It begs the question that people can foretell the future.

[wellst0nev0ter]

55. There Is No Evidence That Arafat Sponsored Terrorism

during his PA tenure, and you know it. The best they can gin up against him is that he doesn't do enough to stem terrorism and, yes, he's a corrupt SOB.

And yes, Israel did back Hamas during its infancy ever since the seventies. Up until 1987 it was the Palestinian branch of the well known Islamist terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood and Israel cynically used them in order to try to undermine the PLO's influence in the Occupied Territories. In '87 when the intifada made relationship with Israel untenable, they simply changed their name to Hamas and swore to destroy Israel. Since the Muslim Brotherhood is on record of opposing Israel, Israel's cynical support of the terrorist organization was very stupid, on many levels.

[barb162]

67. Yeah, he just put them in jail for an hour or so until the world,media

left

[barb162]

50. And by the way

The Israelis and Bill Clinton at that time were actively involved in producing a comprehensive statehood deal that was refused by Yasser Arafat. An intifada broke out instead of peace.

It is ridiculous to blame the Israelis for antagonizing the civilian population, when in fact organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah all share one core philosophy which was (and remains) to destroy Israel.

PLO was formed before the war of 1967. Nasrallah refers to Israel as "occupied Palestine" and Hamas has a very similar philosophy (check that Charter of theirs). This same philosophy is shared by several other groups that this land is only for us, and Israel must be killed.

Violent attacks against Palestinian Jews have gone on for decades, well before the creation of Israel and they haven't stopped. But the peace process itself generated some extremely violent attacks.

Rather than constant and ridiculous blaming of Israel, one needs to look at and really absorb the philosophy of so many ( but not all) Arabs and of Shi'a Iran, who believe the nation of Israel must cease to exist, to die or that its people must leave Israel.

Read the Hamas Charter and tell me if it is a document seeking peace with Israel. Read up on Hez and tell me if they want peace with Israel.

[wellst0nev0ter]

54. Read Up On The PLO Charter

That's right, it's pretty much the same thing as Hezbollah and Hamas regarding Israel, but apparently the Israelis were able to deal with them peacefully and the PLO-led PA was able to reign in terrorism for a time.

The solution against groups like Hamas and Hezbullah are political, not military. Take away the main reason for their existence (occupation) then you take away their legitimacy. You don't see support for Hamas among the Israeli Arabs, do you?

And the stunt pulled by Hezbollah that started the whole clusterfuck was done out of desperation, to show the larger Lebanese public that they are still legitimate. There was a reason the Shiites were only allotted 27 out of 128 seats by law, despite the fact they make up half the population: the rest of the country doesn't want to see them in power. The Israelis could have leveraged the antagonism non-Shiited Lebanese has against Hezbollah, but instead chose to antagonize the whole country and allow Hezbollah to be seen as the only entity putting up a fight.

And before you tell me any self-serving tale about how the Camp David II deal went down, read Charles Enderlin's Shattered Dreams, which I think is the most balanced account of what happened. And seeing how the Palestinians were being treated, one can believe that the negotiations were going to be rocky at best. To summarize:

• Barak refuses face-to-face meetings with Arafat and openly ignored Arafat during meals. At one point, Arafat tried to meet with Barak in the dining room but Barak dismissed him by turning away and sitting beside Allbright.
  
• Even after Palestinian negotiator Abu Ala suggested exchange of territories within the 1967 borders, Clinton falsely accuses him of not making any counter proposals and claims imperiously "this is not the UN General Assembly, if you want to make lectures, go over there and don't make me waste my time."
  
• Despite all that, Arafat made concessions on letting Israel retain 8-10% of the West Bank, letting 80 percent of the West Bank settlers remain and on the right of return. Yet the talks fell apart because he refused to give up Palestinian sovereingnty over the Temple Mount.

Arafat moved forward on the December Clinton proposals and the Taba talks. Arafat's main sin is that he did not move quick enough to suit both Clinton's and Barak's political ambitions. Ultimately it was Sharon that ended the peace process, not Arafat.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. What a load of unmitigated crap that post is...

If there were random words in CAPITALS in it, I'd swear I was talking to the ghost of a long-departed DUer here :)

The Israelis and Bill Clinton at that time were actively involved in producing a comprehensive statehood deal that was refused by Yasser Arafat.

