Army's ethics chief: Israel fought fair in Gaza

[Barack_America]

Army's ethics chief: Israel fought fair in Gaza

By KARIN LAUB – 1 day ago

NETANYA, Israel (AP) — In some ways, Brig. Gen. Eli Shermeister's job is one of the toughest in the Israeli army.

Shermeister serves as the Israeli army's ethics watchdog at a time when the military is under international scrutiny for its behavior during its Gaza invasion. That puts him in the front line of a war of words that extend into the white-hot realm of "war crimes," "anti-Semitism," "atrocities" and "blood libel."

But his job is made easier by the fact that most Israelis support his contention that they have nothing to be ashamed of. "I didn't see in the Gaza operation anything that can teach us or show us that something in the moral attitude of the IDF (military) was ... changed or spoiled," Shermeister said in an interview with The Associated Press at an officers' school in Netanya, north of Tel Aviv...

More:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gg3z3_syCo0oC9cvD1qQgnD4PWWwD97F1NJ81

[rateyes]

1. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Fozzledick]

48. This guy - that's his job

[rateyes]

50. No, his job is watchdog...

who is watching him?

[Jefferson23]

2. Well, that is the problem, they believe they have nothing to be ashamed of.

[shira]

5. "they" meaning the citizens of Israel and therefore all those involved in the IDF

which is the vast majority of the entire population of Israel. Maybe they know something you don't? Or do you think information is not available to them that you have? Or do you think they're just delusional? Liars?

[Jefferson23]

7. OCL is what Israel should be ashamed of, all of it, not some of it.

[shira]

9. so thousands of rockets over 8 years and 300 more during Christmas week 2008

and like any other country worldwide, Israel should have just "taken it", right? Maybe said "thank you, may we have more"?

[Jefferson23]

10. Peddling nonsense continually I see by you, regardless of the topic.

When you begin and confine the conversation of the conflict with whether or not Israel has a right to defend itself, you are not considering the prior actions and consequences of Israeli policy that led up to their decision to wage OCL.

It is your prerogative to believe that Israel wants peace, yet imo, their actions speak otherwise. Their actions say they do not want the consequences of peace, because what they want is the West Bank.

My hope for the Palestinians and for those Israelis that do not support the occupation of Gaza, that President Obama will be speaking for them in his efforts to end this insanity, God only knows someone certainly needs to to take the initiative.

[Sezu]

13. the WEST BANK??

Then why have various Israeli gov'ts offered up 93-98% of it to the PA in negotiations? You don't know whay you are talking about.

[rateyes]

14. They should get the hell out of 100% of it, and give back

the Golan Heights to Syria. Instead they keep tearing down Palestinian homes in Jerusalem, and building more settlements in the West Bank, and torch olive trees, etc.

Yeah. The West Bank.

[shira]

37. based on south Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005, what makes you think a pullou

from the W.Bank is good for Israeli citizens who've had enough of war? The 2000 pullout from Lebanon led to Hizbullah 2006 and the pullout in 2005 led to OCL. With that kind of track record, are you just relying on blind faith when you say that a 100% pullout from the W.Bank and Golan will end all this aggression?

[rateyes]

51. I'm saying that Israel is an occupying power who need to get

the hell out of the occupied territories. Period. And, they should give the Palestinians they exiled the right to reclaim their homes from those who stole them.

[Jefferson23]

15. Naive statement you make.

Hamas held the cease fire it agreed to in June 2008, while Israel neglected another piece to that cease fire agreement, which was to ease the blockades. I don't see credible evidence that Israel wants a negotiating partner, quite the contrary, they go out of their way to avoid it...they want the West Bank for their state.

[shira]

38. how do you know the June 2008 agreement between Hamas and Israel

included Israel easing the blockade? It wasn't even called a ceasefire. Where's your evidence? Is the paperwork available online?

[Jefferson23]

45. And you expect me to take your questions seriously? Remain uninformed,

your choice.

[shira]

53. when you find the terms of the June 2008 agreement, I'm sure you'll let us know

[Jefferson23]

54. Right, and I'll be sure to include facts that the earth is round too,

because evidently the level of information that escapes you knows no bounds.

