War crimes in our face

[marcus_b]

Let's sober up a little here. What we are witnessing is a war of aggression by Israel against Lebanon. It serves no defensive purpose, and even if you do not see this as an aggression, you will have to deal with the fact that Israel's mass killing is indiscriminate and un-proportional.

As an aggression, it is the supreme crime that includes within it all the evil that follows: The death, the pain, the need to evacuate, malnutrition, the economic and social damage done now that will have consequences for decades to come.

It also includes within it all the individual war crimes that we hear about on the news: The indiscriminate bombing of civilians and the destruction of civilian infrastructure like the main power plant and the roads and bridges that people need to get out of their. According to Rahul Mahajan (http://www.empirenotes.org/) 'Halutz told Israeli TV that they would “turn back Lebanon’s clock 20 years”'. Well, that's a war crime, openly admitted. Nothing in the existing international laws and conventions allows a country to bomb another country into the stone age, for any purpose. An aggressor has no rights, only responsibilities, namely to pay reparations, to guarantee security and well-being of the civilian population, and to give back control of the country to the civilian leadership. This is the standard that has to be applied.

EDIT: I should add something. Some people try to frame this event has being caused by some other event, like the kidnapping of soldiers. Such an opinion borders on naive. Israel is purporting this exactly because they want to. As the US attack on Iraq, this is a war of choice, not of necessity. Any pretense is good enough for such a cause to some people.

[Swede]

1. You forgot the rockets.

Those pesky rockets.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Which ones?

The Israeli or the Lebanese?

[Swede]

The side lobbing rockets into Haifa.

I think this is a legitimate thing to defend against.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Oh sure.

Of course, they happen to be lobbing rockets into Haifa because Israel is lobbing rockets into Beirut.

Which would make it legitimate.

[Solo_in_MD]

12. Israel is not using rockets which are unguided area munitions

They are primairly using air launched weapons which are aimed at a particular target.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Israel is using rockets.

And they're certainly killing a lot more civilians than the Lebanese.

This whole escalation is entirely Israel's fault.

[Solo_in_MD]

20. Which rockets are they using?

Maybe some 2.5s from the Cobras, but I doubt it. You do understand the difference between a missile and a rocket? Its substantive and quite germane.

Yes more Lebanese are dieing that Israeli, but there is no evidence or indiscriminate bombardment of populated areas

There is more than enough fault to go around.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. A missle is just a rocket with a guidance system.

The Israelis have the fancy U.S. made ones. The Lebanese have the old Soviet WWII era surplus ones.

Guidance systems on missles are not some sort of moral license to shoot them into populated areas.

[Solo_in_MD]

30. Then you fail to understand the tactical and technical realities of urban

warfare...

Rockets hit in an area. You can not launch one with any confidence of hitting a particular building. That is not bad for Hezbollah since they can not target them anyway. They just send them off in a direction.

Missiles are aimed at a particular target, building etc, and have a high probability of hitting it. That is why you see a buildings destroyed, not entire blocks in an effort to get that one building.

Israel has been leafleting areas to get the civilians to leave before they are bombed. Don't forget that by launching and storing rockets in civilian areas, Hezbollah has effectively drafted local civilians as human shields.

Considering the amount of ordinance the IDF has used, the civilian casualties are surprisingly light.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Oh, I've got a pretty good understanding.

Israel claims to be going after Hezbollah, but they're doing a pretty good job of missing them and hitting civilians. And the leaflets is PR. They did, you'll remember, cut off civilian evacuation routes.

[coalition_unwilling]

43. You're absolutely deluded. Over 200 Lebanese civlians have

already been killed by the military acumen of the IDF. Give me a friggin break.

[Solo_in_MD]

44. Thats quite low considering the damage that has been done

If they were targeting them it would in the 1000s

[coalition_unwilling]

47. Yeah, it would have been, and posters like you would

probably be able to keep crafting rationalizations for it, although you'd change your tune slightly.

Do you really think Israel is going to wind up any safer when there is the inevitable cease-fire? I can already forsee a new Hamas\Hezbollah-type organization arising out of the ashes of this latest atrocity (just like Hezbollah arose from the ashes of the first Israeli occupation of Lebanon in the '80s and '90s).

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. So what is your solution to the crisis?

I know one soltuion and that is for the world to recognize that BOTH sides are wrong, both sides have blood in their hands and we have to stop enabling both sides. This menas Iran out of the business, US out of the business and you and me out of the businesss. The children need to be locked up in a room, throw away the key and let them discusss peace.

By the way Hisbollah did not only rise beause of the evil jews, but also becuase of the local conditions on the ground, and the lack of job oportunities and other goodies in southern lebanon, but I am sure you knew the Shia minority is treated almost like a second class caste in Lebanon.