Notice the wording there? The Palestinian negotiators are purposefully exluded from being named as 'actively involved in producing a comprehensive statehood deal'. I could have sworn that the Palestinians were involved in the peace process right back when they were secret backdoor negotiations and long before the Americans arrived to act as 'mediator'. Also, there was no formal offer of statehood at any point to reject....

It is ridiculous to blame the Israelis for antagonizing the civilian population...

Israel is bombing civilian areas in Lebanon, so how exactly is it ridiculous to blame Israel for antagonising the civilian population? What do you expect the civilian population to think? Plan a Hooray For Israel!!! parade and send the boys in the IDF pizzas???


PLO was formed before the war of 1967. Nasrallah refers to Israel as "occupied Palestine" and Hamas has a very similar philosophy (check that Charter of theirs). This same philosophy is shared by several other groups that this land is only for us, and Israel must be killed.

A very similar absolutist 'the land is ours!' philosophy was also shared by quite a few Israeli govts of the past, barb, and is still shared by some Israeli politicians currently. And when it comes to the PLO you've been here long enough to be very aware that the PLO recognised Israel's right to exist long ago. And the Palestinian PM only recently stated that he wanted a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Care to explain how those areas are Israel?

Violent attacks against Palestinian Jews have gone on for decades, well before the creation of Israel and they haven't stopped. But the peace process itself generated some extremely violent attacks.

Again the glaring omission of facts in this comment is speaking loudly of a complete lack of objectivity. How many times do you have to be told that the violence has been carried out by both sides? And during the Oslo years, both Israeli and Palestinian extremists carried out extremely violent attacks in order to try to derail the peace process. So why pretend that all the fault for violence is only on one side?

[barb162]

73. what an out-and-out piece of crap that post is

"Also, there was no formal offer of statehood at any point to reject...."
Uh, where did you get that boner , Violet? If you are trying to take a highly technical view about statehood versus land division which would have led to statehood, well, Arafat rejected any deal that would have led to statehood. He rejected a good deal for thePalesinians too.

"A very similar absolutist 'the land is ours!' philosophy was also shared by quite a few Israeli govts of the past, barb, and is still shared by some Israeli politicians currently."


"Some" Israeli politicians don't count as the majority under Olmert's government will be disbanding some Israeli settlements It's been well publicized. Too bad Hamas is still singing that ol "we will destroy Israel" tune. I hope you aren't trying to compare the two governments as equally interested in some two state solution..

"So why pretend that all the fault for violence is only on one side?"

Who is pretending again? This is a statement of fact: " Violent attacks against Palestinian Jews have gone on for decades, well before the creation of Israel and they haven't stopped. But the peace process itself generated some extremely violent attacks." SOrry you have such a problem with a statement of fact.


Your other comments are equally incorrect, Violet

[Violet_Crumble]

75. The one you posted earlier? Yes, it was...

Incorrect? How about you provide some proof in the way of documentation that there was a formal offer made at the Camp David talks? And a good deal for the Palestinians according to whom? Definately not according to anyone who wanted to see a viable Palestinian state emerge. I've posted these next few links more than a few times in the hope that you might actually read them. So for anyone else who's interested in facts and not the propaganda war where one side is totally blameless and the other totally evil and horrible, here's some good information:

Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba

'The Israeli offer at Camp David, the Clinton plan, and the Israeli proposals atTaba all broke new ground for Israel and the United States. In each case, thePalestinian negotiators accepted some signiªcant points and also broke newground. They did not reject the Israeli/U.S. proposals in toto.

At Camp David, the Israeli offer was unprecedented, but it was neither asgenerous nor as complete as Israel has since suggested. With the Clinton plan. Israeli and U.S. negotiators correctly noted that Palestinian officials had seri-ous reservations about proposals for the West Bank, Palestinian refugees, andthe Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary. In explaining the failure of the diplomaticroute, however, they did not highlight the significant Israeli reservations aboutthe Clinton plan on many of the same issues. The Taba talks were serious, and important developments took place. The Palestinians did not reject anotherIsraeli offer.

Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors

If there is one issue that Israelis agree on, it is that Barak broke every conceivable taboo and went as far as any Israeli prime minister had gone or could go. Coming into office on a pledge to retain Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal and undivided capital," he ended up appearing to agree to Palestinian sovereignty—first over some, then over all, of the Arab sectors of East Jerusalem. Originally adamant in rejecting the argument that Israel should swap some of the occupied West Bank territory for land within its 1967 borders, he finally came around to that view. After initially speaking of a Palestinian state covering roughly 80 percent of the West Bank, he gradually moved up to the low 90s before acquiescing to the mid-90s range.

Even so, it is hard to state with confidence how far Barak was actually prepared to go. His strategy was predicated on the belief that Israel ought not to reveal its final positions—not even to the United States—unless and until the endgame was in sight. Had any member of the US peace team been asked to describe Barak's true positions before or even during Camp David—indeed, were any asked that question today—they would be hard-pressed to answer. Barak's worst fear was that he would put forward Israeli concessions and pay the price domestically, only to see the Palestinians using the concessions as a new point of departure. And his trust in the Americans went only so far, fearing that they might reveal to the Palestinians what he was determined to conceal.

As a consequence, each Israeli position was presented as unmovable, a red line that approached "the bone" of Israeli interests; this served as a means of both forcing the Palestinians to make concessions and preserving Israel's bargaining positions in the event they did not. On the eve of Camp David, Israeli negotiators described their purported red lines to their American counterparts: the annexation of more than 10 percent of the West Bank, sovereignty over parts of the strip along the Jordan River, and rejection of any territorial swaps. At the opening of Camp David, Barak warned the Americans that he could not accept Palestinian sovereignty over any part of East Jerusalem other than a purely symbolic "foothold." Earlier, he had claimed that if Arafat asked for 95 percent of the West Bank, there would be no deal. Yet, at the same time, he gave clear hints that Israel was willing to show more flexibility if Arafat was prepared to "contemplate" the endgame. Bottom lines and false bottoms: the tension, and the ambiguity, were always there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too bad Hamas is still singing that ol "we will destroy Israel" tune. I hope you aren't trying to compare the two governments as equally interested in some two state solution.

Actually the Palestinian PM declared his support of a twi-state solution only a week or so ago, though I'm not surprised that you 'missed' noticing that. And yes, I do think both govts are equally interested in a two-state solution - Israel in one where the Palestinian state will be in Gaza and what parts of the West Bank Israel doesn't want, and as the Palestinian PM stated, the Palestinians want one in Gaza, all of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Will you be needing a link to the statement from the Palestinian PM?

Who is pretending again? This is a statement of fact: " Violent attacks against Palestinian Jews have gone on for decades, well before the creation of Israel and they haven't stopped. But the peace process itself generated some extremely violent attacks." SOrry you have such a problem with a statement of fact.


When someone repeatedly over a long period of time portrays the violence in this conflict as being carried out by one side only and they constantly neglect to metion violence carried out by the other side, there is a real element of pretense going on, not to mention a marked lack of objectivity or interest in being the slightest bit balanced when discussing the conflict. I hope that's clear enough for you to understand...

[barb162]

80. No, yours, both of them

I hope these two articles are clear enough for you to understand, that is, if you read them.

"Arafat didn't negotiate - he just kept saying no
Ever since the start of the second Palestinian intifada, a row has raged over who was responsible for the breakdown of the peace process. Now, for the first time, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak has weighed in, accusing Yasser Arafat of being a liar who talked peace while secretly plotting the destruction of Israel. Interview by Benny Morris

Benny Morris
Thursday May 23, 2002

Guardian

The call from Bill Clinton came hours after the publication in the New York Times of a "revisionist" article on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. On holiday, Ehud Barak, Israel's former prime minister, was swimming in a cove in Sardinia. According to Barak, Clinton said: "What the hell is this? Why is she turning the mistakes we made into the essence? The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism."
Clinton was speaking of the two-week-long Camp David conference in July 2000 which he had organised and mediated and its failure, and the eruption at the end of September of the Palestinian intifada which has continued since. Halfway through the conference, apparently on July 18, Clinton had "slowly" - to avoid misunderstanding - read out to Arafat a document, endorsed in advance by Barak, outlining the main points of a future settlement. The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy "functional autonomy"; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no "right of return" to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees' rehabilitation.