[shira]

55. here, I did it for you

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Behind+the+Headlines-+Calm+in+the+South+19-Jun-2008.htm

Notice on the right side of the page under External Links:

"Six months of the lull arrangement - Summary and analysis (IICC report, Dec 2008)"

You'll find Israel did allow more goods into Gaza during that time.

[Jefferson23]

58. You didn't do anything for me, however, you have presented why you have

no accurate information, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is part of the Israeli government.

I suppose you believed George W. Bush about WMD too, after all, he had SOS Powell say so, it must be valid then and all the other damning information that didn't support that must have been phony.

[shira]

60. the IDF functions a bit differently than the US military and govt

Everyone and their family tends to serve and is therefore very much aware of what goes on in the IDF. It'd be extremely difficult - if not impossible - for the IDF to pull the wool over its own civilians eyes as you seem to think what frequently happens there.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. If they were serious, why did Barak walk? Cut us a break.

The old Camp David myths have been debunked.

[shira]

36. the Gaza 2005 pullout was not anti-Palestinian action that should have provoked rocket attacks

Rocket attacks, in fact, increased after the 2005 pullout. So what explanation do you have for that?

Go back 3 months. You're a resident of Sderot or any area within Hamas missile range. You've seen all the damage, destruction, and affected lives firsthand. So 3 months ago, you would have called for the Israeli govt to do __________ ?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. You've hit the nail on the head Shira. This is not an instance where the IDF conducted an

unpopular war, is it?

[shira]

44. no doubt

Those here against Israel and OCL must have very low opinions of most Israelis.

[Ken Burch]

72. Given the degree to which the military is able to censor domestic news coverage of its activities

in Israel, it's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE fthat "information is not available to(Israelis)that(Americans)have.

Might as well face it, shira, the IDF ain't a people's army in any real sense anymore. At least not in the officer class, where they've basically degenerated into the same bullshit right-wing "warrior mentality" that every other army in the world has.

And you don't even live there yourself, shira, so your getting your feelings hurt about people criticizing the IDF is just silly. You need to accept that the IDF needs just as much accountability as any other army, and has no moral superiority to any other army.

[shira]

81. it's a people's army, Ken

Practically everyone serves. And everyone knows of close friends and family who serve.

You must have a very low opinion of Israelis in general. It's laughable you think they are not privy to information that non-Israelis have.

[Howardx]

3. why do they even bother?

they always find themselves innocent.

[azurnoir]

4. An explanation of civilian deaths and human shields

Of 1,434 Palestinians killed in the Gaza invasion, 960 were civilians, including 121 women and 288 children, according to a United Nations special rapporteur, Richard Falk. Israeli military lawyers instructed army commanders that Palestinians who remained in a targeted building after having been warned to leave were “voluntary human shields,” and thus combatants. Israeli gunners “knocked on roofs” — that is, fired first at corners of buildings, before hitting more vulnerable points — to “warn” Palestinian residents to flee

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/oh-but-they-were-voluntary-human-shields.html

in other words obviously "they" wanted to die or are there any civilians in Gaza seeing as how almost any Gazan is viewed as a potential terrorist

[Barack_America]

6. That actually made my jaw drop.

So you've got armed Israeli soldiers surrounding your home and if you're too terrified to walk out in front of them, you've now given the green light for them to bomb you while you're still inside?

:wtf:

[shira]

8. numbers show that more than 2/3 killed were Hamas militants, not civilians

Just like evidence that came out months later in 2006 showing more than half killed were Hizbullah.

Given that both Hamas and Hizbullah utilize strategies that intentionally try to maximize civilian casualties as in no other known conflicts, and given that the majority of Israel's victims in the past 2 wars have been militants - a very strong case can be made that Israel's military more effectively targets and eliminates militants (not civilians) better than any other modern day western military. In fact, civilian casualty rates in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan where NATO forces are far exceeds the last 2 Israeli wars.

Blame Israel all you want for most anything else, as you will keep doing, but their combat record WRT between militant and civilian ratios is arguably the best ever recorded in combat history.