[coalition_unwilling]

53. Here's one way to kick-start the peace process:

tell Israel she must immediately implement a cease-fire or she will lose the $5 billion in annual military aid from the U.S. Don't keep using words like "balance" and "restraint." Instead, use phrases like "Stop the bombing."

If Israel refuses to implement a cease-fire, suspend all aid to them immediately.

May I remind everyone reading this thread that Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, not civilians? Israel responded by bombing and shelling civilian areas in Lebanon. It makes me sick that I once strongly supported Israel's right to exist - I'm not so sure anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. May I remind you this crisis did not start two weeks ago

But in 2000? The kidnapping, taking prisoner, whatever semantics you want to use of two troops is the latest development.

Israel did pull out of Lebanon in 2000 in an effort to break the cycle.

By the way, if Isreal feels it is going to be destroyed, them nukes will fly. I hope you realize that.

And you are not being fair here. Tell me, why did Hisbollah continue to bomb Israel, the Green Line Israel, after Israel pulled out? Oh yes, their stated goal is to throw the zionist to the sea... and kill women and children. I guess that is ok though. As I said, both sides have blood in their hands... BOTH SIDES... so stop pretending and just thinking that the Israelis are the only agressors here. BOTH ARE.

[coalition_unwilling]

58. Well, if you want to get technical about it, the boundary that

Israel withdrew behind in 2000 was not entirely un-disputed. As I recall, there were still claims to some land that Israel retained (farms, if I recall correctly). You're absolutely right that this didn't start two weeks ago or even in 2000. It actually started when a very foolish (imho) decision was made to allow a Jewish nation-state to be created on lands already populated by indigenous peoples (Palestinians). Couldn't anyone see that there would be a hell of a blow-back for that foolish, short-sighted decision?

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I think the king of Saudi Arabia made a great suggestion to FDR, when he advised him to found a Jewish state in the ruins of post-WWII Germany. Now there would have been some justice of a cosmic variety, imho.

I wrote my senior thesis in history on Nazi Germany's implementation of the Final Solution and how Hitler used and manipulated the German bureaucracy to try to achieve his oft-stated aim of annhilation of European Jewry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. So you want a final solution

I did not write my senior thesis in the holocaust, as a senior in collage, but my Post Graduate Education included the history of antisemitism. I could recommend some books... by the way... I am sure you have heard of the Samsom Option... maybe that is what it will take for the ME to finally go to pieces.

[coalition_unwilling]

71. I notice you didn't uppercase "final solution" so I wasn't sure

whether I was interpreting your posting correctly. I want people to resolve their differences non-violently. Is that too much to ask? I want workers, whether they be Israeli, Palestinian or Lebanenes, to stop killing one another in the service of capital. Is that too much to ask?

Actually, I haven't heard of anything called the "Samsom Option." What is it? (If I have heard of it, it's not ringing a bell right now.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. If Israel ever faces destruction

this is not talked abuot in polite company, they will launch their full nuclear arsenal...

That is Samsom, read the bible, and the story of Samsom, that is where it is commng from

And you think they are killing each other in the service of capital?

Israel is very much so a Socialist state, and why we did not give it any support during the 1950s... and up until 1967 we were still doubtful of giving any support.

Hisbollah is killing in the name of Allah and to liberate the holy land for Islam in a nice echo of the Crusades.

To do a classic marxist analysis of this crisis misses the mark by quite a bit.

[coalition_unwilling]

77. Israel is most certainly not a "socialist" state, although it

has a much better system of social welfare than the U.S. (which ain't saying a lot). But last time I checked, Israel was still firmly in the capitalist column (businesses privately owned, not publicly).

Just because Hisbollah is killing in the name of Allah doesn't mean that is actually what is happening -- those people work for a living and the people they are killing most probably work for a living as well. I am against workers killing workers period!

I don't mean to impugn the patriotism of Israelis or Lebanese, but simply to ask the old Latin question "Cui bono?" ("Who benefits"?) from this latest round of hostilities -- I think a pretty solid case can be made that the war industrialists, i.e., capitalists, are the principal beneficiary (more orders for more war toys). But hey, that's just me.

Sorry, I didn't pick up on the "Samsom" tag (I think it's that I have usually seen the name spelled "Samson".) I really don't think it's a question of Israel being destroyed from without so much as it is an undisupted demographic fact that the birthrate of Arab Israelis far exceeds the birthrate of Jewish Israelis, both native-born and immigrant. Over the next 40 years, if my memory serves, the percentage of Israelis who are Arab is expected to become a slight majority, if current demographic trends continue. At that point, what will happen?

