Israel's Policy Is Perfectly 'Proportionate'

[question everything]

JANUARY 2, 2009

Israel's Policy Is Perfectly 'Proportionate'
Hamas are the real war criminals in this conflict.
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
WSJ

Israel's actions in Gaza are justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its self-defense against terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks. The only limitation international law places on a democracy is that its actions must satisfy the principle of proportionality.

Since Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets designed to kill civilians into southern Israel. The residents of Sderot -- which have borne the brunt of the attacks -- have approximately 15 seconds from launch time to run into a shelter. Although deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime, terrorists firing at Sderot are so proud of their actions that they sign their weapons. When Barack Obama visited Sderot this summer and saw the remnants of these rockets, he reacted by saying that if his two daughters were exposed to rocket attacks in their home, he would do everything in his power to stop such attacks. He understands how the terrorists exploit the morality of democracies. In a recent incident related to me by the former head of the Israeli air force, Israeli intelligence learned that a family's house in Gaza was being used to manufacture rockets. The Israeli military gave the residents 30 minutes to leave. Instead, the owner called Hamas, which sent mothers carrying babies to the house.

Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it. They also knew that if Israeli authorities did not learn there were civilians in the house and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead. Israel held its fire. The Hamas rockets that were protected by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians. These despicable tactics -- targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians -- can only work against moral democracies that care deeply about minimizing civilian casualties. They never work against amoral nations such as Russia, whose military has few inhibitions against killing civilians among whom enemy combatants are hiding.

The claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality -- by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets -- is absurd. First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian. Second, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk posed. This is illustrated by what happened on Tuesday, when a Hamas rocket hit a kindergarten in Beer Sheva, though no students were there at the time. Under international law, Israel is not required to allow Hamas to play Russian roulette with its children's lives.

(snip)

Until the world recognizes that Hamas is committing three war crimes -- targeting Israeli civilians, using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and seeking the destruction of a member state of the United Nations -- and that Israel is acting in self-defense and out of military necessity, the conflict will continue.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085925621747981.html

[IndianaGreen]

1. Alan Dershowitz the defender of torture, rendition, and Abu Ghraib

is nothing but a loud mouth.

[Meshuga]

5. I bet you would be kissing his butt

If he was being critical of Israel instead. Judging from your posts here. But since he defends Israel, it doesn't matter what he says since it is more important to appeal to the ad hominem.

[bstender]

8. Dershowitz can be safely ignored

His bias is consistent and predictable. His lack of ethics are well established. If you see his name, you can simply ignore his words unless you need to hear his cheer-leading...which is likely in the world becoming increasingly aware of the fraud that is Isreali good intentions.

[Meshuga]

10. It doesn't matter

I bet that the equivalent in anti-Israel bias would get a huge cheer. And it would probably get a huge cheer from you as well.

[bstender]

11. is bias the only option?

defending Israel requires a heavily emotion-based stance, so I can understand why you would think that all analysis is bias of one sort or the other. But an overwhelming majority of people worldwide, people without a dog in the fight, look at all of the propaganda and news and historical analysis and say that the policies of Israel are criminal, this most recent event and all the way back to the creation of Israel itself. This is not a new phenomenon, this is an ongoing policy of aggression and disregard for long-standing international standards and law.

[shira]

69. your credibility is shot

you think the creation of Israel was criminal? and that you can support that allegation?

[LynnTheDem]

2. The arbitrar of internat' law (UN) disagrees with Mr. Dershowitz; Israel is committing war crimes

in violation of international laws. And that's fact, whether Mr. Dershowitz likes it or not.

[question everything]

9. The same "arbitrar" where China and Russia (and formerly the Soviet Union)

known violators of human rights and of international law - sit on the security council?

The UN is a political organization that has been used by third world country to bash the west. Whatever comes from there should be taken with a grain of salt and, perhaps, arsenic.

[EFerrari]

15. Given that the United States largely controls the UN, that's a little silly.

[hack89]

18. So the US is the reason the UN ignores Darfur, Myanmar

and North Korean human rights abuses? I don't think so.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. The UN doesn't ignore those countries...

U.N.: 100,000 more dead in Darfur than reported

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The number of deaths in Sudan's Darfur region since 2006 may have been underestimated by as much as 50 percent, the U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs said Tuesday.

In March, international figures, including U.N. data, put the death toll in Darfur at 200,000, with another 2.5 million people displaced.

But 300,000 are believed to have died in the tribal conflict in the past two years, said John Holmes, who also is the United Nations emergency relief coordinator.

Holmes said that sexual violence has increased and that food allotments for civilians affected by the civil war will be halved in a few days.

Holmes gave the U.N. Security Council an update on conditions in the western Sudan region, revisiting a report he gave a year ago.

"I am sad to say that the humanitarian situation remains as grim today as it was then, if not more so," he said.


http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/04/22/darfur.holmes/index.html

UN demands Myanmar reforms

The United Nations has warned Myanmar's military government that it must show "concrete results" in carrying out political reforms or face action.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to the UN, said Myanmar must "turn a new page" and agree to a political road map for elections in 2010, as well as to the release of political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the country's opposition leader.

The UN call comes as Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, criticised Myanmar's oft-repeated promise to democratise as a "kind of mockery" on Thursday.

The UN has for the past three months focused on helping the South-East Asian nation recover from Cyclone Nargis which left nearly 140,000 people dead or missing.

But on Thursday several members of the UN Security Council warned Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, that it could face increased pressure if it did not move to release political prisoners.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2008/07/2008725483485744.html

SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA’S MISSILE LAUNCHES,

The United Nations Security Council today condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent test-firing of a series of missiles, and demanded that the North-East Asian country suspend all ballistic missile related activity and reinstate its moratorium on missile launches.



Acting “under its special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1695 (2006), by the terms of which it also required all Member States to prevent the transfer of missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s missile or weapons of mass destruction programmes, as well as procurement of such items and technology from that country. It also addressed the transfer of financial resources in relation to those programmes.