In fact, the USA and UK are busy learning from Israel the strategies and tactics Israel is using so that they can later learn how to more effectively fight in future assymetric wars.

What the world is viewing WRT Israel vs. Hamas or Hizbullah is a look into the future for all western democracies that will inevitably face the same challenges sooner rather than later. Bash Israel at your own risk, for this type of warfare will undoubtedly be coming to a theatre near you. If the reason behind Israel bashing is to make it so that it's impossible for Israel to defend itself, this will without any question have repurcussions beyond Israel, as other western nations will inevitably face the same challenges.

The main challenge being:

Media as a weapon in assymetrical warfare
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-012

The above research was used by Amnesty International in their Hizbullah/Israel report.

[Jefferson23]

11. Fact-Checking Marvin Kalb

May 5 / 6, 2007


Harvard's Twisted Report on Israel's Invasion of Lebanon

By FRANKLIN LAMB

Qana, Lebanon.

First it was (and is) that would be tenure-denying, torture-justifying, Israeli occupation apologist, opponent smearing, Alan Dershowitz. I could deal with Alan.

But now it's Marvin Kalb! A boyhood hero of mine!

When I spent a year at Harvard Law School, studying the Chinese Legal System a while back Dershowitz did not appear particularly out of control.

Neither did Marvin Kalb when we chatted at a Washington NBC function and who seemed reasonable enough as moderator of Meet the Press. So the problem for sure has got to be Harvard! Or maybe it's just me!

Currently a Senior Fellow at Harvard's, Joan Shorenstein Center, (no hard feelings that it's paid for by Walter Shorestein-AIPAC's favorite member and Californian fundraiser or that its DC office is very cozy with the nearby AIPAC office), Kalb recently published a 'study': The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict. He was joined by Carol Saivetz. So far so good. I'm all for 'academic studies.

remainder here:http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb05052007.html

[shira]

39. Franklin Lamb is a putz. Do your own research on Kalb. He's more liberal than Lamb will ever be.

[Jefferson23]

46. It is fact checked shira, not based on opinion, I doubt you even read it.

[shira]

57. I skipped to the part in which Lamb stated Hizbullah did not exploit civilians in its war

so much for his credibility. You saw all the evidence for yourself if you've been keeping up. Amnesty International didn't deny Hizbullah human shield activity.

Lamb is a putz.

ps
Here is evidence of Hizbullah human shields that Franklin Lamb and Human Rights Watch denies:



Photo and visual evidence
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2006/Operation%20Change%20of%20Direction%20Video%20Clips
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/human_shields.htm

Lebanese claiming hezbollah using them and firing from homes
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404EFDA123FF93BA15754C0A9609C8B63

Dershowitz gathers media reports of Hezbollah shields
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-human-rights-watch-_b_27701.html

Hezbollah war crimes
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjI3MmUzNGQxYjhiYjVhNDc4NzU2NWE4MmMwYjdmM2M=

Hizbullah Used Civilians, Mosques in Attack on IDF
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/108477

Hizbullah hid rockets in houses
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276105,00.html

Qana: Hezbollah hiding behind civilians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aur_DmTIw70

Hezbollah uses UN posts as shields
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b4923801-9def-4606-af6a-bc5eea30b89b

UN chief accuses Hezbollah of ‘cowardly blending’ among refugees
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205349,00.html

IDF: Hizbullah preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278026,00.html

==========================================================================

Amnesty writing on Hizbullah use of human shields:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x269215#269745

[Jefferson23]

59. Among others, Dershowitz, fox news, is your idea of fact-checking, ok

I would expect this from a Republican, not a DU member, but at least I'm aware now of where you're coming from.

[shira]

61. Dershowitz is a liberal democrat supporter of Obama. Fox News isn't the only one with that story

Pretty lame attempt at dismissing the sources. The articles Dershowitz cites can all be googled.

[Jefferson23]

63. Dershowitz is a lot of things shira, one thing he is not is sane or credible

about Israel, he defends the use of torture. Why you peddle this horse-shit as credible, I have no idea. I have experienced conservatives who offer this garbage to refute solid fact-checking with the type of sources you posted, but not on a politically progressive forum.