Arafat said no. Enraged, Clinton banged on the table and said: "You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe." A formal Palestinian rejection of the proposals reached the Americans the next day. The summit sputtered on for a few days more but to all intents and purposes it was over.
"He did not negotiate in good faith; indeed, he did not negotiate at all. He just kept saying no to every offer, never making any counterproposals of his own," he says. Barak shifts between charging Arafat with "lacking the character or will" to make a historic compromise (as did the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1977-79, when he made peace with Israel) to accusing him of secretly planning Israel's demise while he strings along a succession of Israeli and Western leaders and, on the way, hoodwinks "naive journalists".
snip
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4419440-103680,00.html
15501


Arafat Breaks Camp
Unlike Sadat, the Palestinian leader goes home empty-handed, but safe
By CHRISTOPHER OGDEN

Unfortunately, Yasser Arafat is no Anwar Sadat, the late Egyptian President whose presence was felt — and missed — when the Camp David peace talks collapsed last week. And not just unfortunately for Israel and the United States. Arafat's Arab supporters wanted the Palestinian leader to make no concessions on Jerusalem and no significant territorial compromise, and he did not. Unlike Sadat, he thought small; instead of bridging the Arab-Israeli chasm, he sent negotiations back to the drawing board.
snip
Clinton and Barak worked heroically, as had Carter and Begin. They were tireless, inventive and flexible, amazingly so in the case of Barak, whose political position in Israel is far less secure than Begin's was in 1978. The key difference lay in what Sadat and Arafat were willing to do. Sadat arrived at and left Camp David dangerously isolated from his Arab brethren. He had not consulted with them before going to Jerusalem or before signing the Camp David I pact, which Arabs considered a sellout. A hero to the West, he was shunned at home and three years later was assassinated by Arab nationalists. Arafat was cheered last week when he returned with nothing. Nothing, that is, except a likely guarantee he'll avoid dying in a hail of bullets.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2000/0807/ogden.html

[Violet_Crumble]

85. Care to explain why those two links I posted are 'crap'?

Barb, I don't know why it's so vitally important for you to cling to some mythlike version of events for Camp David where you see Israel as being blameless and the Palestinians as being 100% at fault. Instead of merely posting articles as some kind of 'rebuttal' how about for once you explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS why you so strongly disagree with the articles I linked to?

[barb162]

86. Violet, that's some real hyperbole on your.part there.

Whew! And of course, incorrect as usual. Trying to attribute 100% all or nothing statements to me when I presented reasoned links from the Guardian and Time, well, you're really stretching it now, Violet. My goodness. Why don't you read the post links again.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. You posted an interview with Barak!

If you'd bothered reading what I posted, you'd have noticed that it was an analysis of Camp David that pointed out the flaws in both the 'official' Israeli and Palestinian versions of events. So calling it crap and peddling the 'official' Israeli version by posting an interview with Barak is strongly indicating that you aren't interested in any factual or fair version of events, but only in one that promotes Israel as being 110% correct and the Palestinians to be blamed for everything...

I'll ask again. Would you care to actually discuss the articles I posted (neither of which didn't apportion blame to solely one side), or shall you only be labelling them as crap without going into any detail about why you think they're crap?

[mother earth]

7. This IS the opinion of many, sadly. I am astounded by some

women I know who can see the Bush regime for what it is, yet, they are in full support of Israel's handling of Lebanon & are surprisingly silent on how this really is part of the neocon agenda.

[Obamarama]

17. I despise Bush, and I despise the Neocons...

But I am 100% behind Israel in this mess. Those of you who have nothing to offer the dialogue other than wagging fingers ought to pick up a history book and actually READ it. Maybe then you'd understand.

[wellst0nev0ter]

21. I Already Know That 18 Years Of Occupying Southern Lebanon

didn't eradicate Hizbullah, as we can all see today.

What is ironic that the Shia in southern Lebanon initially recieved the Israeli soldiers as their liberators, showering them with rosepetals and rice. But because the Israelis squandered that opportunity when they decided to treat the Lebanese Shia similar to how they treat the Palestinians in the occupied territories. . . well, I'm sure you know the rest of the story.

