middle east

Let's assume human life is equal.

If Israel kills 6-700-odd civilans (BBC News, but I'll accept any reasonable figure you'd prefer) and Hezbollah kills 43, shouldn't Israel recieve 10x (or more) as much negative publicity?

First of all this has nothing to do with media coverage, I have opened up a discussion on the morality of Amnesty International.

But to answer your question, you can't make such a naive statement. Media coverage should revolve around circumstances not death tolls.

In the UK over 100,000 people are killed every year by cigarette companies - but this doesn't warrant front-page stories as those that die have killed themselves.... Unless the circumstances are investigated a death toll is a tragic statistic which can be easily manipulated to suit a cause, this is precisely what AI have done.

Despite Hizbullah's best efforts to embed itself in populated civilian areas, Israel were able to keep the civilian death toll to a minimum; if we were to examine wars fought during the same period in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Algeria we would find much higher muslim-on-muslim death tolls.... Yet these death tolls receive a fraction of the critical attention from humanitarian groups and the media.

"Parties to an armed conflict are required to protect civilians and civilian objects by adopting a number of precautionary measures in preparing and carrying out their attacks. In addition, combatants must not place themselves or other military objectives within the civilian population in an attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations" - Amnesty

This was the only mention of human shields in the Hizbu'llah report, which reinforces how willing AI is to ignore injustice if its can assist them in erecting a platform from which they can attack Israels morality.

The Israel report also seems unable to differentiate between human casualties and infrastructure, Israel intentionally targeted bridges and roads as it would of been militarily negligent not to do so (this is common practise in war), but a humanitarian group cannot then link these strategically strikes with civilian causalities as the two are unrelated.

Fine, we'll save this one for another debate. Suffice it to say that I am equally concerned by the loss of an Israeli civilian life as a Lebanese - they affect (or don't) me equally.

Let's deal with the infrastructure question first, and establsih international law - the Geneva conventions of 1949 and subsequent clarifications.

Article 48 of Protocol 1:

Israel has targeted Lebanese:

- power plants
- bridges
- roads
- main airport
- TV stations

Israel is obliged not to attack targets that make life impossible for Lebanese civilians - ie water supplies, food, and, I believe, roads that prevent them fleeing the war zone.

I also don't accept the civilian airport was a valid target, and it was essential for civilians to flee.

The tv station is justified if making a direct contribution to the Hezbollah forces, but not for propaganda.

I'm sure you'll try to justify the infrastructure damage by saying it was to prevent movement of the soldiers - but lets face it, it didn't work, and the civilian suffering is therefore not proportional to the objective and the action is illegal.

Another argument we've taken is the use of weapons which by their nature cannot be used discriminately in civilian areas - ie the cluster munitions the US is investigating.

Clearly these are illegal in the context of the above. I take it you wouldn't have support the use of, say fuel-air explosives over civilian areas? Conventional weapons, illegal use.

Cast your mind back 3 years to the Iraq invasion, electrical grids, water supplies, tv stations and transport networks were all completely annihilated, this is an obvious consequence of war.

However Israel are unique in the way they fight wars and try to inflict minimal long term damage; when Beirut airport was hit the IAF took out the runway but left planes and control towers in tact (allowing aircrafts to fly to safety), when Israel took out the Jiyeh Power Station they left the infrastructure in tact but took out the oil tanks, rather than taking out Lebanese TV stations (as you suggest) they targeted a terrorist station Al-Manar.

Israel fight the most humane wars known to man, yet despite the huge efforts to preserve human life and civilian infrastructure at a time when these entities are used as shields.... Israel still comes under heavy criticism from the bigoted media.

What a stupid argument, the morality of an operation cannot be judged on whether or not it was successful - if that were true those Jews that fought in the Warsaw uprising were immoral and the Nazi's were noble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbOlqG2arSo

Again, Israel weren't unique in the use of these weapons in built up civilian areas and they certainly weren't used to the extent they were in Iraq... You hold Israel accountable to actions that you permit other nations to perpetrate…. The standard anti-Zionist/Semitic spiel.

Firstly....you've ignored the quotes from the Geneva convention - they are fairly explicit in what is permitted.