The resolution affirmed that such launches jeopardize peace, stability and security in the region and beyond, particularly in light of the country’s claim that it has developed nuclear weapons. The Council underlined that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea needed to show restraint and refrain from any action that might aggravate tension, and continue to work on the resolution of non-proliferation concerns, through political and diplomatic efforts. In that connection, it strongly urged the country to return immediately to the six-party talks without precondition, to work towards expeditious implementation of the September 2005 joint statement and return to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.



Immediately following the adoption, Japan’s Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs said the consensus resolution marked an important step forward in promoting peace and security on the Korean peninsula and North-East Asia. With the adoption of the text, the Council had acted swiftly and robustly in response to the condemnable act of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in launching the barrage of ballistic missiles on 5 July. Through the resolution, the Council had, in unity, sent a strong and unmistakable message to the country, and had agreed on a set of binding measures, with which both the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Member States were obliged to comply, in order to deal with the situation created by that country.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8778.doc.htm

[shira]

31. let's not pretend that the UN

puts nearly the same amount of time and effort into what's happening in the Sudan or Congo as they do with everything humanitarian involved with I/P.

It's not even close. And don't think the Sudanese and Congo victims don't appreciate it.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. I didn't realise you sat at the UN with a stopwatch, Shira...

So I'd say you should think about offering advice such as 'let's not pretend' silently when it's advice being given to yrself. It reduces the amount of fluff in the forum..

This is exactly the same as yr continual nonsense about any human rights group out there that dares to criticise Israel. It starts with '<insert name of organisation here> ignores <insert name of place where there's violence> coz it's obsessed with Israel!', then when that particular nonsense is easily proven wrong, switches to 'yeah, but they don't spend AS MUCH TIME on them as on Israel!' For goodness sake! If you really want to have a bitch, how about complaining how the UN has NEVER said a word about Australia's mistreatment of its indigenous population over the years? You'll most likely come up with some stupid nonsense about how they're too busy critising Israel, but those of us with a bit of knowledge and a foothold in reality know that the reasons for the lack of words or action are for very different reasons...

[shira]

38. so sue me

for not writing that the UN "virtually" ignores or has "virtually" never said a word about__________. The fact is they spend a VERY disproportionate amount of time and energy very loudly and publicly bashing Israel, and not even necessarily sticking up for Palestinian human rights, like when Hamas kills Fatah or Palestinian refugees get the shit kicked out of them in Lebanon.

It's amazing you believe the UN is some paragon of moral virtue, when it's obvious it is a bully pulpit represented mostly by people of regressive regimes looking out for their own self-interests.

And they don't criticize Israel. The vast majority of member UN states partake in defaming and demonizing Israel. You know, much like the hate we find in Islamophobia that cannot be labeled criticism, but rather defamation and demonization.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. If I could sue and get $$ for the lack of factuality in some of yr posts, I would...

Face it, Shira. The reason you conjure up this nonsense of yrs isn't out of any belief that there should be some insane Equal Time thing at the UN when it comes to addressing issues in other countries, but one where you believe that Israel shouldn't be criticised at all for anything it does. To you any criticism is demonisation and I have never ever seen you make even the slightest criticism of the actions of the Israeli govt....

And yet again you invent something to suit yrself that isn't what I think. Put yr faulty crystal ball away and pay attention, okay? Picking up bullshit claims such as the one made by Hack about the UN does not mean that i believe the UN is some paragon of moral virtue. I believe (and I'm sure yr not the slightest bit interested in what i really believe) that the UN is a flawed organisation, especially when it comes to the SC and a few smaller groups, is in need of an overhaul, but has done some great things in the past that should be acknowledged by folk like you...

[shira]

47. you can't face it, can you?

Sudan and the Congo make the humanitarian situation for Palestinians involved with Israel pale in comparison. You seem unable to admit that the UN is far less vocal, energetic, and demanding WRT Sudan and the Congo's more extreme situations than they are with Israel.

I'd say zionism = racism 1975, the latest Durban 2001 racism conference, and all the bullshit claims and hyperbole thrown at Israel over the past 40 years by the UN (remember their condemnations regarding the fake Jenin and Qana massacres?) is proof positive that the UN engages in FAR, far more than mere criticism - but rather defamation and demonization.

I'm so sorry you haven't seen me join in with the wild-eyed, lunatic haters and bashers of Israel here. Why add fuel to their fire? I realize Israel isn't perfect and they need to be criticized. I'm very proud of their openly self-critical society, perhaps THE most self-critical on the planet.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I think I'm facing yr very one-eyed partisanship quite well, thanks...

Have you even looked at the UN site, shira? Of course the UN is very vocal about Sudan and the Congo. When it comes to the Congo, the UN's not only been vocal, but taken action...

Here's some history on the Congo...

The United Nations’ role in the Congo crisis between 1960 and 1964 saw its largest deployment of men and some of its most controversial actions. Until 1960, the Congo had been a colony of Belgian but in 1960, Belgian announced that it was giving the Congo its independence. Belgian gave the Congo just five months to get itself ready for independence despite the fact that it was clearly unprepared for such a task.

The independent Congo Republic was declared on June 30th, 1960. Its Prime Minister was Patrice Lumumba and its president was Joseph Kasavubu. In the first week of July, the army mutinied against the remaining white officers that lead the Congolese army and numerous attacks took place against Europeans in general.

The mutiny immediately took away any authority the civilian government had. It also created a state of near panic within the Congo as 100,000 Belgians lived there primarily in or near the capital Leopoldville. In response to the crisis, the Belgian government sent Belgian paratroopers to protect Belgian citizens in the Congo. This was an illegal act as the Congo was an independent nation and free from Belgian rule. The government of the Congo had not invited the troops in.

Such problems were made worse when the mineral-rich area of Katanga in southern Congo was declared independent by Moise Tshombe who lead the people in Katanga.