Now that Israel has decided pursue the idiotic Rumsfeldian shawk'n'awe attacks against Lebanese civilian targets with very little connections to Hezbollah (imagine Turkey bombing Baghdad airport, the Green Zone, Sadr City and Karbala in response to the recent terrorism they've experienced from the Kurds), I wouldn't be surprised if there is going to be a Christian Maronite wing of Hezbollah when the dust finally settles.

Before you explain, I know you've recently returned from Israel and are privy to your perfectly legitimate concerns and misgivings. But I think you know perfectly well that Israel will have to come to make some kind of deal with Hezbollah in the end.

Since they made deals with that Superterrorist Yasser Arafat and the PLO, Israel is not going to face any existential threat or lose face if they pursue that path with Hezbollah. T

hey didn't withdraw from southern Lebanon in 2000 because they were losing or because Hezbollah was behaving themselves. The withdrawal from Lebanon, like the one in Gaza, was almost purely logistical so anyone who is expecting anything different this time around - apart from a stronger and better prepared Hezbollah - should prepare for more years of headaches. The Israelis can deal now or wait until hundreds more bodies pile up on both sides, it's their choice.

[MrPrax]

15. Sick...

This intellectual snuff porn...

But just who is a "civilian" in the age of terrorism, when militants don't wear uniforms, don't belong to regular armies and easily blend into civilian populations?

Yeah that's right, Al.

Just like you couldn't really tell which Jew was a good one or a bad in Germany...some behaved themselves, but for the most part, they disguised themselves as good Germans and tried to blend in so they wouldn't be notice. But luckily some in Germany noticed them and took action against this destructive threat to the very core of German culture, history and nation.

I guess Al, it really all depends on how you look at.

[barb162]

20. I thought it was a good analysis

not great, but good

The good/bad Jews thing is unnecessary.


SO what do you have to write about people shooting rockets into your country...are they civilians? You know, a hundred rockets a day hitting the Haifa area. Rockets hitting Israel from Gaza every day. Is that your definition of civilians...those who shoot those rockets into sovereign countries?

[wellst0nev0ter]

25. This Is Neither The Time Or The Place For False Arguements

There is no argument about whether Hezbollah militants are innocent civilians or not. Dersh's argument are about those who refuses to leave their homes in the face of Israeli bombing, whether they sympathize with Hezbollah or not.

Stick with the issue at hand, put away the straw men, comprende?

[barb162]

30. Check the first paragraph ; You're evading the question

"But just who is a "civilian" in the age of terrorism, when militants don't wear uniforms, don't belong to regular armies and easily blend into civilian populations?"

Again what about those so-called "civilians" shooting off rockets every day?

[wellst0nev0ter]

36. The Rocketeers Are Apparently Not At Beirut's Airport

The Christian sections of Beirut, and other far-flung reaches of Lebanon.

They are located along the Israel border, the only place they can reach Israeli cities with their rockets.

Yes I know it's difficult for you types to distinguish civilians from militants, but instead of seeking the cooperation of a reacently stabilized Lebanese government in handling the situation, the Israelis decide to play 4th generational warfare of which will be costly and of which will pit even more of the population of Lebanon against them.

As I said several times, imagine Turkey bombing Baghdad Airport in response to Kurdish terrorism. Stupid, huh?

[barb162]

41. Evasion again. But a certain bunker is in a neighborhood

and "you types" would deal with this bunker under apartment buildings in what fashion? Ask Hez to come out like nice little boys and give themselves up? No, Hez probably prefers the innocent civilian deaths, unlike Israel. The Israelis dropped leaflets telling people to leave. Does Hez warn Israel when rockets are coming in to Israel. No. Do those Hez rocket shooters care what and who they hit? No.


And I don't notice you condemning the fact that Hez kidnapped two soldiers and is shooting off 2200 rockets into Israel so far. Even some of the usual Mideast leaders who usually applaud this kind of terrorists crap are shaking their heads at this latest Hez boner.

[wellst0nev0ter]

45. Bunkers In Christian Maronite Neighborhoods?

In North Beirut? Where they can't attack Israel if they tried?

Nice try, nice dodge, but you know full well that the bombings against seemingly all targets is simply nonsensical and cruel.

And please don't pull that "but they dropped leaflets" line. Would you feel better if Hezbollah dropped leaflets before their rocket attacks? I think we both know the answer to that.

