4 People reacted on this

  1. The simple count of civilian bodies and injuries is not the most cogent issue—by far.
    The Palestinian-Arabs have a LONGSTANDING tradition of “human shielding”. One could reasonably say that the so called “refugees” remaining from the 1948 war of independence were then such pawns and their third generation offspring still remain so. There is no other possible reason (logical or illogical) to explain why the UNHCR has been politically blocked from re-settling these populations for decades.
    While “human-shielding” is defined as a “war crime” under international treaty law, it is not taken seriously. The standard frame-of-reference is comparable to how people feel about prostitution. Yes, its illegal but “boys will be boys” and “what are the inner city women to do?” The civilian deaths in Gaza are the direct result of two Palestinian-Arab war crimes (back-to-back) and one GIANT war misdemeanor by the entire world. The Israelis are the least of the group to be blamed. The rockets being fired into Israeli civilian targets are themselves war-crimes. Each and every one, separately. 20,000 in the year 2007 alone. Secondly, the Arab invented habit of choosing civilian apartment complexes to use for its offensive rocket launching is a second and distinct set of official war-crimes. Lastly, the world’s attitude of placating the Arabs for starting and propagating this war for 90+ years is a grand war misdemeanor. The Israelis, keenly aware that the world does not like them–if they were all Jewish clones of Mother Theresa, is only doing what any other country would do, (probably including the Vatican). The Palestinian-Arab pawns are also partly to blame for not cleaning their own streets and foolishly (and willingly) allowing themselves to be rendered pawns, through their blinding hatred of Hebrews.

  2. Mitchell is right on. Violence begets violence, never security. The only present action that makes any sense is a cease fire between Hamas, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt.

    Isidor Farash (above comment) is doing exactly what Mitchell said we should not do, he is justifying killing by his side.

    If Isidor Farash read Mitchell’s piece, he sure did not understand it.

  3. Jeff Warner:
    A cease-fire is EXACTLY what the Israelis desire.
    Your point would only begin to make sense if the military strike on Gaza was an act of “revenge”, which it was not. It was an attempt to stop the incomming rockets. This is not a subjective question. We are all intelligent people but the topic of discussion is inane.
    A number of years ago Hamas offered Sharon one of those 10-year religious (official Islamic) truces. Sharon refused. Maybe he should have accepted. That is debatable. His reasons were two:
    1. Israel has already done that before and when the 10-years ends, they are back to square one. He stated he wanted such a truce–but forever.
    2. As a secondary reason, Sharon did not want to be seen to be empowering “sharia” laws. Not being a religious Jew, Sharon was having a hard enough time battling the ultra orthodox Hebrews on Jewish religious issues, without starting to observe Muslim rituals.
    Anyway, if you like, I can put you guys on the phone with my good friend, a runaway slave from Southern Sudan, who had 1/2 his family killed in front of him. The world hardly noticed, while a few million Black Mandingo Christians (and some Jews) were slaughtered by ‘Semitic’ Muslims.
    A general ‘cease-fire’ would certainly have solved his family’s problems. No one debates that point. But that is not what was being offered to his tribe. They were being offered only a choice of hot lead, cold steel, Semitic cock (for the women) and slavery for the young men–who appeared both compliant and strong enough. To them, a ‘cease-fire’ (even a 10-year Islamic one) would have answered their prayers.
    The most significant difference between the few million dead Mandingos and the still living Israeli-Hebrews is:
    Apache helicopters.
    The Jews of Palestine have asked God for an end to the attacks for 90 years. If Orwell was into “dark-comedy” he would have hired a guy like Mitchel to consult with.
    “Cease-fire”. Rediculous.

  4. PS}
    “he is justifying killing by his side”
    You don’t know what side I am on and trying to define my “side” for me, is but one more attempt to dominate the mutual “frame of reference”. One that I reject. War is (sadly) a reality of life. Killing therefore is also a reality. I did not invent killing nor will I likely be the one to obsolite it, regardless of which “side” I might be on in reality.
    During the height of the Iran / Iraq war, Peter Jennings was ignoring the daily body-count from that conflict (estimated at 2-million in total) and spening a few minutes each evening lecturing the Jews about the 1 or 2 dead W.B. rioters. I wrote him a letter in which I predicted that the moment that the Arabs would ever get serious about peace with Israel, a “civil war” would begin between the various Arab factions. My letter may have gotten some attention because, although Peter Jennings never relented with his inuendo and inflection based condemnation of the Hebrews, a week later Ted Copel (“Night-Line”) did a show about why the disproportionate coverage of the Israeli / Arab conflict.
    You guys are lost in the woods.
    I choose peace. THAT IS MY “SIDE”. However, that solution is not being offered. In the mean time, I choose to compair Israel with other nations. In that comparison, there is no moral equivalancy between the rocket attacks (a couple of thousand this year alone) and the Israeli effort to mitigate their damages.
    As I said earlier, even the Vatican would eventually need to reltaliate, if the roles were transposed.

Comments are closed.