Secondly....you have a short memory. I have been a vociferous opposer of the Iraq war since before it began, mostly on the basis I felt it unjustified, but also on the basis of civilian casulties. To say that I haven't objected to it is factually incorrect, and a search of Iraq and my name on here will prove it. eg http://www.nucastle.co.uk/search.ph...d=618826&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

I'm also intruiged by your argument that because the majority of my threads/posts on this subject criticise civilian casulties by Israel that this makes me anti-Semitic and therefore racist, when all I've actually done is opposed their foreign policies and military tactics/ineptitude, in the same way I have with the US and, indeed, the UK. You have also ignored the fact that your posts are every bit as one-sided as mine, generally more so in fact, as I criticise Hezbollahs responsibility for civilian casulties, and ignored the obvious implication that you are therefore every bit as 'racist' as you claim me to be.

Here's a small example of the reason I oppose use of cluster bombs in civilian areas (by anyone).

As I'm arguing Amnesty's corner in this debate, I shall draw on them for resources:

.

I didn't ignore your point I illustrated the double standard flaunted by left wing organisations like AI.

I'm sorry but you didn't give the issues a fraction of the attention you have given Israel, despite the fact massive numbers of Iraqi's are still dying on a daily basis.

Israel is one of the most noble nations on this planet; despite half a century of wars its enemies have suffered tiny casualties and despite constant invasion Israel has put forward countless peace proposals, I could give thousands of testaments to Israel character... Yet despite all this people like yourself single out Israel as some barbaric evil nation.

There is only one logical reason for this; antisemitism.

Willingly or unwillingly you have bought into the anti-semitic lie and have gone to huge lengths to dehumanize the Jewish movement/state of Israel.

I'd love for you to explain how I am racist....

if you don't like bombs in civilian areas perhaps you should be more vocal in your opposition to the Hizbu'llah militants that fire ballisitic missiles from civilian population centres.

Its insane to expect no civilian casualties in a warzone where one of the sides openly uses civilian shields!

Interesting to note your dismissal of the conclusions of Amnesty. I note that you have drawn from them in the past, for statistics (where you have cited them as an appropriate source of unbiased information), and supported their campaigns.

Curious that only now, following their criticism of civilian casulties, (which are entirely supported by the revelant passages from the Geneva conventions by the way, read what they're saying), that you decide they are institutionally racist, along with

a) the vast majority of the international community who also criticised the Israelis
b) the entire UK media (and most other western media)
c) the entire league of arab nations and their media.

et al.

You have not, unfortunately, been able to supply any reason why Amnesty should be biased, and the only evidence you have provided is that they published their initial findings from an investigation into Israeli actions a month or so before they finished their preliminary investigation into Hezbollah, whom they have also criticised (to noones particular surprise). I don't find this particularly convincing.

Also interesting that you were first to quote Amnesty when they accuse Hezbollah of war crimes, but dismiss it when applied to Israel - including saying that you won't support criminal proceedings if it finds that Israel is guilty. I assue you want Hezbollah leaders prosecuted under international law if found guilty, and this appears to be a double standard.

I've opposed the Iraq war throughout - as have you. The only difference being that noone on here really believes the Iraq war justifiable, thus there is no debate.

Your claims simply don't match up with the facts.

I am very concerned at the situation in Gaza.

You have said there is no significant threat to Israeli civilians, yet your government continues to apply severe restrictions.

Around 3700 Palestinians, predominantly civilians, have died since 2000 (Amnesty)

Israel is responsible through its economic embargo and sanctions for the starvation that is affecting large areas of Gaza. It would be perfectly within its power to provide humanitarian supplies whilst preventing the supply of arms; that it doesn't appears to negate its claim to 'regret' civilian casulties.

It continues to deny the right of Palestinians to their own state, and claims that it put forward countless peace proposals are at odds with the fact that it has taken international pressure to even get Olmert to talk to Abbas - this being a good few months after I quoted you the links demonstrating the Palestinian leaderships position that it would recognise Israel if it withdrew to it's pre 1967 lines. This would be supported by the relevant UN resolution ("emphasising the inadmissibility of territory caputured by war").

Israel is in large part responsible for the suffering experienced by the Palestinian people due to the economic collapse of their nation.

You will also note that I have criticised Guantanamo for violations of international standards. It is difficult to separate morally the US claims for its necessity with the Israeli claims of necessity for holding 8000 or so Palestinians held with a trial that meets international standards.

