Recent Israeli actions and massacres

[Xugumad]

Recent Israeli actions in Palestine:

Systematic killings of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli state.

Anonymous mass graves (making it impossible to trace was was killed).

Human shields (using civilians).

The destruction of civilian infrastructure and entire neighbourhoods.

Helicopter assaults on civilian streets, preventing ambulances
from reaching the injured and dying.


The Israeli foreign secretary and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Peres concurred, calling the campaign in Jenin "a massacre", in how it would be perceived. Before taking time to reply, please do read the 'Background' links. Thanks.

And still we watch.

Links:

Background:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...681625,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4391612,00.html

[Jenin massacre, UK]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=284108
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...683098,00.html

[Jenin massacre, US]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Apr11.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...202jenin.story

[elSicomoro]

Warning: This is a bit long and may jump around a bit, as various thoughts about the crisis keep coming to me as I type.

In trying to find something to do between 7 and 8 pm Eastern Time, I've become a regular watcher of "Hardball" on MSNBC. I've found it interesting how each side of the conflict spins it to make their side sound more credible, particularly Dore Gold, an adviser to Sharon. The one night, he said something to the effect of, "We are in the beginnings of a pull out as requested by President Bush." Essentially, it was Gold coming up with a different interpretation of the demand than probably most people saw it.

I've been on the Israeli government's website a lot recently too. I find some of their positions disturbing, particularly on the "right of return."

A lot of people dislike the US b/c they feel we stick our noses where they don't belong. But now, it's like we're being looked to as a savior of sorts. Strange.

I think a good way to break the ice for both sides would be to look at the commonalities of each:

--Both have been oppressed for centuries.
--Both are looking to the US to intervene.
--It is my understanding that neither devout Jews nor Muslims eat pork.

*shrugs*

How can "suicide bombings" be called "homicide bombings" when other casualties beyond the bomber do not always occur?

I was watching MSNBC earlier today...and there was talk of possibly holding Israel to the terms of the Geneva Convention, since this is apparently considered a war over there. I didn't see the term "war" mentioned on Israel's site, although the term has been used rather loosely lately.

BBC has had good coverage too...to me, it seems rather balanced.

Some of the questions that have been running through my mind (and my thoughts):

--If we immediately cut aid off to Israel, would Israel immediately pull its troops out of the Occupied Territories, thereby cementing its place as the bitch of the United States? (Possibly. But then the US would probably be accused of being anti-Semitic. Not to mention, the region is full of surprises.)

--Does the US support Israel so vigorously because the US government feels guilty about its lack of response to the plight of the Jewish people during WW2? (I'd say that's part of it.)

--If Jerusalem were divided between the two factions, would that be the deal-sealer? (Possibly...but again, the region is full of surprises.)

--Does Arafat really have any sway over the Palestinians? Could he really stop Hezbollah or Hamas? (I don't think so, and no. Even if Israel can achieve peace with Palestine, I could see Syria becoming a bigger pain. They seem the least likely to support an Arab-Israeli peace deal. But then again, Bashir Assad is not his father.)

I think Israel's current military tactics are ridiculous, and a lot of innocent people are dying. And in the end, I would say Israel is responsible to a degree for its civilians that are being killed by suicide bombers. After all, if there were no occupation, then there might not be suicide bombers.

I think I understand why a number of Palestinians are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up. They feel this is their last opportunity to make a point...and there is nothing left to lose for them. But innocent people are being killed, not to mention the bombers themselves. The bombings only appear to make Israel more determined to keep the Palestinians under their control. The Arab world has to take a hard stance against them. Besides, isn't suicide condemned in Islam, as it is in Christianity?

(As a side note, since suicide is considered mental illness in some circles, one COULD make an argument that suicide bombers are indeed mentally ill. I don't think this is the case...but there is that possibility.)

Arafat condemned Friday's Jerusalem bombing...in Arabic. I am suspicious of Arafat, but his successor could be much worse.

As long as there is violence on both sides, there will be no respite.

[jaguar]

--If we immediately cut aid off to Israel, would Israel immediately pull its troops out of the Occupied Territories, thereby cementing its place as the bitch of the United States? (Possibly. But then the US would probably be accused of being anti-Semitic. Not to mention, the region is full of surprises.)

Hell fucking yes i wish. Watch the arrogant motherfuckers whimper for the aid they are dependant on. The beauty of this is is that it is now completely essential to the US's National Interest to stop the confict, and tell Isreal where to get off.

