Has Israel Crossed The Line? (Harretz Daily)

[Flying_Pig]

<snip>
On Monday, as the prime minister was making his empty speech, devoid of any realistic political vision, Israel Defense Forces helicopters were bombing the Gaza Strip, hitting several terrorists but also killing and injuring many innocent Palestinian civilians. The IDF yesterday expressed its regret over the undeliberate injuries, but said the bombings would continue.

These attacks are a genuine reflection of this cabinet's policy, a policy of an ever-increasing use of force. While Ariel Sharon fantasizes about "a substantial chance of breaking the stalemate,"
without any facts on which to base this gut feeling, all the average Palestinian can feel is the heavy hand of the IDF. Every Israeli who cares about the character of his country should be concerned by the degree of force currently exercised by Israel.

For three years now, since the start of the intifada, Israel has flatly - and rightfully - rejected the effort of its enemies to equate the horrors perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists with the operations of the IDF in its war on terror. Granted, these operations sometimes injure unarmed Palestinians, including children who get caught in the crossfire. But Israel's main argument, which by and large is justified, is that, unlike the Palestinian terrorists, the IDF does not set out to target peaceful civilians. The ethos of the IDF still calls for every effort, even to the extent of risking the lives of our own men, in order to avoid inadvertent injury to innocent bystanders. Senior IDF commanders say that, whenever such injuries appear imminent, the operation is canceled - no matter how important it is.

But Monday's bombing, and the declared intention of the IDF to keep up this practice, undermines the "we-didn't-mean-it" argument. When the target is in the midst of a densely populated civilian area, even if it is deliberately located there, the assailant cannot hide behind this defense, even if it uses sophisticated weapons such as those of the Israel Air Force.
<snip>

More: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/352392.html

[Loonman]

1. Sharon is a Madman

He lusts for war, and probably got a sexual thrill when he blew some guy away in his Army days.


The uprising would not have occured if this fatbodied asshole had not visited the Temple Mount.

[bluesoul]

2. Haaretz

Good article even though they go along the line of "justified killings" and the usual "Israel army does everything to avoid civilian deaths" which is BS. But still they'r the closest to what can be considered objective and even handed reporting in Israeli media..

[Jim Sagle]

5. That's a well-known lie. Get a clue.

[Resistance]

14. and you wonder

why some might call you "Sharon apologist"?

[Aidoneus]

7. that is not at all true

do not give the Bulldozer more credit than he's due. After a decade of being screwed over by the so-called "peace process" by husslers from both parties and their backers, to say nothing of decades previous, it was a fire waiting for a spark.

[Resistance]

15. Sharon's "security" personnel

shooting into crowds of unarmed Palestinians after the visit didn't help either.

[edzontar]

3. A thoughtful editorial

More evidence that not all Israelis are as uncritically fanatic and supportive of the Madman Sharon as some of their US (and DU) defenders can be.

[Saudade]

4. Weird

As the Ha'aretz article shows, there is a healthy and contentious debate in Israel.

It is bizarre and disturbing that here in America such debate is not permitted.

I can't think of any subject that is more taboo to open discussion in our supposedly open society.

[edzontar]

6. Indeed--just look at the firestorm aimed at Dean

Or anyone else who even SUGGESTS that the US take a more balanced stance in the ME.

Say something like that, you better duck!!!

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. Dean has since clarified his position, he is 100% behind sharon

"...the former Vermont governor declared that, while the United States should become more engaged, he did not have any fundamental objections with President George W. Bush’s policies...

When asked by the Jewish newspaper Forward late last year as to whether he supported APN’s perspective, Governor Dean replied "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view."..

He also rejects calls by APN and other liberal Zionist groups that Israel’s requested $12 billion loan guarantee be linked to an Israeli freeze on constructing additional illegal settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, arguing that such aid should instead be unconditional...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm


Edit to note that I have not endorsed, volunteered for or donated to any candidate, and this post is not intended to be an endorsement of Dean.