I didn't say you were racist, I used to to discount your argument that I am anti-semitic (and therefore racist, as I class the Jews as a race).

Merely having an opinion contrary to the actions of a nation doesn't make you racist.

I've stated many times my opposition to the use of human shields, hwoever, this places the onus on the other nation to treat them as hostages.

The israelis clearly have not, destroying entire apartment blocks full of civilians, and making no impact on the ability of Hezbollah to fire rockets.

The international community is united, even the Americans, traditionally the most staunch supporters of Israel and the most indiscriminate of warriors have broken ranks to stop the abuses! Unless of course, they have become anti-Semitic like everyone else overnight.

of course I've supported Amnesty campaigns in the past, not everything they do is anti-Israeli - but I've never used their statistics as the basis of any argument.

Israel has been criticised since its existence, 100+ critical resolutions from the global community is a testament to the anti-semitism that seeps out of the gentile world (with the exception of America ).

The same media that was vociferously opposed to the creation of the state, was against Jewish immigration during world war 2 and has been critical of Israel in every war since its creation?

LOL the same television stations and papers that publish the learned protocols of elders of zion every year?

I don't need to supply reason, I can supply examples:

In 2002 the Palestinian spin doctors fabricated the Jenin massacre in which they claimed hundreds of Palestinian civilians had been massacred by evil Israeli forces... Amnesty International dived head first into the fiction and condemned Israel without bothering to thoroughly research the massacre... Post-Jenin we now know that the massacre never occurred and not only was Palestinian life preserved, but Israeli troops were sacrificed to save Palestinian lives!

In 2000 Amnesty International sponsored a "right to return rally", any Arab leader will tell you that the right to return is another way of presenting the expulsion of the Jews from Israel... A human rights organisation should not be supporting such political agenda's.

In 2001 Pierre Sane (Secretary General of Amnesty International) visited Palestine he was asked if he would be visiting Jewish victims of a recent conflict; He had no reply, he was then shown the PLO map of the Right of Return where the 531 Arab villages are "returned" to replace Israeli cities and was asked if he still supported the right to return; he replied that he did - because Amnesty supports the right of return of ALL populations who were dislocated by war... To which the quick witted journalist asked if that applied to the 3,000,000 Germans who were displaced 3 years before 650,000 (the highest UN estimate) Palestinian Arabs fled their homes.... and guess what; Sane gave no answer.

Amnesty International have a legacy of anti-semitic (or at the very least anti-zionist) politically driven policies, in order for a humanitarian organisation to remain impartial it must remain apolitical, for the moment it aligns itself with a long term political cause is the moment it loses credibility.

I brought the report to light to demonstrate the gross unbalance between the reports… The report in my opinion is a rushed reaction to the slamming of their initial report from organisations like the ADL.

Starvation?!?!? Palestinian Arabs have some of the highest standards of life in the Arab world, refuges in Palestinian camps have higher standard of life than refugees in Palestinian camps neighbouring states.

Israel is the only nation I can think of that pours millions of dollars into a “state” they’ve been locked in an eternal war with, this relentless assault on Israel is the modus operandi of the Palestinian cause…. Yet despite all of this Israel pours millions of aid into Palestine, builds infrastructure, provides their citizens with electricity, water and healthcare and is always seeking peace.

Claims?!??!

1967 – Land for peace was rejected by the Arabs as its acceptance would also give legitimacy to Israel.
1993 – Since the Oslo Accords Israel have been striving to meet the goals set out during the talks, the PA was formed (which governed education, police, health, etc.), areas like Gaza have been handed back, etc. Yet the Palestinians haven't given an inch - they're still launching attack after attack.
1998 - The Wye River Memorandum which was never implemented as the Arabs initiated the Al-Aqsa Intifada.
2000 - The Camp David proposition was rejected despite the fact 90% of the west bank, 100% of Gaza and East Jerusalem were offered to the Palestinians.
2001 – The Taba Summit was rejected despite Israel offering the pre-1967 borders (with minor adjustments to the west bank borders as permitted by resolution 242), the right to return and billions of dollars worth of compensation to Palestinian refugees (despite no Arab states offering compensation for the expelled Jewish refugees), Palestinian sovereignty over its airspace, etc.
2002 - Israel accepted working towards the Arab Peace Initiative as long as the Palestinians put an end to their terror attacks - Hamas responded with a suicide attack which they stated was to derail the peace process.