[shira]

67. you're trying to change topics.....Dershowitz cites sources that can all be googled

Dershowitz cites mainstream media articles showing YOUR source not to be credible. Why you'd peddle dishonest, lying propaganda on a progressive forum from a crackpot like Franklin Lamb, who denies Hizbullah human shields despite overwhelming evidence, I have no idea. And why you base your anger at Israel on lying crackpots like Franklin Lamb, I have no idea.

[Jefferson23]

74. The topic hasn't changed, your sources don't refute what I stated

in my post you claimed as questionable. No progressive uses Fox news and Dershowitz's horse shit nor any of your other sources as mainstream shira. You didn't read what Lamb factchecked, that is clear, as you are poorly characterizing what he objected to.

Also, your defense of what I stated in post # 15 was to counter it by what the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed, that is your idea of proof. What is odd to me, is how anyone on a progressive political forum can claim not to be aware of the cease fire agreement between Hamas and Israel, brokered by Egypt on June 19, 2008 and what those agreements were and what transpired afterward. Peculiar indeed that your sources offer the very talking points of conservatives on this subject.

Btw, try at least to respond without mimicking my words, you would appear more original that way at least.

[shira]

75. those sources refute Lamb's "fact-checking" claims of no hizbullah human shield exploitation

I used Dershowitz because in one article, he cited a LOT of mainstream news sources that reported Hizbullah human shield usage. I could care less what Dershowitz believes - the fact is that the sources he cited are all legit and can be googled for verification.

As for Fox News, who gives a shit? It was an AP report (see below). All you're doing now is obfuscating because your dishonest source has been trashed.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641228713
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280876,00.html

And now the IDF report on the June 2008 "calm" (you wrongly labeled it a ceasefire) offers conservative talking points? Are you for real?

Lastly, how can you base your obsessive focus against Israel on such dishonest sources? Pathological rightwingers do this all the time at JihadWatch and other Islamophobic websites that cite extremely unreliable and discredited media sources. What's your excuse?

[Jefferson23]

76. Deception is your tool, as you clearly continue to poorly characterize

Lamb's article. I'll leave it to those who wish to read it and they can judge for themselves. I am confident that analysis is not by any stretch of the imagination exclusive to only him. But you'll never see a consensus for that by those who search for information through Dershowitz, the National Review and Fox on the subject of Israel as you do.

The IDF report, I never stated that report for the cease fire agreement, nor did I refer to it in any way, if you're trying to be funny you have failed. Those events did not take place yesterday, that you find my statements about the agreement questionable at this point in time is what is peculiar, they are not controversial. I'll reiterate, I've read those same sources and talking points that you offered earlier but they are always from conservatives, not from someone on a progressive political forum.

[shira]

82. Do you believe Hizbullah committed war crimes by deliberately putting Lebanese civilians in harm's

way while fighting Israel?

[bemildred]

64. Dershowitz supports torture.

Dispute that.

[shira]

68. yes, he does, in very limited ways - far more limited than Jack Bauer of 24 fame

but unlike you and the sources you trust - Dersh doesn't outright lie and claim there is no evidence of Hizbullah or Hamas human shields. Your sources lie their collective asses off. Worse, you base your anger against Israel on these same lying sources.

[bemildred]

73. Are you confusing me with someone else?

I don't believe I have said doodle about Hamas or Hezbollah using or not using human shields, ever.

I have pointed out the folly of expecting irregular fighters to stand out in a field somewhere so you can mow them down easily.

It's true I use lots of different unreliable sources, like Arutz Sheva.

And what the heck does that have to do with the moral failures of Dershowitz, the wannabe torturer?

But anyway, if Hezbollah and Hamas only use human shields in "very limited" ways, would that make it OK?

[shira]

77. i thought you were azurnoir

sorry I laid into you like that.

I don't believe I have said doodle about Hamas or Hezbollah using or not using human shields, ever.

Correct.