[Undertoad]

That's one theory. Another theory is that we give them money so that we DO have sway with them, and without it they would have nothing to lose and no reason not to wage massive war on the entire area - a war they would win quickly and easily.

The right thing to do would be to wean them off of support over about a decade.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Another theory is that we give them money so that we DO have sway with them, and without it they would have nothing to lose and no reason not to wage massive war on the entire area - a war they would win quickly and easily.

The right thing to do would be to wean them off of support over about a decade.

We have sway? The president ordered a withdraw how many times over 11 days? What happened? Where is this sway? Instead, Isreal demonstrated how a US President has no backbone - will not back up his demands. Is that sway? That is arrogance because they know we cannot stop the money flow. This, which is really common knowledge, is from The Economist of 6 Apr 2002:

Forget about infirmity of purpose. The most troubling criticism of America's Middle East policy is that it is driven not by national interest but by a domestic lobby ...

Israel is addicted to that $3billion that we all but cannot stop giving them. Israel has even rechanneled US donations into military projects in direct violation (see the exposed history of their jet fighter and who was really paying for much of its developement). That 'sway' exists only in theory.

Having said that, weaning Israel off the money is the worst thing. It is a card to keep Israel in line with a responsible world community. The card can only played once - if we could only figure out how to play it. It should be played digitally - massive cutoffs or no cutoffs. Furthermore threats of using the card also have political value. But notice on 'Face the Nation' et al, blunt questions, with followup blunt questions, about playing the card are immediately quashed and sidestepped. Politicians have too many back room deals to even let a reduction in that money be discussed.

The real problem is not the money. AIPAC is a lobby easily as and probably more powerful than the NRA. It has power well beyond the less than 2% that it represents. It is an example of why so many elite in Washington want unlimited campaign bribery.

Sycamore has honestly exampled what most of the world is saying. If one has a problem with some of his points, then one should be questioning his own news sources and personal biases. We should all be very upset that the Israelis cannot even trust world news reporters into Jenin (or any other Palestinian town), or even to the Powel / Arafat conference. The latter example so characterizes Israeli fear of world knowldege that the world should be questioning everything that Israeli mainstream (extermist right wing) government says. Isreali later backed down on that Powel / Arafat restriction only because it makes routine Israeli censorship too obvious.

Isreal is so dishonest that Sharon even promised to withdraw when first orderd to by George Jr. Watch. There will never be a Sharon withdraw from the occupied territories. Sharon lies are normal. We know simply because of everything Sharon has done previously. Sharon openly lies to everyone. Why has he changed this last month?

Just from the coverup, it becomes obvious that Jenin was a massive civilian massacre. Isreal even refuses to let any of the hundreds (maybe thousand) of Palestinian bodies be returned to their relatives. Israel says it is to keep the Palestinians from having those funerals. Reality is what forensic science calls "Best Evidence". The best evidence of an Isreali massacre would be those bodies. Just like in Bosnia. Best not to let you know the truth about Jenin - as was always Sharon's history.

This is the same man who arranged the massacre of 5,000 women and children only 20 years ago in Lebanon. Massacres are routine for this man as also may have been the massacre of hundreds of captured Egyptian soldiers in 1967 - and the resulting 1.5 hour attack on the US Navy ship USS Liberty. Only one person here even suggests taking Sharon to The Hague for crimes against humanity. It raises serious questions as to how knowledgeable the American public is about this man.

Why does Israel fear the world press? Why was the greatest danger to reporters the Israeli soldier? These are disturbing questions about a democracy that has so changed - that was once an American ally - that now acts just like the man who leads it. Even Hilter was democratically elected.

[Undertoad]

<i> We have sway? The president ordered a withdraw how many times over 11 days? What happened?</i>

He said it once and clarified and repeated it when asked by reporters. But you need to get your story straight, as do I. It was your theory, which I pointed out was first advanced by the Egyptian press, that Bush gave them the green light.

If you believe the theory you advanced on Friday, you can't say on Sunday that we don't have sway.

<i>Just from the coverup, it becomes obvious that Jenin was a massive civilian massacre. Isreal even refuses to let any of the hundreds (maybe thousand) of Palestinian bodies be returned to their relatives.</i>

Israel is claiming 70 people deal at Jenin and 95% of those armed combatants. The truth? Today, we don't know, because there are still people shooting and international observers won't go in until tonight. Is it a coverup because they don't want reporters or observers in? Maybe. Today, 4/14, we don't know.