Katanga produced copper, 60% of the world’s uranium and 80% of the world’s industrial diamonds. Tshombe was backed by the European companies that worked in Katanga as they hoped to take a cut from the considerable profits that could be made from mining such resources. Katanga had the potential to make Congo one of the more wealthy African states. Without it, the new nation would remain poor.

With such chaos ensuing, Lumumba appealed to the United Nations for help. The Security Council created an army to restore law and order to the Congo. It numbered nearly 10,000 troops. It was given four tasks:

Restore law and order and maintain it. Stop other nations from getting involved with the crisis. Assist in building the nation’s economy Restore political stability.
The United Nations force was only allowed to use force as a means of self-defence and it was not allowed to take sides between the government in Leopoldville and the government of Tshombe in Elizabethville.

Almost immediately, things went wrong for the United Nations force. Lumumba asked the United Nations to use the military force to crash the power of Tshombe in Katanga. Dag Hammerskjöld, Secretary-General of the United Nations, refused permission for this. Lumumba immediately accused the United Nations of siding with Tshombe because of Katanga’s rich mineral reserves. He also accused the United Nations of siding with the rich European companies that mined the region.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_congo.htm

UN peace mission in DR Congo urges rebels to resume talks with gov't

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 2 (Xinhua) -- The United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) Friday called on the main rebel group in the country to resume talks with the government next week to end the escalating violence.

The mission, known as the MONUC, said the National Congress in Defense of the People (CNDP) would have an opportunity to raise with the government all issues it concerned in the Kenyan capital Nairobi on Jan. 7.

The Nairobi talks, guided by the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Envoy Olusegun Obasanjo and African Union (AU) representative Benjamin Mkapa, began last month and aim to end the conflict, which has displaced more than 1 million people over the past few years.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/03/content_10596737.htm

UN: Recruitment of Child Soldiers in Congo on Rise

The United Nations Children's Fund says the recruitment of child soldiers is on the rise in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. UNICEF says the escalation of conflict and upheaval of people from their homes and shelters is leading to further violations of human rights.

The UNICEF Representative in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pierrette Vu Thi, says every time there is an upsurge of fighting in the Congo, there is also an upsurge in violence against children.

"In particular in the area of recruitment of child soldiers into the armed groups and also in sexual violence, mostly on women and girls, but not only. And, we are very concerned about that because when this happens again with this latest upsurge in fighting and we are concerned about the impact of this," said Vu Thi.

UNICEF says children, some as young as nine, are being recruited by all armed groups - by government and rebel forces alike. Over the past few years, the agency has succeeded in getting armed groups in North Kivu to release about 10,000 child soldiers.

http://voanews.com/english/2009-01-02-voa12.cfm

Again, when it comes to the Sudan, it's a situation where the UN hasn't solely been vocal, but has been actively involved in trying to bring peace to the region. And when it boils down to it, working towards resolution to conflict is much more constructive than laying blame....

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmis/

All this stuff I found within a few seconds on Google. Now, if you call criticism of Israel 'bashing' and 'hate', then why don't you feel the same way when it comes to speaking out against what happens in the Sudan and the Congo?

My turn to be sorry. I'm sorry that you appear to think there's only two ways to be here - either a wild-eyed, lunatic hater and basher of Israel, or a wild-eyed, lunatic supporter of Israel. There's quite a few people here who are neither, and it's a comfortable place to inhabit.Hate, undying love, all that sort of stuff isn't something I feel towards any country, let alone my own..

[BelgianMadCow]

60. I appreciate your historical perspective on Congo a lot

since this episode in my countries' past often keeps me from climbing on too high a horse on DU...
Who in the west can say they country never did awful things? No one.

But, it is BelgiUM not -an ;-)

[shira]

63. please....

...can you seriously say that the UN is just as vocal about their care for the people of Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, etc... as they are about Palestinian victims of Israel? Or as vocal condemning worse abusers elsewhere around the globe as they do Israel?

Here is just one ADL article on the UN's hostility vs. Israel:
http://www.adl.org/international/Israel_un_2005_present.asp?m_flipmode=7

"Of 10 emergency special sessions called by the GA, six have been about Israel. No emergency sessions have been held on the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or the two decades of atrocities in Sudan. "

The I/P forum here is swamped with allegations about disproportion lately. Do you honestly believe the UN acts with proportion in relation to Israel as it does condemning any other nation that causes far worse humanitarian conditions, for no reason whatsoever?

" In November 2006, the HRC called its third special session, where once again the human rights body singled out Israel while ignoring the world’s worst human rights violators. The Council passed Arab-backed resolutions condemning Israel for its occupation of the Golan Heights, the accidental deaths of Palestinians in Beit Hanoun in Gaza, and Israel’s settlements in the West Bank. The General Assembly simultaneously passed its own resolution condemning Israel for Beit Hanoun. In the process of targeting Israel, the Council rejected a resolution that would have condemned the Khartoum regime for the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.

The Council continued to single out Israel for condemnation with Council President Luis Alfonso de Alba, Mexico’s Ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, proposing in June 2007 that Israel, and Israel alone, become part of the Council's permanent agenda. The proposal was adopted by consensus. As a result, and continuing a practice institutionalized in the discredited Commission on Human Rights, the Jewish State was singled out for alleged human rights violations on the permanent agenda of the HRC under Item 7, titled: “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.” Israel is the only country in the world to appear on the HRC’s permanent agenda, while countries such as China and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate. "

http://www.adl.org/international/Israel_un_human.asp?m_flipmode=8

And you still don't believe the UN is obsessed with Israel, criticizing them (even if legitimately without any defamation or demonization) far, far (disproportionately) more than countries with obviously more appalling human rights records than Israel?

Come on now.

[delad]

75. quoting ADL is hardly bolstering your argument n/t

[shira]

76. you think ADL is cooking the facts?