I have pointed out the folly of expecting irregular fighters to stand out in a field somewhere so you can mow them down easily.

Fighters beware then. It's still a war crime to hide and fight deliberately amongst civilians.

It's true I use lots of different unreliable sources, like Arutz Sheva.

Nah, just any source like HRW that denies Hezbollah or Hamas human shield usage, or doesn't link that to civilians killed by IDF.

And what the heck does that have to do with the moral failures of Dershowitz, the wannabe torturer?

The sole reason Dersh's article was used was because he managed to put a lot of news reports on Hezbollah human shields into that one piece.

But anyway, if Hezbollah and Hamas only use human shields in "very limited" ways, would that make it OK?

But they don't use human shields in very limited ways, do they?

[bemildred]

78. LOL.

sorry I laid into you like that.

Thank you.

I don't believe I have said doodle about Hamas or Hezbollah using or not using human shields, ever.

Correct.

Thank you.

I have pointed out the folly of expecting irregular fighters to stand out in a field somewhere so you can mow them down easily.

Fighters beware then. It's still a war crime to hide and fight deliberately amongst civilians.

I don't think they expect much.

It's true I use lots of different unreliable sources, like Arutz Sheva.

Nah, just any source like HRW that denies Hezbollah or Hamas human shield usage, or doesn't link that to civilians killed by IDF.

I think I have used HRW now and then, and AI, and others, but I use Arutz Sheva a lot more. I tend to avoid NGOs in favor of news sources.

And what the heck does that have to do with the moral failures of Dershowitz, the wannabe torturer?

The sole reason Dersh's article was used was because he managed to put a lot of news reports on Hezbollah human shields into that one piece.

It still seems like a red herring to me, I just pointed out he thinks torture is OK. Obama apparently doesn't. I agree with Obama. I do not like "the end justifies the means" arguments. Ethics and morals don't mean much if you only apply them when it's convenient.

But anyway, if Hezbollah and Hamas only use human shields in "very limited" ways, would that make it OK?

But they don't use human shields in very limited ways, do they?

I was criticizing the argument that torture is OK if you do it in "very limited" ways, I was not defending the tactics of Hezbollah or Hamas. Can I infer that you approve of torture if it's only done in "very limited" ways?

[shira]

79. .

I was criticizing the argument that torture is OK if you do it in "very limited" ways, I was not defending the tactics of Hezbollah or Hamas. Can I infer that you approve of torture if it's only done in "very limited" ways?

No, I'm against it.

[bemildred]

83. Good, glad to hear it. nt

[azurnoir]

12. Yes IDF did publish different numbers for Cast Lead

in fact the total death toll was much lower according to IDF and well IDF is the only ones who could possibly be telling the truth right?

As to your report on Hezbollah please try to stay on topic you have used that tactic quite frequently lately I for one am not playing, Hamas is not Hezbollah and the 2006 conflict was a bit different than Cast Lead but I did note that Israel did little more than shake its fist at Lebanon

[shira]

40. First strike against 200 police officers......considered civilians by PCHR but militants by Hamas

Right away, rather than 900 civilians you're down to 700 civilians and 700 militants if that 1400 figure is correct. Shall we go on?

[rateyes]

18. So, only 1 out of 3 were innocent civilians...

I guess Israel can live with that. :eyes:

Too bad it's 3 out of every 3 who are victims of the blockades.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. Don't accept Shira's figures. nt

[rateyes]

33. I don't. Figures don't lie, but liars (the article, not shira) figure.

[shira]

41. in a war against an enemy that tries to maximize civilian losses, that's actually an accomplishment

as unfortunate as any civilian loss is.

But you probably don't believe Hamas works to maximize civilian casualties in the event Israel strikes at their missile/rocket launchers. Am I right?

[rateyes]

52. What I'm wondering is why you seem to think the Palestinians

should thank Israel for stealing their homes and their land, and why you act surprised that victims of theft fight to get their land back.

[shira]

56. what I wonder are 2 things which you'll apparently never answer

1. Why, based on Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005 should Israel just hand over the W.Bank and Golan and expect different results? Would you like to see more war and casualties as a result? Can you just admit that by handing over land, Palestinian leadership is more likely to increase terror attacks against Israel?