Israel can become like apartheid South Africa, where a minority attempted to rule the majority. Or it can "transform" itself into something else (my preference). What that something else may be will be fascinating to see develop.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Israel IS a socialist state

sorry to break this to you. Even if right now it is ruled by the right wing. No one in that right wing will privatize the social net.

But hey whatever trips your trigger.

By the way, again a marxist analysis misses this by a wide mark...

[coalition_unwilling]

81. Good lord, I thought "socialist" state referred to the ownership

of the means of production (public), and not to the network of social welfare programs. Before a nation qualifies as socialist, you must examine who owns the productive capacity of the nation. If the productive capacity is largely owned in common (as is the case in Cuba and formerly in the Soviet Union), you can call it a "socialist" state. If the productive capacity is largely owned privately (as is the case in the U.S.A. and, I'm reasonably confident, Israel), you call it a "capitalist" state.

That's why when the right wing says that FDR brought in "socialism," anyone who knows anything just laughs -- if anything, the network of social programs that FDR helped to usher in helped to save "capitalism."

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Oh lord, how well that worked in the Soviet Union

that called itself COMMUNIST, that is what ownership of the means of production means.

Israel and Sweden have a mixed economy with many aspects actually owned by the state, or the people... but whatever trips your trigger, by the way, the USSR was not communist either, and never even approached that ideal.

In a funny way, we are not living in a capitalist country either, at least not one as defined by Adam Smith and Ricardo... but that is neither here nor there.

But whatever trips your trigger, you are using the absolute wrong tools to examine the crisis.... marxist analysis does not work in the ME.

[treestar]

85. Explain the difference between Israel and NK

That sounds like a threat.

[marcus_b]

64. There's no going back

If you are working on undoing history, you also need to kick out the Americans out of the USA, the Spanish out of South America, and nobody kept track of what happened in densly populated Europe, so what do you do?

The point is that people have been born there and lived there all their life. They have as much a right to stay as everybody else at their home place. It's the same old globe, and borders are artificial human constructs. They don't actually *mean* anything!

Calls for Israels destruction are thus completely nonsense, but they are just one voice in the choire. How often have we heard Israelis call for the destruction of the Palestinians? And the proposals Israel made to the Palestinians at any time spoke the same clear language: That Palestina should have no right to exist, or only as a prison for Arabs. Both sides are upping the ante for political gains.

But here is the catch: Overall, the whole reasonable world (I am excluding militant leaders, who are not to be taken seriously in such matters if you ask me) accepts and supports a two-state settlement. Except the *governments* of the US and Israel. Where does this leave us?

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Actually if you are goiong to be fair

both sides have missed the train a couple times over.

The palestinians back at Camp David, the Israelis at Madrid... and then there is the Oslo accords, that neither side wanted to even read. So lets be fair here.

[marcus_b]

89. Fairness means keeping proportions

Fairness does not mean that you only mention something if you can also mention something equivalent on the other side.

Fairness means that you reflect the proportions of the situation accurately. And the proportions here are very clear. There is overwhelming power and political support to Israel, via the US. And a brutally oppressed Palestine territory that's not going anywhere anytime soon.

The "offers" to the Palestenians have been a sick joke, totally unacceptable. There was no train to jump onto. To accept them would have been the equivalent of jumping off the bridge.

There is a very simple test to any offer that you can apply to see if it is a fair offer: Consider for a second if the Israelis would subject themselves to the same conditions. There is a simple algorithm for sharing something so that both parties think that they have at least half of the cake: One party divides, the other chooses. That's of course not going to happen. But that's the standard one should pick to evaluate any offer made from one party to the other.

[coalition_unwilling]

69. Oh, the US supports a "two-state" solution, provided that

Palestine is held in permanent subjection to Israel (control of borders, water and military force). In other words, US doesn't recognize that Palestine is equal to Israel. And since Israel is our "client state," the government of Israel has no incentive to either.

I think that much of the blame for this actually attaches to the British and French, who colonized the region (including Iraq, btw) and divvied it into spheres of influence after World War I. Not sure where I'm going with this, but Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher owe the civilized world a great big friggin' apology, imho.

Personally, I think the world would be much better if all Americans (non-indigenous) had to leave right away. Where they might go is another matter. Spanish have pretty much left South America now, although their genetic legacies live on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. The Spanish have left South America

you sure of that, or you missed the celebrations of the 500 anniversary of a grand navigational mistake... WOW!

I sure remember reading papers (academic and otherwise) speaking with great love about the mother country, as well as all the open markets with the mother country

I am amazed, you said you are a student of history... you cannot undo history, only maybe learn from it.

[coalition_unwilling]

72. Hmm, not sure I follow, but I meant the days of Imperial

Spain are over -- Empire of Ferdinand and Isabella is a long-distant memory, dealt its final blow during Spanish-American war of 1898.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. They are still there

and the ties to the mother country are strong.