I quickly googled a few of the allegations from the ADL in the quotes from my post - others I was already aware of. Everything is on record for all to see.

[LynnTheDem]

59. "arbitrar"; Spanish.

Speaking several languages means now & then words get mixed.

The very same where the USA -known violators of human rights and international law- sit on the security council, yep.

[question everything]

71. So, you are comparing the U.S. to China and Russia as far as violation of

human rights?

Here is a hint: you don't have DU in China and in Russia. You don't have Keith Olbermann calling the leader of the country any name possible, in China and in Russia. You don't have the Daily Show and other places where this country and its leaders are criticized.

I sometime wish that all the bleeding heart DUers who claim that this country is fascist would actually live in a fascist or totalitarian state to find out what it really means. To have someone knock on your door in the middle of the night, to be taken away never to be heard off. Habeas Corpus? You must be joking.

With all the chopping that the Republicans and the Supreme Court have done to the Constitution, we are still light years ahead of China and Russia.

[High Plains]

3. Dershowitz is a fucking pig and apologist for mass murder.

As well as a torture apologist.

[the other one]

4. Israel's treatment of the Palestinian's is an act of war.

They are exiled into Gaza, a place with no resources, no economy and little water. Yet you figure they wouldn't get uppity, wouldn't you? Its hard to control someone with no future to live for, and that is what Israel has helped create in Gaza. The world's largest open air prison.

[question everything]

7. Exiled?

After Israel's war of Independence that, by the way, resulted from the Arabs not accepting the UN vote to divide the former British Mandate, about 600,000 Arab refugees fled to Gaza and to the West Bank, and a similar number of Jews fled Arab countries and came to Israel.

While the Jewish refugees were absorbed and become regular citizens, the Arab refugees have been kept at miserable camps without anyone talking about resettlement. The Arab states: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria were not willing to absorb them, preferring instead, to use them as a tool to divert the unhappiness of their own citizens into the "Palestinian Problems."

There certainly are resources in Gaza. Until Israel withdrew from that area in 2005, there were several Israeli settlements there that flourished. They were left intact but the Gazans, instead of taking over these orchards and fields just tore them down.

The Gazan could turn that area into a prosperous one, with centers of trade, light manufacturing and agriculture. Instead, they choose the path of hate and destruction.

Do you really think that the women and children have any say when the father of the family decides that they all should be martyrs and stay in their house after being warned?

[Vegasaurus]

12. And all that Israel ask, ALL

is for Hamas to stop the rockets.

They refuse.

Their refusal makes them responsible for all misery in Gaza.

It did not have to be this way.

And even STILL they refuse.

How stupid could they be.

How criminally insane.

[ohio2007]

14. But ALL that happened when Israel "unilaterally" abandoned Gaza in 2005 was rocket attack #'s went

up in victorious celebration of yet another Hamas goal reached


declare a cease fire.

The sooner a cease fire is delcared, the sooner rockets can be fired as a symbolic victory.

:sarcasm:

what ?
people forgot how pissed Yassir Arafat got about the one sided decision made by Israel to leave Gaza ?
Guess the experiment prooved something.

[Vegasaurus]

17. There is no peace with Hamas

Egypt understands, which is why they don't do a thing to get in the middle.

Hamas understands force and force only.

Pity the innocents.

[shira]

22. Hamas is not stupid....although you're right, they are somewhat criminally insane

they are religious fanatic thugs who care only for the 'cause' and themselves.

No matter how long it takes, the cause they are committed to is destroying Israel. The very same cause that existed prior to occupation and settlements due to the 1967 war. Nothing has changed. Occupation and settlements were a non-factor prior to 1967 and they still are a non-factor now for Hamas.

They don't care one bit about Palestinian children. Everyone knows this. They relish the fact that kids will die in this war. As Dershowitz wrote above, they send mothers and babies to rooftops of targeted homes.

This is old news.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1162378435257&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Hamas+exploitation+of+civilians+as+human+shields+-+Photographic+evidence.htm

Hamas is not just bad for Israelis but bad for the Palestinians they so obviously use and abuse. How should Israel deal with an entity that really doesn't give a shit about its own Palestinian civilians? A ruling party that doesn't give a crap about its own people is far more unlikely to strike a peace deal with their #1 enemy.

[shira]

21. so Israeli victims of Hamas rockets have it coming to them

and Israel should not respond forcefully, as any other nation would in the same circumstance? This is why the "history" of Gaza since 2005 and before is constantly brought up?

I notice no one here has attempted to shoot down Dershowitz's arguments. Just ad hominem, juvenile ranting.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. They didn't say or suggest anything of the sort...

You should really stick to what people say rather than just inventing stuff, shira.

When it comes to Dersh, he's a propagandist and partisan who doesn't seem to have much concern at all for human life and suffering unless it's Israeli. Clearly he'd appeal to some here who like that sort of stuff, but this isn't the first time this article has been posted and it doesn't get any less silly the more its posted...

[shira]

30. so what do you believe, Violet?

Should the hundreds of thousands of Israelis under daily assault just "take it"? Do you agree with Seth Freedman's assessment that Israel pretty much had no recourse but to respond harshly to the Hamas rejection of an extended truce (and more rocket fire)? Or should Israel take into account they are already starving and killing enough without the war and that they should do virtually nothing other than what they were doing during the ceasefire - and perhaps ease up on the 'siege' - and therefore pray that Hamas stops when they see Israel being nicer?

And as I wrote and have come to expect, you only responded to "Dersh" with ad hominem, juvenile ranting. What's so wrong about his latest "silly" argument?

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Yep, didn't figure you'd bother answering any question put to you (see my question further down)...

As to what I believe, I've posted it here repeatedly and as yr clearly too lazy and uninterested in any sort of rational or civil discussion, you can go find those posts yrself...

And you seem to have no clue as to what juvenile and ad hominem is. I voiced my opinion on Dersh based on reading one of his books and this article. I told you what was wrong with his argument, but as usual you totally ignore what's posted...