And here I am thinking the fact that Hezbollah's attack and capture and current rocket attacks are condemnable doesn't need to be said. But I guess people like you need that kind of constant reassurance in order to receive any further commentaries, especially those that dare to be critical of Israel's current policies.

[barb162]

47. There have definitely been mistakes as there always are in war.

Name a war that's been perfect with perfect accuracy.

By the way, you are still evading my questions.

Hez probably could have stopped this escalation by returning the abducted soldiers and stopping the rocket attacks a few days back. I find it amazing that anyone could be talking about Israel when Hez is causing destruction of Lebanon and Israel. Saying Hez's actions are condemnable is really nice. Okay,the UN has done that and so have a whole bunch of world leaders a few days back. Did you notice a cessation in rocket fire? I think Israel is interested in stopping them now, not worrying about telling them what they did isn't nice. Because Hez really doesn't give a damn what people think is nice or isn't nice. They are after the destruction of Israel.

So how do you stop the Hez terrorists again? How do you stop those so-called civilian crews from launching their rockets and their leaders hiding out in civilian populations? Could you frame for a reality based discussion?

[barb162]

51. I just have to add here, how the heck do I know where they are?

I am not in Lebanon and I don't hang out with Hez. But I suspect there was excellent intelligence that there was a bunker because I don't believe Israel is just going to load up some bombs and just dump them any ol' place. From the reports I read, there was in fact a bunker and the Hez leaders weren't in it. SO Israel was right about the location of the bunker but not who was in it at the time the bombs were dropped. And you'll have to ask the Hez leaders where they place their bunkers instead of asking me where or why they do what they do and if they like one crowdedn building or another for better cover.

[MrPrax]

28. If your in favor...

of killing innocent people to achieve your noble goals, then this rationale is as good as any...

Unfortunately it really has nothing to do with the fact that these questions have been dealt with already in international law and our own cultures principles of 'due process'.

I know you are not in favor of killing innocent people, but you are in favor of those innocent people being sacrificed to your political aims...whether this be peace, Word of God or territorial expansion for the Greater State of Israel.

All noble goals except for those that object.

The innocent will object.

[barb162]

46. And I wrote I am in favor of killing innocent people where?

I feel terrible for the true innocents on all sides of this conflict.

Is a Hez rocket launcher crew innocent civilians to you? They are terrorists, plain and simple. They ae NOT representing the Lebanese government ( at least until a day or so ago) as far as I am aware. One cannot let them shoot rockets into Israel day after day as they have been doing. Israel's going after these terrorists and their leaders is called self-defense/defending its people. Israel has every right under international law to self defense as does every sovereign nation.

Israel ceded Gaza in Sept 05 and will be giving up some settlements in the West Bank . Israel is not expanding.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. '*true* innocents'?

Dershy is claiming that civilians in southern Lebanon who don't leave their homes are complicit with the terrorists and therefore shouldn't really be defined as civilians. Is that a stance you agree with?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

66. Really? Do you know me? Do you know what I think?

BTW, would you like to cite a post where I make such a vicious statement

[Solon]

68. First, that's Dershowitz's position, its actually quite obvious...

Considering his position that was posted in the OP, and the pro-torture position he took a while ago. He is NOT an advocate for anything I value, and this particular paper is basically saying that he doesn't really distinguish between Hezbollah's members and their neighbors down the street. Basically saying all Lebonese who can't or won't leave the area are terrorists, or at the very least, no longer civilians, but combatants, regardless of the fact that in order to be a combatant, the international definition anyways, you have to actually PICK UP A DAMNED WEAPON. The fact that you agree with THAT makes my statement true, unless you now deny it.

[barb162]

70. Again, as long as you are making an outrageous accusation

against me, show a citation where you can support where I wrote such a post. AND we aren't discussing the author's other articles, just the one in THIS thread. Check the I/P rules

[Solon]

72. Well, the one in this thread...

Seems pretty obvious, he's setting up some strawmen that are to be bombed. Look, he actually called the people that store the rockets, but don't fire them civilians, no offense to him, but that is stupid. No one in their right mind, either in the international community or in any nation would consider such a person a non-combatant. However, he then says that those who only decide to stay are on the same level as said terrorist, which is a patently absurd notion.

