I've caught a lot of flak from libloggers for criticizing Israel for using aerial bombardment on densely populated urban areas.
The pro-Israel group invariably says that Israel is acting in self-defence and that's the end to it.
I've gone to some length to explain the blast and shrapnel effects of the modern bombs employed by the Israeli Air Force. Apparently the pro-Israel voices aren't really interested in such picky little details.
Their standard retort is that Israel drops leaflets warning residents that their area is in for a plastering. This seems to presume that the innocents need merely step outside to some waiting helicopter that will whisk they away to safety. It doesn't work that way.
America dropped leaflets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the civilian population didn't leave just as they never leave on such warnings. Generally they have no place to go, no way to get there. Please, please, please you bright lights, show me one instance where a civilian populace was able to heed such warnings. If you do find one, I'll bet their circumstances were vastly better than those of the average Palestinian.
No, once you're an innocent civilian trapped in a place like Gaza or Srebrenica, you're going to get whatever is rained down on you. Of course you might take refuge in a school, one the United Nations has clearly identified to Israeli forces - or not.
But, those who support this carnage never explain why these aerial weapons are appropriate for use in these conditions. What makes them appropriate to use in densely populated civilian neighbourhoods? I realize it's lovely not to have to risk anyone shooting back and that, like Ban deodorant, they "take the worry out of being close," but surely there must be more than that.
And then do tell me just what sort of aerial ordinance you wouldn't condone being dropped on Palestinians? Unfortunately you don't have to go far up the chain before you reach the end of the line, the nukes. Would they be okay - if Israel dropped enough leaflets? Obviously you're going to say "no" so that means you find the line somewhere between nukes and 2000 pounders. Tell me where you draw the line.
And, please, don't give me any nonsense about how Israel does everything it can to avoid civilian casualties. That entire argument was put to rest in 2006 when they murdered Canadian Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener in his unarmed, observation post. It was conclusively refuted when Israel, in the final hours of hostilities, fired an estimated four million plus cluster munitions into Lebanon. It was forfeit when Israel refused to give UN deminers charts of where those cluster bombs were to be found. That whole caring for civilians argument is complete bullshit and I'm not going to put up with it.
But getting back to the main point, tell me where you draw the line as to what weaponry Israel can use in densely populated districts in Gaza.
The pro-Israel group invariably says that Israel is acting in self-defence and that's the end to it.
I've gone to some length to explain the blast and shrapnel effects of the modern bombs employed by the Israeli Air Force. Apparently the pro-Israel voices aren't really interested in such picky little details.
Their standard retort is that Israel drops leaflets warning residents that their area is in for a plastering. This seems to presume that the innocents need merely step outside to some waiting helicopter that will whisk they away to safety. It doesn't work that way.
America dropped leaflets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the civilian population didn't leave just as they never leave on such warnings. Generally they have no place to go, no way to get there. Please, please, please you bright lights, show me one instance where a civilian populace was able to heed such warnings. If you do find one, I'll bet their circumstances were vastly better than those of the average Palestinian.
No, once you're an innocent civilian trapped in a place like Gaza or Srebrenica, you're going to get whatever is rained down on you. Of course you might take refuge in a school, one the United Nations has clearly identified to Israeli forces - or not.
But, those who support this carnage never explain why these aerial weapons are appropriate for use in these conditions. What makes them appropriate to use in densely populated civilian neighbourhoods? I realize it's lovely not to have to risk anyone shooting back and that, like Ban deodorant, they "take the worry out of being close," but surely there must be more than that.
And then do tell me just what sort of aerial ordinance you wouldn't condone being dropped on Palestinians? Unfortunately you don't have to go far up the chain before you reach the end of the line, the nukes. Would they be okay - if Israel dropped enough leaflets? Obviously you're going to say "no" so that means you find the line somewhere between nukes and 2000 pounders. Tell me where you draw the line.
And, please, don't give me any nonsense about how Israel does everything it can to avoid civilian casualties. That entire argument was put to rest in 2006 when they murdered Canadian Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener in his unarmed, observation post. It was conclusively refuted when Israel, in the final hours of hostilities, fired an estimated four million plus cluster munitions into Lebanon. It was forfeit when Israel refused to give UN deminers charts of where those cluster bombs were to be found. That whole caring for civilians argument is complete bullshit and I'm not going to put up with it.
But getting back to the main point, tell me where you draw the line as to what weaponry Israel can use in densely populated districts in Gaza.
17 comments:
Well stated MoS.
The sad reality is that politicians like Cheney actually looked into using "limited" nuclear weapons in Iraq. To even go there was beyond disturbing but it also unfortunately legitimized such an act as a serious military policy consideration.