2. Can you admit that it's Hamas policy that they want civilian casualties maximized in the event Israel responds defensively to rockets or missiles?


Feel free to ask me questions, so long as you're willing to answer questions too - okay?

[rateyes]

62. I think that 1. Israel should hand over the occupied territories

regardless. The land doesn't belong to them. And, 2. That Hamas is no better or worse than Israel. But, as long as Israel continues to occupy lands that don't belong to them, Israel gives Hamas justification to do what they do.

Now, my question: Why shouldn't the Palestinians be able to fight for what belongs to them...seeing as how they had their land and homes stolen by Israel?

[Vegasaurus]

65. And 850,000 Jews had their land and homes stolen by Arabs

but no one seems to keen on compensating them for their losses.

Are Jews out terrorizing every Arab country where they had their homes and land stolen?

No, because they have moved on and made good lives for themselves.

The Palestinians could learn a lesson from that and do the same.

[rateyes]

66. And, when, pray tell, did that happen?

[shira]

69. you didn't really respond to my questions

I'll wait to answer you until you do

[rateyes]

70. Yes, I did.

[shira]

71. no, you didn't......read my questions again. They were quite specific and you didn't answer directly

[rateyes]

85. Let me try again.

1. It really doesn't matter to me whether or not Israel believes that pulling out will be helpful or keep them from being attacked. Israel is OCCUPYING LAND IT HAS NO BUSINESS OCCUPYING. As long as they are there, they are giving justification to their attackers for the attacks. Staying there makes the situation worse all around. They need to get the hell out of 100% of the occupied territories. If they are attacked afterward, Israel then has justification for DEFENDING ITSELF...but NOT for OCCUPYING land that does not belong to them. And, BTW, there are many Israelis living in homes that belonged/built by the Palestinians they forced into exile.

2. I think Hamas is despicable with how it treats people. But, I think Hamas is no more despicable than the IDF. They are both terrorist organizations. A pox on both their houses.

[Vegasaurus]

86. And G-d knows how many Arabs are living in Jewish homes in Iraq,

Egypt, Yemen, Syria?

Let's be honest though.

It's hard to be honest around here, but we can try.

This conflict isn't at all about any occupation of lands won in the '67 war.

It's about the "occupation" of the entire state of Israel.

Israel isn't leaving, so as long as Palestinians have claimed that they will violently resist until they "liberate all of greater Palestine" (ie Israel) there will never, ever be peace.

Clearing out most of the OT (as has been offered in the past) isn't good enough for the militants.

They want the whole of Israel.

And they aren't getting it, so there will be perpetual conflict.

[rateyes]

87. G-d knows (and, I wondered when the deity would appear in this conversation)

that you're absolutely correct when you say "clearing out MOST of the OT isn't good enough..." DAMNED STRAIGHT. Israel has already managed to steal most of Palestine (that's right, I said "steal"), and Israel just doesn't seem to understand how the victims (that you call "militants" :puke:) of that theft might want ALL of what was taken from them back. Hell, they should be GRATEFUL that Israel has offered to give back MOST of PART of the land that was taken. :sarcasm: (As if I really need to add that smilie.)

And, as long as we're being honest here: What the hell do you mean about "land WON in the '67 war?" If Israel WON it, then it wouldn't be OCCUPIED, it would be THEIRS (which, I'm sure is probably your attitude.)

Oh, and, again as long as we are being honest here---quit using the oppression of the Jewish people (which was horrible) to justify Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. (And, quit buying into the "Arabs stealing land from the Jews" lie.) Quit using the old charge of "anti-semitic" to try and shut up all valid opposition to the racism of Zionists.

The UN gave that land to Israel (though, it wasn't theirs to give). Israel should be grateful and COMPLY with UN resolutions. What is happening in Israel is apartheid, plain and simple, and the UN and the US should no longer put up with it.

No, Israel isn't going anywhere...exept further into the West Bank--except into Gaza to do a helluva lot more than "defend itself."