You don't know either, and you know you don't know. So why are you spinning it so early?

[tw]

Barak's proposal for a Palestinian state based on 91% of the West Bank sounded substantive, but even the most cursory glance at the map revealed the bad faith inherent in it.

If you don't know details behind this quote from Sycamore's hyperlinks, then you have chosen to remain ignorant while people are massacred by American weapons.

I would bet most here would find the Guardian and Independent news story unheard of - new information. Go read, carefully, what Sycamore has hyperlinked. Much, well, for example, would never be reported by the dingbat Liza Thomas Laurie or Jim Garner on Action News - which is why so many understand so little of why the US condones, by inaction, a massacre. Do you see blood on your hands? We pay for it and support it.

[elSicomoro]

Ummm...tw, I think you might be mis-attributing. Xugumad posted the hyperlinks. The only one I posted was for the Israeli government's website.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Israel is claiming 70 people deal at Jenin and 95% of those armed combatants. The truth? Today, we don't know, because there are still people shooting and international observers won't go in until tonight. Is it a coverup because they don't want reporters or observers in? Maybe. Today, 4/14, we don't know.
You don't know either, and you know you don't know. So why are you spinning it so early?

Cited erroneously as spin is what news services suggest as reasonable death numbers. Unfortunately and again, you given credibility to numbers from an extremist right wing, anti-humanity government. They are about as honest as Milosevik's Serbian claims of the Srebrenica massacre - that those dead Bosnians were combatants. At least in Srebrenica, international observers were there to dispute that claim. Sharon made sure he has no such problem.

Real world numbers start at hundreds of dead. Just from news reports already provided by Xugumad's hyperlinks - '95% were combatants' is only for the naive to believe. Only 4 were innocent civilians? Did you also believe Nixon when he said we did not invade Cambodia?

There comes a time when you must answer this. Is Sharon an honest man or is he guilty of crimes against humanity? That is basically what your dispute with anything I have posted comes down to. An honest man would have stopped believing numbers from the Israelis long ago - just as honest men in VietNam called US government reports in VietNam the 5 o'clock Follies.

Any responsible person wants reporters directly on the battlefield just as in WWII, in Vietnam, and in the Gulf War. Where armies fear reporters on the scene, historically, coverups are underway. Do the lessons of history not apply to Israel? For some reason, is Israel god's chosen people who can be trusted to provide honest facts?

We don't have facts because one fact is reported bluntly by news reporters. The most dangerous actor for a reporter on the battlefield was the Israeli soldier. Who shot and killed that Italian reporter? Who shot up the clearly marked NBC News armored car? Who keeps reporters from doing the job they do everywhere in the world? We had good reason to suspect a coverup weeks ago. It is the history of Sharon to massacre innocent civilians in major military operations and to then lie. Why then would his army fear to have reporters on scene? It does not take a genius to understand.

No spin here. That Israeli number of '95% were combatant' is equivalent to saying that Nixon was not a crook because Nixon said so. Those numbers are only reported as facts to the naive. Clearly there was a massacre in Jenin. It is simply a question of how large.

The Israeli army is commanded by a mass murder with intentions and history to violate international law, US demands, and UN resolutions. He has massacred innocent civilians previously and got away with it. Why then would Sharon ban reporters and international observers when it is normal for both to be at the battle scene? That, and the numbers you have cited, both stink of 'coverup' - if your news has been international - which means you had no time for the pathetic Channel 6 Action New or Daily News. I doubt either reported what Xugumad
cited in his hyperlinks.

We know the death figures will be high and will include many MIAs. We have multiple, independent, international news reports that Israelis are burying people in mass graves. We know the Israelis intend to have Jenin policed before international observers and reporters are let in. We know that the Israelis have done everything humanly possible to keep honest facts from reaching world news services. If the battle was as vicious as Israel claims - including Israeli use of human shields - then 1,000 dead just in a refugee camp called Jenin is a good starting number. If the reports in the Guardian, Independent, LA Times, and Washington Post are in proper perspective, then a major percentage of casulties were innocent civilians.

Shameful for giving Israeli numbers any credibility. Those numbers are the real 'spin'. Israelis are reporting honestly (cough) when their own leader has a long history of insubordination, mass murder, outrightly lying directly to George Jr. with intent to deceive, and providing dishonest numbers to the press. So are so easliy decieved as to believe it takes time for military to disengage from an invasion - only because Israel said so.