[Skelington]

79. Who are the "indigenous" americans?

[coalition_unwilling]

83. Good point -- Even the people we commonly refer to as "indigenous" are

believed to have migrated here from Asia (via the Siberian land-bridge) or from Europe (via navigation of the northern Atlantic).

Let's give America back to the buffalo, shall we?

[Skelington]

86. Exactly ! The people who eventually migrated all over North America,

didn't just "poof" into existance out of the ground. They came from elsewhere, EVERYBODY came from elsewhere, in fact everybody I feel would be indigenous to the ocean if the "roots of humanity" are traced to the final point of origin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Somewhere in the Rift in Africa

to be exact

[T Town Jake]

59. So, since you're "not so sure anymore" that you support...

...Israel's "right to exist," what do you suggest be done about the Israeli's living there? Tell us your, ahem, "solution" to this matter...I'm sure it'll be enlightening...

[coalition_unwilling]

73. I've posted my solution many places in this thread, not that

it has any chance of being implemented anytime soon. Over the long haul it will be, though:

1) Immediate ceasefire

2) Jointly negotiated prisoner exchanges

3) Israel to withdraw to pre-'67 boundaries

4) Israel to grant additional land and\or financial reparations in return for Palestinian refugess renouncing so-called "right of return" to pre-'67 Israel boundaries.

5) U.N. to send in multi-national peace-keeping forces to implement and monitor ceasefire.

6) U.S. to provide reparations and reconstruction to Palestinians.

[High Plains]

60. The solution clearly is to provide Hezbollah with guided missiles.

Then they can carefully target them the same way Israel does.

[coalition_unwilling]

78. ROTFLMAO -- Beautiful. Reminds me of that scene in

"Dr Strangelove" where George C. Scott, upon hearing that the Russians have a Doomsday Device buried in the Urals, turns to the President and says, "Gee, Mr. President, I wish we had one of those doomsday devices ourselves." (Or words to that effect.)

[k_jerome]

88. that would be the solution to those that hate Israel. nt.

[k_jerome]

45. those evil...

jews. :sarcasm:

[High Plains]

61. Take your insinuations of anti-semitism elsewhere.

[Xenotime]

76. Is Israel defending?

I can't get anyone to say yes or no.

[coalition_unwilling]

39. Oh, yes, the IDF is so judicious and discriminating in

its use of high explosive munition. Maybe you can explain why over 200 Lebaneses civilians have already been killed by IDF munitions, if IDF are so good at "aiming"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. If we had something like oh the Desden bombing

and they have the gear to do it, you'd be talking of tens of thousands people killed already.

War in the American Media has become soething where only the bad guys die, but the reality is very different, even with smart munitions, civilians still die. Especially when you house military targets in and amongst them. By the way war entered a whole new arena with the use of smart munitions... and indeed... you'd have a lot more people killed if those where oh B-29s flying over head, with I don't know incendiaries.

[coalition_unwilling]

49. Many of the dead Lebanese civilians are children (at least, children

by U.S. standards). What possible Israeli national interest can justify the death of a single child, whether Lebanese or Palestinian?

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. I am sure you know this

but there are kids who have gotten killed in Israel too... so are their lives somehow less valuable just because they are Jewish Kids? What a warm fuzzy!

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Ah now we compare what the Israelis are doing

to the holocaust, classy

I will be quite brutally honest, given that my dad was on the Hitler Travel Plan you just lost me

When Israel builds concentration camps and gas chambers, we can talk about genocide. They have not... nor do they intend to do that. Granted some of what they have done is pretty bad.

Is it right, NO... what they have done is NOT right... but to compare them to what the Germans did is not exactly right either. Look for other comparisons, which are not nice either, but do not imply genocide. (South Africa's Apartheid comes to mind)

That said, given what I spent doing for ten years I can talk about war crimes probably far better than you. Given I took testimony from war crime survivors. Very technically , and I know this will rank you, using civilians as human shields, to force military fire power to fall on civilian targets IS a war crime (I know it plays well with you and the sympathy crowd), forcing ambulance crews (yes it also happened in central america) to transport combatants is also a war crime. So want to talk about war crimes?

This is war, and war has rules... believe it or not... there are several unwritten rules of warfare

1.- In war young people die, and there is nothing I can do to change that (We usually call them troops)

2.- In war non combatants die, yes even civilians, and there are some things I can do to diminish that, but I cannot change that. The things that will diminish that are two fold: Technology and respect of the Laws of Land Warfare by all combatants, which means not launching katyushas from the back of civilian houses or building clear military infrastructure inside civilian areas.