You accuse the Palestinians of "wanting all of Israel." Well, look in the mirror, because Israel has shown it wants all of Palestine, and that to them, the only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian.

As long as you're being honest.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

90. The original cause is one thing, What is necessary for a solution is another.

The root cause of the conflict was the theft of Palestinian land to found a Jewish state. That was a crime and a catastrophe, but it's far too late to remedy - people aquire rights to a land by occupying it for generations; the fact that Israel should never have been founded no more justifies destroying it than the fact that the US was founded on genocide justifies destroying it (although if one had the option to do so with a time machine, preventing the founding of either nation would be a good deed).

But to end the conflict, it hopefully (not certainly, but far more probably than most anti-Palestinian advocates claim) wouldn't be necessary to undo that original crime; by now enough of the Palestinians would be willing to settle for Israel keeping the land stolen in the 40s and returning the land stolen in 67, allowing them a viable state with Jerusalem as its capital, and compromising on the refugees, for peace to "take".

Clearing out "most" of the OT probably won't be, though, and nor should it be, if the parts that are excluded by "most" are such as to make a functioning state impossible (as was the case at Camp David).

[oberliner]

20. Does the US Army have an ethics chief?

If so, I wonder how our conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan has been evaluated as far as ethics are concerned.

Presumably, since Obama has called for several thousand more troops to be sent to Afghanistan, he is comfortable with the way our forces have conducted themselves there.

Of the many civilians who have been killed by American forces in Afghanistan, the most recent was a seven-day old baby who was shot by US forces just yesterday (along with his parents and two siblings).

[Howardx]

21. who cares?

we are discussing this article here, not the us army.

[oberliner]

23. This article is about whether the Israeli army behaved ethically

It would be useful to have some kind of benchmark to determine what constitutes ethical behavior for the armed forces of a country.

I would think the US Army might be a good barometer for such a determination.

[Howardx]

24. i think youre trying to hijack the thread

again.

[oberliner]

30. The thread is about Israel's claim of ethical army behavior

Part of their argument is that the conduct of their army follows the same ethical guidelines of the armies of other Western states. I do not wish to discuss anything that is unrelated to the OP in this thread.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. If you don't wish to discuss anything unrelated to the OP, then don't do it...

Part of their argument is that the conduct of their army follows the same ethical guidelines of the armies of other Western states.

That argument wasn't anywhere in the OP. And there's no need to go off on tangents asking if other armies have ethics chiefs because it doesn't change anything in regard to the OP. It's very clear that the IDF did not behave in an ethical or moral way during OCL, despite the claims that the IDF are the *most moral army in the world*.

[shira]

42. yeah, stop changing the subject.....focus only on Israel

it doesn't matter whether any other western military has a military ethics committee, even like the Israeli one that weeks ago brought out soldiers' testimonies in local Israeli papers that quickly became worldwide news. Who cares if no other military does that? Keep focused. Even if the IDF is more ethical than any other military, it's still the worst...um, somehow.

:eyes:

[Fozzledick]

47. Because comparing the IDF's actions to every other army in human history is totally irrelevant

to those who just want to vilify Israel.

I can't help thinking that there are a lot of Tamils in Sri Lanka right now who wish their government was as scrupulous as Israel in minimizing civilian casualties. What we're seeing there is closer to the norm.

[Jefferson23]

22. And you thought that people on a progressive political forum

would object to investigations?? That progressives here would make excuses for Obama?


Considering that Bush ruled for the last 8 years oberliner, and Obama has been president for a couple of months, your question seems a tad defensive.

[oberliner]

25. Has Obama questioned the ethics of the US Army?

If so, I have not seen or heard any statements in that regard.

My only question I would ask to fellow progressives in regard to the OP is whether or not the Israeli army behaved in a manner that is inconsistent with the ethical behavior of other armies, such as our own.

Is the Israeli army particularly unethical, particularly ethical, or about average as far as ethics are concerned?

The Israeli government seems to claim that the Israeli army is especially ethical, while some outside organizations have claimed that it is especially unethical.