Why is it that you seem incapable of reading and understanding what other posters say, as you did in the case of the poster you initially replied to? Is it a tactic? If it is, it's a particularly clumsy and ineffective one. Or is it what happens when someone is so invested in their black and white My Side Is Good And The Other Is Bad! highly partisan view of the conflict that they don't even intentionally misread people's comments and don't even realise they're in a rut where they repeatedly misrepresent and twist what other posters say?

[shira]

40. you're all ad-hominem......how about a rational discussion?

1. I haven't read every one of your posts on this forum. I do not truly know what you believe. That's why I asked.

2. Again, what is wrong with Dersh's latest "silly" argument? I'm sorry if I missed what you wrote. Point me to your response at least?

[Violet_Crumble]

43. The ad-homs are all coming from you, and when it comes to rational discussion...

..that's something that some folk in this forum are good at to varying degrees, but I've seen yr performances in other threads and have come to the conclusion that a rational discussion is something that is probably beyond yr reach.....

1. Why bother asking me when it hasn't stopped you in this thread and in other exchanges in indulging in you stating that you know what I believe (the UN is an example in this thread)?

2. Go back about two posts and you'll find it. I'm not repeating it...

[shira]

48. just the facts, ma'am

1. We're still discussing the UN and what you believe. But let's not pretend that you think you know what I believe too, and have stated so - wrongly - on many occasions.

2. I went back 2 posts. Is this it?

"When it comes to Dersh, he's a propagandist and partisan who doesn't seem to have much concern at all for human life and suffering unless it's Israeli. Clearly he'd appeal to some here who like that sort of stuff, but this isn't the first time this article has been posted and it doesn't get any less silly the more its posted..."

If that's it, that's not a rebuttal to his latest article. How does the above show that his latest article is deeply flawed?

[Violet_Crumble]

56. I hope this critique of the article will satisfy you...

Two major flaws that stand out is

1. He works on the assumption that only the lives of Israeli civilians are worth protecting. I doubt very much he'd feel the same way when it comes to Israelis who target civilians, like the extremist settlers in parts of the West Bank. If they were among Israelis who aren't violent fanatics, and in killing the combatants, the Palestinians also killed a bunch of non-combatants, my bet is he'd be singing a whole different tune than he is now. Has he actually ever spoken out against the terrorism carried out by some Israelis in the West Bank, I wonder?

2. He doesn't seem to understand what the principle of proportionality is. It's got nothing to do with the number of combatants killed vs the number of non-combatants. How many combatants are killed doesn't even come into things when it comes to proportionality. What proportionality is about is the incidental harm/damage to civilians isn't excessive in relation to the military advantage that is anticipated from the attack. In this case, the military advantage being anticipated is stopping the rockets being fired from Gaza, and it's clear that the number of non-combatants killed in the process is excessive and has become disproportionate to the military aims of Israel...

This letter from the Prosecutor of the ICC about Iraq contains some stuff about proportionality when it came to Iraqi civilians. It's interesting reading even if you don't agree with it:

http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf

Dersh also tells a few little white lies in the article. Here's one:

Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it.

Not so, unless Hamas are the most dopey people in the world. Israel has fired at homes with civilians in them many times before and have done it again this time...

And then there's the stuff that's just silly, like this one:

While Israel installs warning systems and builds shelters, Hamas refuses to do so, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel's military actions.

Clearly he's blissfully unaware that Israel's imposed an ecomonic blockade on Gaza for a long while now. Where does he think the money to do such things would come from? If Hamas weren't broke and had the funds to do it, I'd expect them to, but then in saying so, that in no way implies that it's any sort of justification for Israel to carry out its bombings...

[shira]

64. reply to your critique

1. Dershowitz wrote quite a bit in his "Case for.." books about Palestinians human rights and how decades ago he was very active fighting for Palestinian civil liberties. Have you read his book? He is also close friends of some leading Judges on Israel's Supreme Court, which has numerous times adjucated for Palestinian civil rights over Israeli military/political considerations. So you're simply wrong about his one-sided bias.

2. Proportionality, as Dershowitz writes about in numerous articles, goes far further than combatant/civilian kill ratios. He clearly distinguishes between Hamas combatants killed by Israel vs. Israeli civilians killed by Hamas. There is no "comparison" between the two. International Law is very clear that 100 hostiles can be killed for targeting even one civilian, or posing an imminent threat to several civilians. And it's only your opinion, even if shared by many, and not legal by any definition, that Israel has disproportionately killed too many civilians in this war on Hamas.

3. Israel has on many occasions NOT fired on targeted terrorist homes where they could see, for example, women and children acting as shields on the rooftops. So it's not a lie that Israel doesn't target homes where they know civilians shields are being used. If you think Israel frequently fires, in a deliberate manner, on buildings where they know many civilian shields are utilized by Hamas, then what motive(s) do you attribute to Hamas for sending the shields there in the first place? Do you honestly not believe that Hamas sends them there to spoil Israel's plans of destroying the weapons/tunnels, etc.. stored in or under such buildings?

4. Hamas has plenty of money and supplies to build civilian infrastructure but they are using most of it in their war and propaganda efforts. Are you unaware of this? For example, pipes that could be used for sewage and cement that can be used for schools are used for rockets and bunkers or tunnel fortification.

[shira]

78. Violet, you still there?

Furthermore...


"it is erroneous to think this means the force used must be equivalent to the extent of the force used in the initial attack.

According to the former International Court of Justice chief judge, Robert Ago, the action needed to halt and repulse the attack may have to assume dimensions disproportionate to those of the attack. What matters is the result to be achieved by the "defensive" action, not the forms, substance and strength of the action itself.

It follows that Israel may lawfully use whatever force is needed to remove the danger of Hamas rockets and prevent a recurrence of the attacks on its civilians. As long as the attacks continue, Israel is entitled to respond. It is time to direct some hard questions at Hamas. Why does it deliberately locate its weapons factories and rocket-launching sites in densely populated civilian areas? Gaza may be crowded, but there are vacant areas where it could relocate these items. But that would make it easier for Israel to destroy them.