[marcus_b]

9. If you want to stop atrocities

then the first thing to do is to not commit atrocities yourself. It's that simple.

This goes double if you are a country in the possession of nuclear war heads, helicopters with spectre gunship, and the political backup of the most influential power on earth.

You are defending the bully in the schoolyard, who complains that one of the little people he tortured in the last year has tried to kick his leg.

[malaise]

38. The Israelis are using 500lb bombs

not rockets.

[porphyrian]

3. I guess we can get riled about it once we've brought our own to task.

That is, unless we intend to be total fucking hypocrites.

[jaxx]

4. They'll just add this to the 66 UN resolutions they ignore too.

For some reason Israel can't be really touched.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. As usual you forget to mention the crimes commited

by Hisbollah... lack of proportionality, maybe, tell me how do you deal with Katyushas landing on your houses day after day, after day. This woudl not be happenign if this TERRORIST organization did not start lobbing rockets into Israel starting in 2000, from houses housing civilians.

Lets be clear here, BOTH SIDES are commiting horrible acts.

[marcus_b]

6. I did omit them purposefully

Because at this point, they are simply insignificant. The death toll is 10:1, and Israel has the military power of the US behind it. It's not an Israeli attack, it's an US-Israeli attack. Or an Israeli attack with a complimentary US topping, if you want.

It is true that "both sides are committing horrible acts", like it is true that an elephant and a mouse are both mammals. I question your purpose in pointing it out. Is it that you really want to do a proper accounting of the events of the last century? If you do this faithfully, you will come to the inevitable conclusion that the party with the more power commits more crimes, in numbers. Or is it because you are seeking for some justification? That doesn't work either, because one horrible act can not be justified or canceled by another.

Israel is in a position of strength, and thus able to unilaterally stop the aggression, and in fact, take major steps in the direction of actual peace, without losing much. It would do so if the US administration would do so much as wink into that direction, because it relies on the consent by the US administration for political backup. Compared to that power system, it is rather insignificant what other involved parties do at this point. This may change, but right now, it is solely and exclusively in the hand of the US administration, Israel, the EU, Russia and china (in approximately this order).

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. NO they are not insignificant

and this is part of the problem. BOTH SIDES need to break the cycle. Israel tried, by pulling back in 2000... but Hisbollah's goal is to destroy Israel. Now if Hisbollah gets even close to its goal we will not be talkign to each other, on the bright side the nuclear winter will solve our wonderful global warming problem

I will say this right now, by purposely ignoring the other side, and failing to recognize the cycle for what it is, you are enambling it... and yes you have taken sides.

I have said this repetaedly, this is war... and the cycle did not start two weeks ago, or two months ago, but it really started in 2000... and the only way it will break is for people on the ground to be willing to break the cycle... and for all of us cheerleaders to be objective and recognize the horrors both sides are commiting. Dead is dead, whether it is Haifa or Beirut.

[marcus_b]

19. You are right, but are you drawing the consequences?

I don't think you are right by putting it at the year 2000, but the end result is the same: Yes, there is a cycle of violence, and it needs to be stopped. What are you doing about it?

Look, I have absolutely no relationship to Palestinians, Lebanese, or other people in that general area. I do have a relationship to Western culture, being part of it myself. Thus, my call is to my own people to make the first step. Luckily, I am in the easier position, as it is "my people" who are in the dominant position, and have the ability to end this right here, right now, by simply stopping the atrocities and trying to get peace.

It is the US and Israel who unilaterally, since decades, block any possibility for peace. It is the US and Israel which will start the peace process once the population puts the war mongers out of power.

It would be much harder for me if I had to make an appeal to Arab people to do the first step and be peaceful, because that would basically ask them to submit to their complete annihilation by the overwhelming Israeli-US force. I still think that the best strategy on their side is to commit to peaceful activism, however, it has not worked in the past, because of the total disregard for their fate in our societies. It only makes sense to ask them to make the first step if there are massive international solideraty movements who can exercise pressure on the US and Israel to prevent them from taking the opportunity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. No the current cycle started in 2000

After Israel unilaterally pulled out, to try to break the cycle

Many things that should have been done and were not aided and abeted this.

1.- The US is no longer an honest broker, truth be told nobody is.

2.- The Lebanese Governent should have disarmed the militias, this includes hisobollah, and for many poltiical reasons they did not.

3.- Syria should have stopped playing games... they were quite likely behnd the PM's assasination, they still see Lebaon as little Syria.

4.- Israel AND the Palestinians have missed the bus several times.

In the end all involved parties that are outsiders, whether it is Iran, the US, or Russia, need to pull out and let the chidren solve this one way or the other.

May I recommend a book? Hedges: War a Force that Gives us Meaning. It will completely change your view of the whole mess.

Trust me on that.