Hopefully, Israel will never go that far knowing that the state would be universally condemned for its actions (except for maybe US, Canada and some other boot licking US allies).
I wonder how long it will take the Liblogs PC warriors to rain down verbal rockets?
It was forfeit when Israel refused to give UN deminers charts of where those cluster bombs were to be found. That whole caring for civilians argument is complete bullshit and I'm not going to put up with it.
Good.
Drawing the line on what weapons? How about diplomacy instead of this cheap political trick by Isreal...
How about Israel sit down and comply with UN resolutions then ask the UN to set up a peacekeeping force....
I will not happen, I know, for Israel does not want peace with Arab Palestinians it wants them gone.
Actually BY, I'm waiting eagerly for them to answer those two or three simple questions.
The Ban deodorant "takes the worry out of being close" line I got from a thoroughly inebriated US Air Force colonel in the pilots' mess in Baden. He had a badge on his flight suit that he received for flying 100-missions over North Vietnam. He made the comment in reference to a discussion we were having over the merits of napalm.
"Their standard retort is that Israel drops leaflets warning residents that their area is in for a plastering."
As you said, where do they go? They can't leave Gaza as they are "confined" like in a prison camp. This is the 1st time, in modern day history of war, that residents (civilians) have been unable to leave the bombardment.
For some reason the comments are not showing up, or that there are any, on this post btw.
Ok, the comments have now all appeared. :)
Good Post Mound.
I think we can all agree that Israel does have a legitimate right to defend itself, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I would like to point out that Hamas is every bit as much to blame for this catastrophe as Israel. In fact I believe this is exactly what Hamas intended. The Israelis simply swallowed the bait, and now Palestinian civilians are paying the price. The consequence will no doubt be plenty of young and eager recruits for Hamas.
I am not as familiar with military hardware as you seem to be, so let me ask you this. What kind of munitions could Israel use to defend itself? Are there any more precise weapons they could employ?
I suppose small arms are usually a little more effective, but that requires a ground occupation, which would only escalate things (as is in fact the case!).
Penlan wisely points out that diplomacy is the best solution, but since Hamas does not appear to be interested in a cease-fire, you can't expect the Israelis to do nothing (though a little bit of restraint might help!)
MoS, my friend you have been attacked by the turd Ezra Lavant. See my latest post and link to his babble.
LD, I don't have the faintest interest in anything Levant says about anyone, especially when it comes to Israel.
Fish, I don't think there's an awful lot in a modern Western air force arsenal that's suitable to political assassination in a densely populated area. There are a few rockets that might be less destructive but it really comes down to a ground mission.
Yes, the militants provoked this but this miserable story is a heap of layers upon layers. Part of the propaganda effort is always to frame the discussion by cutting off the past.
In this case that's done by drawing the discussion line at the Hamas and militants' rockets. Why? That's not how the Gazans see their situation. To them that context is almost irrelevant.
To Westerners the "rocket-air strike" matrix is a handy, simple way of weighing the conflict. But it's more than simple, it's dangerously simplistic.
I think this conflict, atop all those that preceded it, conclusively demonstrates that the international community has to step in, impose a peace, separate the parties and enforce that separation - and I believe that's going to take at least two generations, maybe three.
Why do the Palestinians support Hamas? Because they see it as the only organization fighting their oppressor. Do you think they see Israel as less oppressive as a result of these airstrikes?
Now consider this. What if they didn't feel oppressed? What if that motivation (the type that bombs only deepen) was taken away? What if the average Palestinian believed they had a good, safe and secure future to live for? Do you really think they would support an organization that would bind them to eternal conflict and take that prosperity, safety, security and hope away?
But that's a multi-generational challenge. A lot of Palestinians, like a lot of Israelis, have been irreparably hardened to each othere. They're the ones we have to separate while we restore their society and improve their lives. Then, as a couple of generations are born into peace and security, there'll be the basis for some reconciliation between Israel and Palestine.
Six decades of suffering, Israeli and Palestinian, have shown that the core problem isn't going away and that Israel can't bomb it away either. There's so little goodwill and so much grievance, on both sides, that a negotiated peace, a real peace, in the foreseeable future is not going to happen.
If this was just a running squabble between Israel and the Palestinians it would be less troubling. But it's not. It spreads throughout the Arab Street, it spreads throughout the Muslim world, and it further radicalizes ordinary Muslims who often have grievances with their own regimes to boot. It's destabilizing the entire Middle East/South Asia region.
When people in Afghanistan and Iraq rally in angry protests against Israel, what do you think that means for our troops there? They see Israel, they see America, they see Westerners. It gives Islamists fodder for their propaganda about Crusaders attacking Islam.