[Andromeda]

74. How strange, you must be "channeling" again...

I've never heard Barb say that Israel is blameless in "anything", just not blameless in "everything." See the difference?

Where did you see Barb say all Arabs are dirty and evil? NOWHERE, that's where.

[barb162]

65. in what sentences is that point stated

[Solon]

69. Its right in the OP

learn to read.

The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. Try reading the article, barb...

It's what he's writing about. It's right there in black and white. What on earth do you think the article's about??

btw, you didn't answer my question. Do you agree with his stance that civilians who do not leave their homes are complicit with terrorists and shouldn't really be defined as civilians?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scurrilous]

29. Good discussion here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009218.php

[Tom Joad]

35. Dershy does not believe that Arab lives matter. No wonder he is loved

by groups like AIPAC and ADL.

[barb162]

52. HEz, Hamas, IJ, etal don't believe that Israeli lives matter

[Recursion]

38. He's half-right, but his wrong outweighs his right

He's half right in that International Law and recognized jus in bello are not designed for the state of most modern conflicts (since about 1960), in which loyalties of populations are not entirely overt, nor completely for one or the other side (since most wars since 1960 have been by proxy on territory not controlled by either belligerent, much as they were in the 17th and 18th centuries).

The 17th and 18th century answer to this was to strictly distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and, in general, hold civilians blameless for rendering aid and assistance to the army that happened to be in power (this in itself was in reaction to the horrible civilian massacres from previous centuries). Unfortunately, the military technologies of today do not make that type of distinction feasible -- indeed, it would be suicide for an inferior force to wear regular uniforms and establish an order of battle, to say nothing of the now-quaint habits of pre-designating times and places of battle and meeting in a shoulder-to-shoulder line (which, as idiotic as that type of warfare might seem, did significantly limit the war's effects on civilians).

This is a wrong-headed and dangerous conclusion, but I think he's right that there are not appropriate instruments in international law, currently, to reflect the methods and environment of modern warfare.

Finally, as much as I am a fan of the idea of the UN, this war and the Iraq war have revealed (for me at least) a fundamental flaw in the current laws of war: the premise of the UN is that in any war, at least one side by definition must be criminal. This makes demands more maximalist, and in my opinion leads to greater bloodshed.

[IndianaGreen]

42. When they do it, it is a war crime; when we do it, it is self-defense

They are those that will say that killing civilians is regrettable, yet they persist in their regrettable killings. Then there are those that could stop the killings, but refuse to do so, at least until the ones doing the killings get tired of doing so.

Who is worse, Israel for doing to Lebanon what the US did to Iraq, or the US for vetoing a ceasefire resolution at the UN and for gleefully expediting arms shipments to Israel so she can continue with her killings?

Published on Sunday, July 23, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

Lebanon: Black & White and Dead All Over

by Lawrence Pintak

If the Reagan administration had not – unnecessarily – taken sides with Lebanon’s Christians against its Muslim majority, who initially saw the Marines as saviors from the Israeli guns, it is likely the majority of Shia would never have been radicalized. And if Israel had reached out to the Shi’ites of south Lebanon – who hated the PLO almost as much as the Israelis did and largely welcomed the invasion to “cleanse” the region of Palestinians – it might have created a buffer far more effective than any military shield.

But neither of those things happened. Instead, what the Israelis call “Hezbollahstan” took the place of Arafat’s “Fatahland” in south Lebanon and the suicide bomb was invented in Beirut. Two decades later, Lebanese are once more dying under Israeli bombs and an American administration is once more seeing black and white.

The Bush administration’s cynical decision to allow Israel to, as one right-wing commentator put it, “reduce Beirut to a parking lot,” is a policy guaranteed to produce yet another wave of radicalized young Muslims in Lebanon and across the region, creating common-cause between Shi’ite and Sunni radicals at a time when the two are coming to blows in Iraq, thus further undermining U.S. interests and endangering “moderate” Arab regimes.

Washington has proudly pointed to condemnations of Hezbollah by Sunni Arab governments like Saudi Arabia and Egypt as bolstering its cause; in fact, as the carnage continues to unfold on satellite TV and anger mounts on the “Arab street,” those regimes are likely to rue the day they ever uttered those words.