[marcus_b]

26. Thanks for the tip.

To my knowledge, there do not exist any serious proposals from Israel that would constitute a two-state settlement where Palestinians have the ability to live a decent live, like, have enough fresh water supply.

However, my point is not to go through this history. I have never seen an online discussion, or any discussion between disputing parties, that came to a full agreement on the issues, and I would not expect this to be an exception :) Currently, the course of events will be dictated by the US, and it is important that the American public puts pressure on their government to intervene ASAP.

Thanks for the book tip. I will consider it when I get a chance.

[pberq]

54. Chris Hedges is interviewed by Amy Goodman today

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/17/1423250

[Skelington]

82. Then the Palestinians are serving it up ,

with a side of Iran, and a pinch of Syria.

[atreides1]

8. Only one difference between the sides

No one disputes that both sides are committing horrible acts, but one side are terrorists, and that's
what terrorist do. So, unless the IDF has become a terrorist organization, they cannot claim the moral high ground, and no one here should be trying to help them claim it.

By continuing to intentionally bomb and shell civilian infrastructure with little or no regard for civilian casualties, the only difference between the Hezbollah and the IDF, is the fact that one side is Muslim and the other is Jewish!!!!!!!

[marcus_b]

11. The real difference is power

The major difference is that Israel has a lot more power than any of the other parties involved. This is of course why they are able to commit more crimes with a more devastating effect than the others.

Almost by definition, this is why the others are called "terrorists", and Israel "a nation defending itself".

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. You were in the military

you know how it works, so stop pretending.

By the way one of the few times I was shot at in a clearly marked ambulance, (Red Cross and all) it was very legal. I was shot at and I am lucky to be here, because my cadets did the stupid thing of loading an armed combatant (An army LT) into the back of my rig. To say that I ate them for lunch later is to put it midly ok. But at least that time I could not say that the drug dealers did something against the Conventions of War, now the other multitude of times they fired at us... yep mild violation and it happens all the time... ok

So stop pretending. If I fire at a target from a house and the other side can detect it, they can LEGALLY fire back. As I said, you will never know if those houses were used by force, or not, but under the laws of land warfare... they just became a target. So why not be honest and demand that Hisbollah stop using human shields? Would I love it if the IDF and the IAF stopped going after civilians? Absolutely, but their stated goal is to destroy the infrastructure for Hisbollah, who has quite on purpose built this up in residential neighborhoods. There is a reason why military bases are built far enough from civilan areas.

[marcus_b]

24. That's not a defense.

In your words: "You know how it works." The overwhelming force bombs from 10km up in the air, using laser-guided missiles, aimed at sometimes more and sometimes less arbitrary targets. The guerilla hides in residential areas. It's entirely predictible. Both sides are cowards in that respect, but I forgive them. I do not ask them to be war heroes, I ask them to put down the weapons.

To ask the guerilla to come out in the open where they are destroyed by overwhelming force before they know what hit them (like the Napalm-bombs used in Iraq) is as stupid as to ask the US pilots to get out of their fighter jets and go into the street fighting with a machete. That doesn't change the fact that both, hiding in residential areas, and bombing residential areas from above, is dirty.

The point is that Israel has chosen to attack on a large scale, based on a small but convenient pretense, and proudly ignoring all existing international treaties on the subject matter. Israel and the US are in a position to end this unilaterally, but they don't. Sometimes things are as simple as they look.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Fire missions are ordered aginst areas where

katyushas are launched. What do you want them to do? Just wait for the rockets to come in and land on civilian areas? THey have done this since 2000 and no effect.

Look this is the way it works under the laws of land warfare. As I said, I have been there and if the IDF is firing back at launching pads that are inside civilian areas, there are going to be casualties. Under the laws of land warfare, what Hisbollah is doing is using human shields, quite a no-no. If they are forcing these civilians to lend their houses, that is another no-no

By the way there were soem guerrillas that actually did abide by the laws of land warfare, in Central America, you might remember them. In the end they were NOT destroyed, and they won... FSLN and the Farabundo Marti Liberation Front.

[marcus_b]

27. Point taken. Thanks. n/t

[atreides1]

34. I know how it works

I also know that they are both wrong, and that I'm not a blind defender of Israel or Hezbollah.

Can you provide us the information or proof to show that Hezbollah fired missiles from the airport, or the port of Beirut. Can you prove that they fired their rockets from the city of Tripoli, which by the way is in the north?

If someone is firing at me from a building that I'm sitting across from, I'm not going to call in an air strike on a location that's 30 miles away, would you?

Your argument only holds water if the concentration of fire was in the south

Most sources agree that Hezbollah forces control southern Lebanon.