What kind of leadership does Hamas offer when it uses its people as human shields? Hamas shoots at Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians. That is a double war crime, right there.

Why did Hamas refuse to extend the truce? Was it seeking to re-establish its street credibility in the face of competition from al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad?

Is Hamas trying to harden Israeli opinion to secure the election of Likud? Historically, it has tried to influence opinion in Israel against more moderate governments because they undermine its absolutist message.

Finally, since there has been no Israeli presence in Gaza since 2005, why does Hamas use its resources to attack Israel, instead of building up Gaza? By comparison, the West Bank - not under Hamas control - has undergone significant improvement in all these areas.

We come to the ugly heart of what Hamas is about and why its military wing is listed as a terrorist organisation in Australia and elsewhere. Its charter makes it clear that destroying Israel and killing its Jewish citizens takes higher priority than founding a Palestinian state.

If Hamas called off its war on Israel, Gaza's situation would dramatically improve. There would be no need for Israel to resort to military action to defend its citizens or restrict movement into and out of the area. Gazans and Israelis could get on with building their lives and a future for their children."

Vic Alhadeff is chief executive officer of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/bvic-alhadeffb-a-legitimate-right-to-selfdefence/2009/01/07/1231004099824.html

[Kutjara]

6. "Proportionality" is one of those lovely words cooked up by lawyers...

...to keep the conversation going in circles while innocent people continue to die.

You could use "proportionality" to justify nuking Gaza: since the collective yield of all the missiles Hamas has used against Israel is probably in the several kiloton range, Israel would be responding "proportionately" if they lobbed a multi-kiloton nuke back. Sure, that works. No problem.

Look at just about any international treaty (or domestic law, for that matter), and you'll find similar words that can be used to justify any excess, as long as it's your side that gets to decide what "excessive" means.

[shira]

23. come back with your nuke argument = proportionality

when you see Israel carpet-bombing Gaza city and taking out thousands per second.

Can you refute any of Dershowitz's arguments?

[ohio2007]

13. Putin used Perfectly 'Proportionate' response in Georgia

now he has to deal with the thugs in S Osettia

[AnOhioan]

16. Dershowitz can shove his opinion

The Israeli response is not proportional, of course that is standard operating procedure for them. They have the most advanced weaponry in the mid-east (thanks in large part to the US) and they have, in recent years, never shied away from inflicting massive damage.

What they fail to understand is one cannot bomb their way to peace. The PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah....the list will continue to grow with every death.

[shira]

24. so define a proportionate response that will stop the rockets

and let's not pretend Hamas even wants to negotiate peace. Another fake truce will just delay the obvious again. So what should Israel do legally to stop the rockets? Got any bright ideas?

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I'd like you define what you think would be proportionate...

What's happening now? You appear to be totally supportive of what's being done, so correct me if I'm wrong. But if you do support what's happening now, could you explain exactly how it's stopping the rockets? It's not and in fact seems to be making matters worse...

[shira]

34. I asked what is proportionate

and you respond by avoiding the question and asking me my opinion?

Come on.

There is absolutely nothing Israel has done in response to terror that the anti-Israel crowd would label "proportionate". Israel has been demonized and defamed for everything they've tried. Whether targeted assasinations or checkpoints/barrier, offensive or defensive in reaction, it's all criticized harshly by those crying "disproportionate", as though NOTHING should be done. This is why I asked, and have yet to receive a good answer, even by you.

I'm totally supportive now of destroying Hamas in every way imaginable while trying damned hard, as Israel is obviously doing now, to avoid civilian casualties. With Hamas out of the way, Palestinians and Israelis will be better off. Obama and his crew can then pick up where Clinton stopped 8 years ago. That cannot and never will happen with Hamas in the way.

Don't you think Palestinians would be far better off without Hamas?

[Violet_Crumble]

36. You didn't ask me that question, and thanks for yet again ignoring what I asked you...

If a question's not aimed at me, I tend not to bother with it unless it really interests me. And seeing as how you didn't bother answering the questions I asked you in my post, going on past performances from you, you'll start whining how I didn't answer a question that wasn't even directed at me (and proportionality and what Israel could do to stop rocket attacks is something I've addressed here in this forum), all the while ignoring that you haven't bothered answering the questions I asked you in my post...

[shira]

42. so I'm asking you now, what's holding up your answer?

I don't read all your posts on this forum, so please indulge with a short reply.

And I didn't ignore what you asked me. I answered and am in favor of this latest strike. If I thought it was disproportionate, I'd be against it.

Once again, don't you think Palestinians would be far better off without Hamas?

[Violet_Crumble]

45. No, you didn't answer my question...

I asked you how you think Israel's current actions is in any way stopping rocket attacks....

Do I think Israel's attack was proportionate? Of course it wasn't. A proportionate and probably far more effective thing to do would have been that outlined by Meretz a few days before all this started. Limited and targetted attacks, combined with diplomacy....

And of course I think the Palestinians would be better off without Hamas, but it's not up to Israel, nor to Americans to get rid of Hamas...

[shira]

51. then here's your answer

I don't believe limited and targeted attacks, combined with diplomacy will work at all. Limited and targeted attacks have been tried before many times, to no avail. Meanwhile nearly a million Israelis are in harm's way of Hamas' rockets and Hamas, being the evil warmongers they are, will only respond positively to a very harsh response. History proves the lighter responses by Israel have virtually no effect at all on Hamas. Not to mention those limited and targeted attacks would ALSO be critized quite harshly by all of Israel's usual detractors.

We'll see whether Israel's latest will stop rocket attacks. If it's not Israel's goal to see this one out until Hamas is defeated or destroyed, then this war is a complete waste and should never have started in the first place.

Thanks for answering that Palestinians would be better off without Hamas.