What do you call the 5 o'clock follies when numbers are provided by an extremist Israeli government? Does a different time zone change the name? Yes I am mocking anyone who would cite Sharon government numbers as facts - because history alone says otherwise - in spades. In fact, when did Sharon not lie? After all, Sharon is Likud - also the party of the petty theif Netanyahu.

[Undertoad]

<i>There comes a time when you must answer this. Is Sharon an honest man or is he guilty of crimes against humanity? That is basically what your dispute with anything I have posted comes down to. An honest man would have stopped believing numbers from the Israelis long ago - just as honest men in VietNam called US government reports in VietNam the 5 o'clock Follies. </i>

This is, I think, your problem. Having determined that Sharon is a dichead, you have decided that the entire government is not to be trusted under any circumstance. It gives you license to entirely dismiss any facts you don't like.

Which leads to the obvious question: exactly what sort of statesman do you think Arafat is that you would believe <i>his</i> information?

Since journalists have not been there, how can you trust any of the information you have?

Here's a WashPost editorial that's really swaying me. What happened the last time Israel agreed to stop a defensive occupation? It was Lebanon, two years ago... and it's where Powell is going tomorrow, to ask whether they might consider not lobbing rockets across the border at random, for no apparent reason.

Stop with the he-said-she-said of today and think of the big picture. Israel is, to the Arab world, a little practice ground where they can focus all their energies; it is, to a lot of folks in that part of the world, a place where they can gather up a lot of hate. It's a place to keep shit afire. The entire Arab world is funding the Palestinian side. And why?

Because they hate the west.

And if they are successful at exporting their approach to the world, Europe and the US would be next.

[elSicomoro]

From MSNBC:

"Israel’s high court orders the Israeli military to turn over Palestinians killed in Jenin to their families for quick burial. Israel had announced it would bury the dead in mass 'enemy' graves."

I saw this on the news first before going to the site. I know it's been done in the past, but something about the original decision disturbs me. I guess it's that it would have made those that died anonymous. Not quite sure though.

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by Undertoad
<i>
Here's a WashPost editorial that's really swaying me. </I>

Go to Charles Krauthammer's archive (the author of the editorial you linked), and read his previous articles. Some of them have titles such as 'Banish Arafat Now', and 'Arafat's Harvest of Hate', just to name a few. Reading them, it is immediately obvious that he has a <B>very</B> strong pro-Israeli agenda, and that he is on the far right of the US political spectrum.

He spends much of his time unquivocally bashing the left, and bipartisanship; in fact, he even briefly wondered why Bush even thought about cooperating with the Democrats, as bipartisanship is wrong. His rant against anti-religious liberals is truly something to behold as well.

(Including such gems as unqualifiedly and praisingly stating that "It is a tenet of conservative faith, as it were, that religion ought to have--and until relatively recently did have--an honored place in the public square.")

(He also unequivocally equates 'Islamism' with 'anti-Americanism', which is something new and interesting to many Muslims I know.)

I was most impressed with his complete condemnation of Vladimir Putin, blaming his ascension entirely on Clinton. Now that Putin and Bush seem to be bosom buddies, he has fallen remarkably quiet. But all of this was only drawn from briefly skimming his archive for five minutes. Do give yourself an hour to understand why the far right is infused with such vitriol; it's good reading.

His archive is linked at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...hammercharles/

People would instantly jump and attack a column by, say, Hillary Clinton; it is necessary to understand where the author is coming from. In Krauthammer's case, it is the far right of the political spectrum. As is the case with all extremes, his vision is impaired, the same way that a Communist's view of politics would be channelled through his own ideological framework. (Interestingly, Krauthammer was briefly a speechwriter for Walter Mondale in 1980.)

As a complete aside, Charles Krauthammer is one of the star columnists of the Jewish World Review. Of course this has nothing to do with his fervent pro-Zionist views.

Something to think about, if nothing else.

X.

[Undertoad]

Huh. Good point.

But is he lying about the rockets?

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Huh. Good point.
But is he lying about the rockets?

I'm not certain which part of the article linked you are referring to, so let's address the critical parts separately:

Krauthammer (CK) writes that...

<I>Hezbollah is armed with 8,000 Katyusha rockets.</I>

CK has no way of knowing this, unless he has privileged access to either US intelligence satellite data or an agent inside the Hezbollah. Thus, the mostly likely source for that precise data (note how he doesn't even claim 'approximately', he specifies exact numbers) is Israeli data. Without wanting to call them liars, it is only in their best interest to vastly exaggerate the danger and capabilities of their opponents. CK is basically reading off a press statement straight from the Knesset.