As for the ambulance incident, unless the enemy saw an armed combatant being loaded into your rig, the firing on a marked vehicle was not legal in any sense of the word. And when did any group of drug dealers sign the Geneva Conventions,or agree to abide by the laws of land warfare?

So what military bases are you talking about? Have you ever been to Ft. Carson, last time I was there
Colorado Springs was a pretty well populated city, DM AFB in Tucson, Luke AFB in Phoenix, and let's not forget my own home state of Hawaii, where the island of Oahu is host to no less then 4 large military bases, of which the furthest is only a little over 20 miles away from the state capital.

Military bases may start out in areas away from large populations, but the reality is that those bases become the cash cows for the local areas, and start to attract more and more people and businesses until the perimeter of that base is completely surrounded by civilians.

I don't see any human shields, I see Lebanese who live in the south, and unless you have some kind of proof that those people are being held against their will, calling them human shields is crap.

Where is your evidence? Where is your proof?

I'll reiterate what I said, both sides are the same, with the exception that I pointed out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Ok lets see why they are bombing these targets

1.- Airport, used according to many sources to move weapons. Under the conventions of war, that CIVILIAN AIRPORT that would be otherwise protectd, looses its protection... by the by, the Honolulu Airport is a very valid target in time of war, since it SHARES its runways with Hickam Air Force Base. That should give you a warm fuzzy.

2.- Tripoli, same case for the port of Tripoli, it has been used to transport weapons, This is why milities have naval ports.

Those two are STRATEGIC TARGETS, and I am sure you even know what that means.

So stop pretending, Hisbollah in its wisdom has forced or they have willingly done it, civilian areas to become valid military targets.

Yes, you are defending hisbollah...since Hisbollah has used many of those civilians in the south, who happen to be shiah and poor (and the central lebanese governemtn does not give a shit about them either) to house their infrastructure.

So stop pretending ok.

Neither side is right, but to refuse to see what one is doing and not the other is wrong.

[CuteNFuzzy]

13. Both sides are engaging in terrorism

There is no other conclusion about the situation right now. Israel's acts are terrorism just like Hizballah

[malaise]

14. That's the truth

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5188420.stm

[Solo_in_MD]

15. The bombing is not indiscriminate

your hyperbole greatly diminihes any point your might make.

[CuteNFuzzy]

18. oh yeah fleeing refugees are targeted

You're right

[marcus_b]

29. Do you have a source?

I don't know what your source is. I did not say that fleeing refugees are targeted. I am saying that roads and bridges are targeted that people need to get out of there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. You mean Israel killed those Canadians on purpose?

They must have been terrorist Canadians.

[marcus_b]

28. You are right, they deliberately target civilian infrastructure.

You are completely right. They do not indiscriminately fire and hit civilian infrastructure as collateral damage, but they deliberately target it.

Or are you saying that Israel hit the power plants, roads and bridges by accident?

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Ok lets clarify how this works

Roads and bridges, since they are used by the Guerrilla to transport troops and fighters are actually valid targets. They are called strategic targets, and become valid the moment you roll a tank or fighters or a rocket on one.

Infrastructure like a power plant, technically it is a no-no, right until any military value target is placed in there. It does not matter whether that target was there for a mimute or reamained there until the bombs came down. None of us have seen their Intel photos, but if they placed any military value target, even an armed infantry man wiht an AK, it becomes a target. If they did not, then it is a violation of the Conventions.

Why am I being so technical on this? Unfortutanely war actually has some rules, and in many ways what you and I may see as perfect outsiders as horrible and terroristic, might not be. The US Military has legions of lawyers literally, going over target lists... I suspect the IDF does as well... as well as any other Western Military... whyy? Dotting those i and crossing those ts.

[Solo_in_MD]

33. Glad to see another person here gets it...

The IDF goal was to prevent the transportation of the kidnapped soldiers out of Lebanon. Nasrallah has made statement that they are where the IDF can never get to them. That sounded to many people like Iran or Syria. Taking out the transportation infrastructure makes sense in that kind of situation.

Current estimates are that Hezbollah has 10,000 artillery rockets. Lebanon is a small country and they have to go somewhere. Its believed they are dispersed in southern Lebanon. Every time one launches, the location is recorded and the IDF blasts it. The Hezbollah by storing and launching rockets in civilian areas has made the residents human shields. That only so few have died so far is surprising.

[marcus_b]

36. Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's OK

It may be perfectly rationale, I can't even tell. But that does not mean it is legal or morally sound.

I am sure most serial murders can tell you, from their point of view, very carefully laid out reasonings for everything they did. Does this mean it's justified? Of course not.