Do you believe Hamas should take a lot or most of the responsibility for not extending the truce, firing 80 rockets on Dec. 25 and thus goading Israel into a fight, and putting their own citizens deliberately in harm's way? Are they not greatly responsible for Palestinian civilian casualties?

[Violet_Crumble]

57. I don't agree with anything you've said there...

Short of levelling Gaza and killing every last person there, there's no surefire way of stopping the rocket attacks. The only thing that has worked in the past was at the start of the ceasefire when Hamas were coming down on militants who were trying to launch them. And I wouldn't discard diplomacy so quickly. Diplomacy must always be tried before resorting to violence, especially on the scale we've seen happen in Gaza. When it comes to limited attacks to try to stop rockets, I for one have never been critical when Israel carries them out with either no or little civilian casualties....

If it is Israel's goal to defeat or destroy Hamas, it's a lost cause, and Olmert should have learnt from the misadventure in Lebananon when Israel tried to destroy Hezbollah. What is more likely to succeed from what Israel is doing now is that Hamas will become stronger with new members who before this happened wouldn't have joined them...

Me saying that Palestinians would be better off without Hamas is something I've said many times before. I have no time for Hamas or its ideology and can't think of a single reason why Palestinians would be better off with them. While Hamas controls Gaza, any hopes for a two-state solution is a pipe-dream, and if people thought it couldn't get worse than the days of Sharafat, then they were wrong, as Hamas is so much worse....

Having said that, even though I don't like playing the Blame Game, when it comes to responsibility for violence, when militants fire rockets into Israel, they're responsible for the damage that's caused, and likewise when Israel bombs Gaza, they're responsible for the civilian casualties. All of them are big boys and responsible for their own actions, and I get sick of the constant 'but the other side made me do it!' excuses that tend to come from both sides in this conflict...

[shira]

65. right, we don't agree

How do you negotiate with Hamas when they have gone out of their way in Arabic and English, to explain they do not want peace with Israel, no matter how nice Israel is? Their warmongering charter is very clear and disgustingly hateful. Do you think they really don't mean what they say and write, over and over? How do you have diplomacy with an entity that refuses to even recognize your right to exist as a country?

I'm not at all certain leveling Gaza will be needed to bring Hamas to its knees by surrender, or having many of Hamas' top operatives killed and then eventually overrun by Fatah, or others (moderates?). Rocket firings have slowed down dramatically now that IDF ground troops are there to prevent bad guys from going out in the open to launch. But I'm with you in one respect. If Israel doesn't make Hamas pay dearly and leaves Gaza as it did Lebanon 2 years ago, this is all a monumental waste and Israel should never go to war again.

We agree that Hamas is bad for Palestinians, so who will solve the Hamas problem if not Israel, now? If not now, when? Sooner is better than later for all concerned.

If Hamas has big-time weapons under a school full of children, and Israel warns everyone to get out, and the IAF or IDF blows the school and its weapons up with some 30-40 kids locked by Hamas in a small room right near the weapons, you'd say that's pretty much Israel's fault? If I understand you correctly, that's exactly what you'd say.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. Easy: end the occupation.

Israel should withdraw to the Green Line, demolish its illegal settlements, grant the Palestinians control over the Arab areas of Jerusalem, pay compensation to the refugees it expelled, and apologise to the Palestinian people.

That will stop the rockets.

Nothing else will.

[shira]

66. that will stop the rockets and nothing else will?

are you so sure that will stop the rockets?

Hamas has been quoted as contemplating a 10 year "hudna" based on those parameters. You trust Hamas to end their violence against Israel when they have so little regard for their own civilians? Hamas stores weapons in mosques, hospitals, and schools - and you trust they'll do their best to stop rockets against Israel, a country they say they'll never recognize as having a right to exist?

[soulcore]

19. 8 Israeli killed, 400+ Palestinians killed.

Sounds proportionate to me!

Do I really need the :sarcasm: tag?

[shira]

25. the vast majority of that 400+ are Hamas

you think Palestinians are better off with Hamas thugs alive and in power?

[Violet_Crumble]

28. If only counting women and children, the figure's up towards 100...

And even working on the bizarre assumption that any male over 18 is Hamas, that's nearly a quarter and in no way a *vast majority*...

[shira]

35. Hamas reported after the first 200 were killed that

out of those 200, there were 15 civilian casualties. Less than 10%. The rate has gone up since, but let's not pretend Hamas cares for the children and doesn't want as many dead Palestinian civilians as possible. If Israel was truly indiscriminate in its killing, the rate of civilians dead would be pushing more than 75%.

==========

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnLS245503.html

"Hamas estimated that at least 15 women and some children had been killed in the past two days. "Palestine has never seen an uglier massacre," Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said."

[Violet_Crumble]

37. You were using the current 400+ number in yr post...

So let's not pretend you were innocently using earlier figures. You weren't...

[The Magistrate]

39. The Longer a Bombing Campaign Goes On, Ma'am

The higher the proportion of non-combatant casualties will grow; the fighters have places to hide, and know to make themselves scarce around spots likely to be on target lists but not yet struck. In the initial waves, which accounted for roughly half the casualties so far, Hamas itself announced that roughly three tenths of the casualties were 'civilians', evidently meaning non-combatants, which indicates it considered the remainder fighters. Those proportions will have deteriorated by now in the latest air strikes.

It is unclear as yet what proportions characterize the casualties of the ground fighting as yet; no solid figures have emerged from either side, or from authoritative observers.

[shira]

44. thank you, sir

and wouldn't you say that with Israel choosing to now send IDF ground troops in, this is a clear sign that, like Jenin, they are trying to minimize civilian casualties?