It would helpful to have some sort of understanding of how other armies behave to get a sense of whose assessment of the Israeli army's behavior in this conflict is most accurate.

[Howardx]

26. "fellow progressives"

you never have managed to explain how supporting occupation is "progressive". just because you vote democrat doesnt mean youre "progressive"

[oberliner]

28. I am opposed to the occupation and share Obama's position on the I/P conflict

I support two states living side by side at peace with another and I believe that the Geneva Accords would be a good starting point for negotiations towards that end.

[Howardx]

29. so you say

talk is cheap. i have seen nothing from you that would lead me to believe that.

[oberliner]

31. I've tried to go out of my way to post those sentiments as often as possible

I've also worked to elect people like Obama (and others on the local level) who share my views on the subject.

I also keep trying to push One Voice and the Geneva Accord folks every chance I get!

[Howardx]

32. seriously oberliner

if thats your goal here you are not acheiving it. try posting more about those groups and less about qassams, there are plenty of people here to do that.

[LeftishBrit]

91. Try these links for starters...

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x262924

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=124&page=2

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=260873&mesg_id=260956

[Jefferson23]

34. Why would you need to do that? There exists the Geneva Convention,

and a host of other laws the military can be judged by.

Hypothetically speaking, it seems you're suggesting that if the US army conduct is judged negatively, then that would make the IDF's conduct ethical by comparison. I would hope you wouldn't depend on such a low standard.

Military have covered for their own, and have scapegoated their own too when it serves them, so what is your point exactly, that Americans are blind to that hypocrisy? Vigilance on the part of the lawmakers, citizens, the courts etc. is what helps ensure an army maintain ethical conduct.

After only days in office Obama was already looking at the abuses of detainees, you must know this, and you must know that progressives are not jumping for joy over some of the administrations responses to the problem and letting Obama know it.

[shira]

43. who cares if Bush led the last 8 years....why don't the US, UK.. have military ethics committees?

[azurnoir]

27. Anyone who been paying attention to Iraq and

Afghanistan knows that the US's conduct has not always been ethical and some of us believe that closer investigation is warranted

As to the week old baby shot dead in Afghanistan more on that story

Troops targeting a militant linked to the radical Haqqani network and the Islamic Jihad Union surrounded a compound in the raid in the eastern province of Khost. However during the raid a neighbouring family, appearing to fear the village was under attack by thieves, opened fire on the US forces.


A US military statement said: "The combined forces returned fire, killing two males, two females and wounding two females. There are reports of an infant also killed. Coalition and Afghan forces do not believe that this family was involved with militant activities and that they were defending their home against an unknown threat."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/10/afghan-baby-shot-dead-in_n_185534.html

of course that also could be a BS covering arse story too

that is a bit unlike the IAF's apparent comfort with killing 11 children to get to their father as in the case of Nizar Rayyan

Rayyan, his four wives and 11 of his children were killed in an Israeli strike on his residence on January1, 2009.

http://www.webgaza.net/gaza_strip/north_gaza/people_profiles/Rayyan_Nizar.htm

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. IDF says IDF behaved ethically.

So I guess that settles it, then...

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Yeah, it's not like the IDF bullshits about these sort of things...

Here's a case of the killing of an 11 year old Palestinian boy in 2001 where the IDFs response to B'Tselem had a file attached to it (some pencil pusher really stuffed up) with internal records of the opinion of the IDF Judge Advocate which showed a very different version of events than the response it gave to B'Tselem.

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200111_Whitewash_Eng.pdf

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. You think that was an accident?

I have no evidence whatsoever - this is the first I've even heard of the case - but my immediate thought is that it sounds more likely that the "pencil pusher" wanted to expose the IDF, rather than that they made an accident.

I doubt we'll ever know, though.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Possibly, I haven't thought about that too much..

The important thing about that incident is it's proof that the IDF even back in 2001 covered up things to absolve themselves of responsibility...

[LeftishBrit]

89. I wouldn't rely on the army's own 'ethics chief' for that; he has a clear bias

Same applies to any army or government; they will generally put their own actions in a good light and those of their enemy in a bad light.