Naturally, the Hezbollah were sponsored in the past by the USSR, to fight America's ally, Israel. Katyusha rockets are Russian-made; we can see eerie parallels to the US Stinger-missile armed Afghan forces. So yes, of course the Hezbollah have rockets, and they want to fire them at the Israeli troops who they think are occupying their territories. They are guerilla fighters, and some of them are terrorists. Will they fire them at Haifa or other population centers? Probably not - their main beef is with the army, much closer, and a much more convenient enemy to fight.

<I>
Syria could not withstand such an Israeli attack conventionally. It might then launch its missiles equipped with chemical weapons into Israeli cities. And that could trigger Armageddon. Israel was established so that never again would the gassing of Jews be permitted.
</I>

This is where it gets interesting. We leave logic behind and switch into emotional pleading mode. We invoke the image of the holocaust, but not even as the abstract entity, but rather specifically 'gassing of Jews', as the humane, approachable image. We emphasize that the whole purpose of the state of Israel is to avoid gassing of Jews (which is patent nonsense, the Balfour declaration, Zionist movement, and steps to establish a Jewish state are much older than that), thus showing us the supposed gravity and threat of the situation.

Oh my.

We are of course ignoring the fact that Syria using chemical weapons is an entirely hypothetical scenario that we have no reason to believe would be true. Whatever they might be, the Syrian leadership isn't made of complete imbeciles. Israel is a nuclear power. Striking the focal Israeli population centers would be suicidal, and not even in a good, 'dying-for-Allah' way of suicide, either. The most commonly invoked chemical weapons spectre was Iraq, and did the Iraqi ever launch any chemical weapons at either Israel or the US troops, even when a far superior army to that of Israel was invading the Iraqi homeland?

Hell no. And the Iraqi leadership was a lot more radical than the Syrians.

<I>
Western observers totally missed the irony of the Arab summit whose "Saudi peace plan" ostensibly offered Israel peace in return for full territorial withdrawal.
</I>

Western observers totally missed any willingness to compromise on the Israeli side. The deal was full recognition of Israel as a state from its Arab neighbours. This would be a first, incredibly important step. It's been obvious for more than two decades that a land-for-recognition deal is the only viable solution.

<I>
Look at Lebanon, where Israel gave up a defensive occupation and is now looking squarely in the face of Armageddon.
</I>

The hyperbole is so thick that he is practically frothing at the mouth. Israel is looking at Armageddon because it's struggling for survival. I feel very deep sympathy for the Israeli people, but the Arabs aren't going to go away, they've been there for entirely too long. Persecuting and murdering them at every turn isn't going to work, that's state-sponsored terrorism. Israel, as a supposedly democratic state with the US as its backer, ought to be able to come up with a better solution than the one described in my thread-starting post. A land-for-recognition deal must be the first step.

X.

<a href="http://rense.com/general24/jeninslaughterhouse.htm">Read this</a>.

[Undertoad]

No, what I meant to ask with "Is he lying about the rockets?" was "Are you saying that guerillas are not lobbing rockets into Israel from land that Israel previously occupied for twenty years so that nobody would lob rockets into their nation?" How many rockets they currently have is not really at issue. If they want more, all they need to do is ask Iran, Iraq, or Syria.

Regarding Iraq's enormous sense of restraint (!), I <i>don't know</i> whether they used any chemical weapons. Do you? It is one possible explanation of the "Iraqi War Syndrome". Do you believe that they did NOT use such weapons against their own people? Did you believe that the Iraqi war propaganda showing "Baby Milk Factory" in English on the backs of Iraqi workers' uniforms was evidence that they were really producing "Baby Milk"? Why did they throw out the weapons inspectors, at the price of sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands? Because they didn't like their shoes? Do you believe that Iraq's seeming lack of use of such weapons in a 1991 war is indicative of their good faith against using them in 2002? Is it possible a month of preliminary strikes prevented them from employing defensive weapons effectively? Do you own a gas mask?

By the way, you've convinced me about Krauthammer, but your "read this" source is also alarmed about the NASA cover-up of chemtrails, details the most recent UFO sightings, and has an update on the face on Mars. And sells CHI machine "brain tuners" on its front page. You might have missed this. HTH.

Meanwhile, it took Arafat ONE DAY to go back on his "commitment" against suicide bombing. I'm not impressed.