Israel lost its 20-year war against Hezbollah in south Lebanon. History tells us it is unlikely to do better this time. The idea that Hezbollah can be eliminated is fantasy. It is possible Israel will wipe out Hezbollah’s leadership. It is possible it will cripple Hezbollah’s conventional military capacity. It is possible the violence will spark a backlash against Hezbollah among other Lebanese. But Hezbollah is part of the fabric of Lebanon. Its most lethal weapons are those in the shadows; its pool of recruits is bottomless; the potential impact of this conflict on the region, immeasurable.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0723-21.htm

[barb162]

53. It's endless condemnations, recriminations, negotiations, etc.

One ceasefire after another before rearming and fighting starts again. Sets of talks after endless sets of talks over decades. I see nothing gleeful about the US supposedly " gleefully expediting arms..." either. I don't think anyone is gleeful over this death and destruction except Hez with its agenda of starting this war. They succeeded.

[freakinoutinaz]

77. endless war

I'm with barb, it's a ceaseless war and Israel wants nothing
but to live in peace.  Every time there is calm, Hamas or
Hezbollah does something to disrupt it.  This time it was
kidnapping Israeli soldiers.  What other country on the face
of the earth drops warning leaflets before bombing?  Name one.

[wellst0nev0ter]

78. So If Hezbollah Dropped Leaflets You'll Feel Better?

sh'yeah right.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. 'Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others.'

This article is vile and disgusting and anyone who supports his words where he tries to label Lebanese civilians as not being *real* civilians should be ashamed of their own lack of a moral compass. It's bad enough that Dershy advocates legally sanctioned torture, but this piece of tripe takes the cake....

[bemildred]

62. PAUL C. CAMPOS: Civilians in southern Lebanon not enemy combatants

---

Note Dershowitz's argument closely resembles that made by controversial University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill in his repugnant "little Eichmanns" essay, for which Churchill was properly excoriated by people all across the political spectrum. The office workers in the WTC were not truly innocent victims, Churchill claimed, because they had chosen to be part of the system with which al Qaeda was at war. Churchill also endorses something like Dershowitz's sliding scale of culpability, arguing that his claims don't really apply to the janitors in the building.

Indeed, both Churchill and Dershowitz are merely echoing the arguments of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden has warned Americans many times that if we allow our government to enable what he sees as the violent oppression of Muslims, then we are, to use Dershowitz's term, "complicit" in that violence, and become legitimate targets of al Qaeda's military operations.

It's striking how, when our enemies intentionally kill ordinary men, women and children, we have no difficulty recognizing that such acts are essentially monstrous - yet when we or our allies commit similar acts we find it almost impossible to do so. (I'm using the word "intentional" in its precise legal sense: the commission of an act one knows will have certain consequences.)

It's said the difference between soldiers and terrorists is that soldiers don't want to kill civilians, while terrorists do. But it's easy to overstate this difference. For one thing, given that sociopaths are rare, the average terrorist and the typical soldier would no doubt prefer to achieve their goals in less horrific ways. Each knows that what he does kills innocent people, but each has been taught to believe the greater good justifies his actions.

ADN

[Bryan Sacks]

76. what makes your jaw hit the floor when you read this. . .

is that:

1. There's something quite right about the concept he's employing (but sloppily; it's very complicated); yet

2. What Mr. Dershowitz and his supporters are too biased to see is that he has just slipped the noose around his own neck. He's basically made Ward Churchill's argument for him ("technocrats of empire" don't wear uniforms either, but they support and run cover for the killers just the same)

Don't you get it, Al? This argument applies to ISRAELI CITIZENS far more than Lebanese! Israel is a nominally democratic country whose military commits artocities on almost a daily basis. Surely Israel's comparatively-wealthy citizenry is far more complicit in the actions of its military than the immobile poor of Gaza and Lebanon are for the actions of the terrorists/resistance that operate there!

Only a blind, overfed, smug imperialist couldn't see that.

[cool user name]

84. Excellent post ...

Great insight!

[cool user name]

81. Does anyone still take this loon seriously?

He is a fraud and not even an original fraud after lifting material from Joan Peters' "From Time Immemorial."

The guy can't even make up his own fantasies for crying out loud! How does this guy still have a job much less an audience!

[DemFromMem]

87. If you are voluntarily helping Hezbollah, Dersh is right