[The Magistrate]

49. Impolite To Try And Lead A Person You Are Conversing With, Ma'am, At Least So Obviously As That

Whatever degree of care is taken to minimize non-combatant casualties, they will occur in an operation of this nature, and the longer it goes on the higher they will mount. All of this must be balanced against the value of the objective sought, and the chances of actually gaining it. It is certainly a debatable proposition whether dealing out death to Arab Palestinians on this scale is worth an objective which can certainly be read as preventing a number of Israeli deaths two orders of magnitude smaller. Persons who feel that objective is worth that cost ought still to regard the means they feel necessary to achieve it as something to be deeply regretted, and nothing that anyone deserves any particular congratulation over. This is a bad business all around, even if it should succeed, however 'success' comes to be defined as the operation unfolds.

[shira]

52. point taken

If the rockets keep flying from Hamas operatives after this war is over and done with, then there is no "success" Israel can point back to in this operation. It'd all be a monumentally wasteful failure, even if the civilian casualty rate was only 5%. And you're right, war is a bad business all around.

[The Magistrate]

53. Thank You, Ma'am

And for the record, it would not surprise me one bit if rockets are flying in this summer.

[shira]

68. wouldn't surprise me either

I wonder what Israel's response would be if rockets resumed again next summer.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I'm aware of that, but it's irrelevant when it comes to the post I was intially replying to...

..as the current 400+ figure was clearly used and accompanied by the claim that a *vast majority* were Hamas. While figures are still fuzzy, one thing that is clear to me that something approaching 100 women and children does not make the remainder a *vast majority*.

[The Magistrate]

50. It Is Probably Edging Down Towards a Fifty-Fifty Split By Now, Ma'am

That is far from grounds for people to claim heedless massacre, of course, let alone that killing non-combatants is the purpose of the operation, as various hot-heads can be found doing, and would do regardless of what the actual figures were.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. That sort of split wouldn't surprise me...

There's a lot of silly claims floating round, including the ones you mention, as well as the equally silly flip-side of the coin, where an ever-commpassionate IDF with nothing but concern for civilian welfare won't attack anything if there's any risk of civilian casualties, or what I expect to see when this is over, which will be some folk calling it the *Gaza hoax* and insisting most civilian deaths never really happened and it was all fabricated to make Israel look bad, etc. Me, I think not enough care is taken to minimise civilian casualties, and I've read a few news articles that cement that opinion. I also think that the purpose of the operation (which is either stopping the rockets, destroying Hamas, or both) is one that could never succeed in the way it's being done, which makes the loss of life even more unecessary...

[Jefferson23]

20. Dershowitz is a piece of shit opportunist. He too prefers to ignore the

ICJ decision, very convenient for him. And the lie he told about Finkelstein's mother, shame on you Dershowitz.

[varkam]

55. I usually like what Dershowitz has to say on other topics...

but I had heard that he was a bit rabid when it came to Israel, and it seems what I heard was pretty spot on. It seems as though he's channeling a bit of Rumsfeld circa 2004 when he's saying that Hamas is using civilians as human shields. It reminds me when Rummy responded to a question about civilian casualties with something like "Well Saddam Hussein chose to put SAM sites in residential neighborhoods and so any collateral damage is essentially his fault."

And I don't think that anyone is saying that Israel doesn't have a right to self-defense, but to draw an analogy if someone is coming at you with a stick, you don't then have a right to shoot him and four of his buddies who are standing nearby.

Not to mention that I really don't think you win any sort of "war on terrorism" via military might. It's not as though if the IDF kills every last Hamas member and supporter that anti-semitism and terrorism will cease - maybe some of the brass in the IDF believe that, but I can't see it as anything but a fantasy.

[question everything]

72. Then, perhaps, you will accept other sources of news

The airstrike demolished the building, sent a thick plume of smoke into the air, and heavily damaged neighbouring buildings. Eighteen other people, including all four of Rayan's wives and nine of his 12 children, also died, Palestinian health officials said. The Muslim faith allows men to have up to four wives.

Hamas leaders went into hiding before Israel launched its operation, but Rayan was known for openly defying Israel, and the army said he had a tunnel under his house that could serve as an escape route.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5javoQg8hExl2GAv9klitMWt9Rlcw

Israel warned before it bombed the house, but Rayan decided to stay and become a martyr. Fine, but why use his four wives and children to die with him?

If this is not a child and woman abuse, than what is?

[varkam]

73. Where did it say that there was a warning?

Further, even if there was it seems you would be making a lot of assumptions, there (e.g. "decided to stay and become a martyr")

[WeDidIt]

62. Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. n/t

[shira]

67. shooting rockets and sending suicide bombers to blow up mommies and their babies isn't defense.

Do you believe Israelis also have a right to defend themselves?

[Arrowhead2k1]

70. What do you expect...

from people who have been forced to grow up in what are effectively open air prisons on the fringes of the Israeli frontier? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you have people in a desperate situation for all of their lives, treated like dogs who'd the Israelis wish would just go away, they tend to do desperate things which seem absolutely unreal to those of us who have been basically raised with a silver spoon in our mouths.

I'm scared to even imagine how the next generation is going to turn out. JUST STOP THE MADNESS FOR FUCK SAKES. If Israel thinks they are so superior, it's about time they start acting like it. Right now, they certainly are NOT. They just have the cash and the better hardware.

[shira]

74. have higher expectations then

6 million were treated far worse just 60 years ago and were far more desperate but didn't resort to anything like that. Just 8 years ago, with Camp David/Taba, Palestinians were offered a very fair peace deal and turned it down.

Maybe you should look at websites like MEMRI or PMW to see how the state-controlled hate factories within Palestinian society (and elsewhere throughout the Arab/Muslim world) brainwashes the population with nazi-style propaganda from day one to the grave and ponder whether that has anything to do with that "desperate" situation.

[WeDidIt]

77. Dropping bombs and sending snipers tio blow up mommies and their babies isn't defense

Do you believe PAlestinians have a right to defend themselves?

[Marrah_G]

79. Now there is an unbiased opinion.........

:eyes:

Propaganda coming from both sides being eaten up quickly by ravenous postulates.