Typical of your mindset Andy – rather than looking at the historical record you take current affairs remove them from their context and rush to an ignorant conclusion.

Andy, can I ask why you devote so much of your time criticising Israel?

I am passionate about the state as I correlate its future with the security of my people, when someone attacks it they threaten the existence of my children, what is your concern? if your plight truly was a humanitarian cause then surely your efforts would be better focused on nations that practise genocide, torture, oppression, etc.

You still haven't suggested how else Israel can respond when rockets are fired from an apartment block....

This is typical of your arguing style - Israel cannot be wrong, and 100 + critical resolutions merely represents the entires worlds racism, which they fail to apply to any other country, of course. I don't know the details of all 100, however I know not all of them are without merit. None of the ones I've ever looked at are unfair, least of all the current one, where you were given far longer than the international community felt appropriate for a response even you described as 'bellicose'.

I noted when people started pointing you at links to BBC news' front page articles that you were unable to supply any evidence of bias from them.

Yes, every journalist and every editor in the UK, and, indeed, Western country outside the US since 1950 has also been racist, and their criticism of Israeli oppression of civilians is entirely without merit or justification.

No, they didn't just jump in, they sent a forensics expert, Derrick Pounder, who concluded that early evidence could be consistent with a massacre.

That it was found it wasn't is exactly because organisations like amnesty sent investigators.

The truth outed, and quite right too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1937048.stm

But don't take it seriously, it's from those salivating anti-Semites at BBC news.

Israel or the West Bank? I don't believe continued occupation of West Bank is compatible with long term peace in the middle east.

You haven't highlighted anything from the report that is biased other than the publication date.

I'm not even going to answer this is detail as it's so ridiculous. Would Israel accept a long term situation where its citizens were living in camps under Palestinian control? 'Right to exist' and all that?

Interesting questions.....I don't know any Israelis or Palestinians, I'll probably never go to Israel, and probably not the Lebanon now it's coast is under an oil slick. It makes no difference to me really, other than perhaps the polarisation of Arab opinion against the West, and resultant terrorism. No, my reasons for debating are different, however, what you can draw from this is that I have no particular reason to be biased one way or the other.

I'm a scientist, not a historian. But I do have a fair knowledge of current affairs, and a strong sense of ethics, and a combination of this makes it difficult to support the actions of the Israelis in recent conflict.

If I spend time on it on here, it's partly because I enjoy the debate (I did some in my spare time at school, too), and partly I believe you present highly one sided information about the current situation in Israel, that is simply not compatible with facts as I see them. You argue to a higher standard than most on here, that we are still in the debate is testament to that; however, when a countrys citizens starts believing ones mother country can do no wrong, that country has problems.

The vast majority of the international community condemned the Israeli response as disproportionate; my reading of all the information I've seen, including yours, reflects this. We could all be wrong, however, I think its unlikely.

As a Jew, you should believe more than most that the international community and its citizens should be concerned when it feels a human rights violation is occuring to a people. I may have no particular reason to be interested, however, I firmly believe that I still should be.

That I post more about it than other topics merely reflects debate - were there someone arguing fervently that the 100k civilians dead in Iraq was perfectly justifiable as we are combating terrorism, they'd have a fight on their hands too

A thought excercise:

If Hezbollah fired roughly 2000 rockets and killed 41 civilians, there is a roughly 2% chance of it killing a civilian, or 1 in 50.

If israel drops a 2000lb bomb on an apartment block with 50 men, women and children in, there is a high probability of killing all 50.

I've already said I regard the lives as equal - a 1/50 chance of losing 1 civilian versus a certainty of killing 50 is the question.

In this situation, the clear moral decision is to defer the strike, in favour of a more precise solution, be it special forces, ground troops, or a low yield missile through the window - the Americans can do this certainly.

*bangs head off wall*

The argument has nothing to do with the morality of Israel, when we're discussing the anti-Semitic nature of an organisation like the UN we do so by comparing their treatment of the Jews against their treating of other states.