All the candidates who have raised enough money to be considered top tier have expressed their support of Israel too.

[bluesoul]

9. Well

It seems Kucinich is the only reasonable choice in the end...:kick:

[edzontar]

12. My point was not Dean's own position....but the flack

That was aimed at him when he even SUGGESTED a more measured approach to the problem.

The ME thought-police are always lurking, waiting to pounce on any real or implied criticism of the infallible Isreali regime.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. Well unconditional support for Israel is the Dem party position

so any candidate who espouses views that run counter to that is bound to get some flack, and I saw the AIPAC guy on CNN say that Dean had been brought back into line, and indeed he has.

I don't mean to single out Dean, all of the candidates who are considered electable support the sharon regime - that's why they are electable!

[edzontar]

16. Right--hopefully one or more them will do better once they get in....

Its at least possible that Dean might take a more pragmatic approach than others.....anyway I am presently backing him.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. I believe Dean will pleasantly surprise you

100% behind Israel certainly doesn't mean backing Sharon.

[seventhson]

10. Dean's position for balance came AFTER his statements re: Peace Now

and Aipac.

This is a complex issue. Dean's position concerns me.

But I think it was not so nuanced at that time and he is refining it.

LOOK- He Wants CLINTON as his Middle East Negotiator!!!

That is brilliant! It demonstrates balance AND compromise (which is required).

Israelis are being murdered. Palestinians are being murdered.

But Dean needs the support of Aipac to win. I am not sure he will get it but if we are to get Clinton in there as negotiator/arbitrator we need to get Dean elected first.

I WISH Kucinich had a prayer. Americans just will not vote for him in large numbers .

THEY WILL VOTE FOR DEAN!!!

Dean/Edwards in 2004 (Kucinich for Secretary of Peace)

[Flying_Pig]

11. It is past time for the Israeli people to take responsibility for the

failure of their elected leaders. Israel will have no peace, until war-mongering fascists like Sharon are driven from power. The same can be said for us here in the U.S., because we will NEVER know peace again as long as Bush and the Republicans are in power. Both Bush and Sharon must be removed from office, not only for the good of their respective nations, but also for the cause of peace in the ME, and the world.

I find it very interesting that Bush and Sharon have formed such a strong alliance, so strong, that Israel calls Bush, "The best friend Israel ever had". Two birds (of prey) of a feather. And yet, Bush can go to Malaysia, as he did earlier this week, and deny to the assembled nations, that the U.S. does NOT play favorites in the M.E. I can just imagine the collective sighs of incredulousness that echoed the room when he spouted off with that one! If they weren't already convinced that G.W. Bush is a pathalogical liar, they certainly were by the end of the meeting.

What I still can't figure out though, is why so many Democrats continue to support Sharon and his Likudniks. No matter the bill or resolution, if it concerns Israel, they will vote for it, even if it's not in the best interests of their own nation. In doing so, they are hurting the cause of peace, and in essence, also helping Bush.

By approving Israeli pushed bills like Syrian Sanctions, and even the $87B Bush wanted, they are handing Bush and his PNAC neocons still more power and money to finance their (and Israel's) goal of ME hegemony, control of ME oil resources, and the subjugation of the majority of the ME population. Why are Democrats doing this? Why are they in lock-step with people like Tom DeLay?

By further enabling Bush and Sharon (as Sharon and his American allies and friends in groups like AIPAC, and in the media, will be doing everything they can to help Bush get elected), they are also helping Bush's "re-election" campaign. Why would Democrats do this?

Why would ANY Democrat do ANYTHING whatsoever to help G.W. Bush in ANY way? Since when is dancing to Israel's tune more important to some of our congresspeople, that the interests of our own nation? These questions need to be asked. We need to demand of these Democrats, that they stop supporting Bush, and, Israel's current government. Their failure to do so, is betraying this nation, their party, and the cause of world peace. They should leave that for the Republicans to do, because they do such a damned fine job at it.