Interestingly so far nobody has challenged the position that the attacks are an aggression to begin with, which would make all attempts to apologize for individual atrocities totally superfluous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. It is very legal under the laws of land warfare

hisbollah just made those targets valid targets... does it suck? Absolutely... but it is legal and even moral under the crazy logic of the rules of armed conflict.

is it justified? Again under the rules of armed conflict yes, yes it is. On the flips side if Israel bases an artillery battery in oh I don't know down town haifa, guess what? That arty battery and the surrounding areas are valid targets... and civilians will die. Why do you think they placed the anti missile batteries on the edges of the city?

[marcus_b]

35. Technicalities

You are leaving out all the qualifiers, like that attacks on infrastructure can only be justified if they contribute to damaging the war-making capacities of the enemy. And of course everything has to be measured with the standards of proportionality. It's patently false to state that a soldier standing one minute in proximity to a main power plant justifies bombing the place back to the stone age. The judicial process is 90% common sense, and no, usually you do not get off on a technicality. That only works in movies or if you are very rich and powerful---like the US military undoubtedly is.

I have zero confidence in an US military lawyer to make a proper decision what is legal and what is not. Past experience has demonstrated that the US can commit literally hundreds of war crimes without repercussion. Whatever the purpose of these lawyers is, it is not ensuring legality of the process. Otherwise, they would have all collectively resigned and not made a single pen stroke in the course of the Iraq war. I think the point here is that the lawyers are usually not employed to ensure legality of a process, but to, essentially, give everybody a warm fuzzy feeling.

In the end, I put the experience of past conflicts, where war crimes have been proven again and again (with solid evidence that withstood the test of time) against your technicalities. I also put into the basket the testimony of 27 Israeli reserve fighter pilots who refused to participate in what they believed to be immoral and/or illegal orders (in 2003).

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. The situation was very different in 2003

and those technicalities are there becuase if they were not... you woudl see even more death and destruction

Why don't you ask Hisbollah why it is using human shields? By the way, go read Geneva... it does meet the definition.

[marcus_b]

57. I read it

I read the treaties, and I think you are trivializing. I am not sure what your goal is in this discussion. My point is that in this as in other conflicts, there are war crimes committed, and we are seeing them right now. You seem to think that everything is according to the letter. Well, that would be quite surprising, given the track record of armed conflicts in the 20th century.

You said that you have been in the forces (or maybe you are), and maybe your experience has been that everything was done properly (if that's the case, I am very happy with you). However, that doesn't mean that atrocities don't happen. There is plenty of evidence for war crimes in any armed conflict of the last century, and the evidence that will be collected in this atrocity will just join the other on the shelf. You seem to talk about personal experiences. I am talking about the bottom line.

I am not sure if you even dispute that, or if you are trying to talk about specific roads and specific targets. I, at least, am not. Obviously can't, for lack of evidence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. We are not privy to the targets lists

but what is clear is that if there were no rules things would be ten times as bad, if not worst

And yes I served as a medic, wiht a Red Cross National Society, and got shot at in clearly marked ambulances more than once... by people who actually never signed the conventions.

I also took testimony from people who survived many of the crimes in Central America... and passed those to International Lawyers, funny thing happend on the way to the forum, tell me how many people have been prosecuted for those crimes? The answer is a fast zero.

That said, again if you fire at me from an ambulance, guess what I can fire back at that ambulance, even if it is very clearly marked. But to say that the Israelis cannot fire at strategic targets in a war... well son, that ain't the way it works.

By the way, if you saw the Patriot Batteries in and around Israelis towns in the north, if Katyushas or lets assume they get guided missiles, are launched at them, and they hit the house besides them... guess what? That house was a valid target, the crazy logic of the rules of land warfare, for you.

[Solo_in_MD]

32. Not at all, they were indeed targeted

Early on the IDF went after transportation and communication infrastructure, land, sea and air. Their objectives in doing so are quite clear, and arguably reasonable and justified from a military perspective.

That I understand what they are doing and why does not mean that I agree with it or that the casualties are any less, but clearly they have not been doing random attacks against general areas like Hezbollah and Hamas have been doing.

[pberq]

46. Kick & Nominated - check out today's Democracy Now

Amy Goodman interviews someone living in Northern Lebanon:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/17/1423250

Discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1656017&mesg_id=1656017

(edited to add link)

[pberq]

51. Randi Rhodes - the GOP is going to war-monger its way

through the mid-term elections.

[Swamp Rat]

65. Wo ist Bochum?

Ist die Gegend nahe Bamberg? Mein Bruder wohnte in Regensberg und ich habe Familie nahe München.

[pberq]

66. keep in mind the potential benefit for the GOP in the fall elections

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/16/newt-world-war /

. . .As Matt Stoller points out, Gingrich was also quoted today suggesting that President Bush should be framing the current violence as World War III for the benefit of the fall elections.