China
Murdered over 35 million since the creation of Israel, runs concentration camps, has an oppressive government, has engaged in land grabs and ethnic cleansing... total critical resolution's -10

Sudan
Murdered over 2 million since the creation of Israel, has been ethnic cleansing minorities for the last 50 years... total critical resolution's -10

Congo
Murdered almost 4 million since the creation of Israel, parties have been creating child militias, ritual rapes, torture and murder... total critical resolution's 31

North Korea
Murdered almost 2 million since the creation of Israel, runs concentration camps, forced citizenship, mass oppression, mass genocide, torture, rape, political executions, etc.... total critical resolution's -15

Israel
Killed under 15,000 since it’s creation, not only is there no ethnic cleansing but aid, education, water, electricity, food, healthcare and industry are all provided for its enemies, despite constant invasions Israel are always pushing for peace, despite cries of injustice Palestinian/Israeli Arabs have a very high standard of life, despite cries of racism and genocide ethnic minorities are well represented in the state.... total critical resolution's 110+

This brief comparison between the worlds most murderous nations and Israel highlight the disproportionate global concern, in fact if we were to list genocidal nations with higher death tolls than Israel it would look something like this:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chilé, Colombia, Congo-Brazzaville, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, ParaguayPeoples Republic of China, Russia, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tibet, Togo, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe

Despite these 62 nations that have committed extreme human rights violations (we’re not talking cluster bombs used in a defensive war, we’re discussing the ritual rape of children, the industrial executions of ethnic minorities, mass expulsions and land grabs) Israel still manages to receive more UN resolutions than ANY other state.

This my friend is modern day anti-Semitism.

Even after the massacre was proven to be a fabrication AI were stating:

Unlawful killings violate the "right to life" laid down in Article 6 of the ICCPR. Amnesty International considers that some of these abuses of the right to life would amount to "willful killings" and "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health" within the meaning of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention dealing with grave breaches of the Convention; "grave breaches" of the Geneva Convention are war crimes.

This is not the statements of an unbiased organisation that made a mistake, this is an example of the extreme lengths an organisation like AI will go to attack the character of Israel.

You make light of my comments but Israeli government didn’t make light of the “intellectual anti-semitism” that exists within the BBC on the occasions they’ve accused the organisation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism… There’s an interesting but amateur report here:

http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/july04.html

Yet again the point shoots about a mile over your head, to accuse Israel of starving the Palestinian population is insane. Palestinian refugees have a higher standard of life than their brothers in Arab camps…. This has nothing to do with anyone’s right to exist – it’s to do with the mistreatment of those that fled their homes.

Bollocks, I’ve never read one thread from you on the child warfare in the Congo, the concentration camps in China, the dhimmi culture of Iran… If your cause truly were humanitarian your efforts would be divided between much eviler states than Israel… But these issues are of no concern to the modern day anti-Semite.

Even if we were to never speak of Israel again you’d be subject to the same biased information that helped mould your current mindset… I provide you with the means to extend your knowledge (as you do for me) – but the seeds of anti-Semitism were sewn a long time ago.

All Jews are concerned about humanitarian issues, at the heart of most humanitarian movements you’ll find jews (the civil rights movement in America is a great example of this), but Israel/Palestine is not a humanitarian cause; it’s a political cause.

The standard of life is high and the death tolls are low.

The huge global concern (which helped sculpt your mindset) is highly anti-Semitic, nothing else explains the disproportionate middle-eastern concern.

Nice post!!! Thats impressive

Cant be assed reading it all tho.....

Am sure you make a good point!

That's insane, you can't expect a military to disable it's abilities in the name of good sportsmanship :spangled:

Hizbu'llah initiated the war; Israel is fully justified in using the military to it's fullest abilities... If Cuba invaded America would you expect the US to respond with their cadet divisions?

While I personally would of prefered to see a ground invasion, most Israeli's would not - if they sent in troops straight away the Israeli death toll would of been much higher than the Lebanese death toll.... You can't expect that of an army that is fighting a defensive war.

I'll deal with your last point first, and come to the rest when I have a little more time.

In any military campaign, the response has to be proportionate to the threat, otherwise you begin justifying the unjustifiable.

It's not 'sportsmanship' to minimise civilian deaths, it's humanity.

"fullest capabilities"??

Then why not support the use of WMD's? That would've disarmed Hezbollah, and to hell with the civilan casulties.

Come on Joe, get real. There isn't a country on earth that felt your response was proportionate and conducted with due regard to civilian welfare, and it's exactly this lack of regard that exacerbates the terrorist problem.

You have been critical of the West's intereference in Arab affairs for long enough as a cause of terrorism.