Every time an Israeli bomb results in a photo of a dead Palestinian kid, al-Qaeda rejoices for it plays straight into their hands throughout the whole Muslim world. Every time that happens Iran's influence increases as does Hezbollah's and every other extremist group.
Now with Iran scheduled to receive the latest Russian S-300 surface to air (anti-aircraft/anti-missile) batteries; with Russia building a new, major naval port in Syria; with China considering membership in the SCO for Pakistan and Iran; the status quo is steadily and quietly shifting throughout the Middle East and South Asia.
With all of these changes underway, the day when we can tolerate the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as something of a nuisance are over. There has to be a peace and, as the parties won't find it themselves, we have to impose it on them. End of story.
All Israelis out of Gaza and the West Bank, all of them; a buffer zone around the borders of Gaza and the West Bank; some means of connecting the two Palestinian territories, international enforcement; and a system of international arbitration of ancillary problems such as the sharing of water resources.
If anyone, including Ezra, has a better solution, let's hear it.
By the way Fish, if you want to see why Israeli bombing of Gaza is so counterproductive, look at the New York Times photos I posted below in "Images of Gaza." What does anyone believe that accomplishes?
MoS, I agree that the best way to deal with this turd is to ignore him. But bro I am having too much fun with him and Macfartland that I may keep up a bit longer.
MoS -
"All Israelis out of Gaza and the West Bank, all of them; a buffer zone around the borders of Gaza and the West Bank;"
(a) By "All Israelis" do you mean all Jews, or are you also including non-Jews? Is your aim to expel Christians /w Israeli citizenship from the church of the nativity, and to forbid them from visiting it? Are you going to forbid Israeli Arabs from visiting their relatives who live in the west bank? Do you plan to expell Israeli Arabs from homes they've bought in the eastern suburbs of Jerusalem (or are you even including the old city in your plan, and intend to expell 10s of 1000s of Israeli Arabs from homes their families have owned since Saladin kicked the cursaders out of the holy land)?, or is your only objective to ethnicly cleanse the west bank of a Jews? ... just asking.
(b) You're aware that the Israeli government expelled all Jews from Gaza already ... worked real well, didn't it. ... you realize that your plan would both kick of the same sort of brutal Hamas/Fatah war in the W.B. as we saw in Gaza, and likely lead to the same end result.
(c) how exactly are you proposing to do this? Who are you proposing to do this? It's not like Canada is going to do the heavy lifting. Our air force, is, (being generous here) 1/3rd the size of the Israeli air force, our army isn't even comparable (we have 58 tanks mostly bought 2nd hand from allies when our allies decided they were obsolete, and upgraded to newer designs) they have about 3,500), at least half domesticly manufactured. So what country's sons are you asking to die for your cause? (bearing in mind that the only possible answer is "the United States", since no other country has the force projection, or influence to even try.
" some means of connecting the two Palestinian territories,"
Why? What possible interest could the world have in making it easier for Hamas to complete their coup and murder the rest of the P.A.'s leadership?
Obviously, these are rhetorical questions. Your proposed "solution" is both impractical and morally bankrupt.
-- A. Vertan.
A. Vertan, who ever you are, I won't respond with ad hominem attacks. I couldn't keep up with you in any event.
Yes your questions are rhetorical but they are also thought provoking. I never said I had all the answers.
I don't know why you focus on the abilities of the Canadian military to accomplish this task. That sounds wilfully naive to me.
A peacekeeping force, as you plainly have no understanding of the concept, doesn't have to field a contingent able to take on either protagonists in a 1 to 1 contest. I'm not sure where you found that delusion. Nice try, though.
My solution has obvious impracticalities that would need to be addressed. Your response is facetious.
While I am hardly an expert, I am somewhat familiar with the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I am well aware that Israel was born through acts of terrorism against the British, and that the zionist movement has been trying to seize control of the "holy land" for some time now.
But I would remind you that the more recent history should be taken into consideration as well. Try to remember that in the last few decades, Israel has done what many people thought it would never do... it backed up! Israel ended its occupation of parts of Lebanon, it even backed out of Gaza and forcefully removed its own settlers.
These are small steps to be sure and don't do everything to address the issues that Palestinians require, but Israel was finally moving in the right direction. How did Hamas react? By using those recently vacated territories as a platform to launch rockets at Israel!
Once again, I want to be very clear that I am not conding the Israeli counter-attack, it has been grossly disproportional in its carnage and it must stop immediately. I'm just saying that Hamas has more reason to want Gaza to be bombed than Israel has to want to bomb Gaza. Israel has foolishly played right into Hamas' hands.
As for your solution, I agree with you. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken, a peacepkeeping intiative can only take place when both sides have requested it.
I would also add that as you rightly point out, just because a solution is flawed does not mean that it cannot work if those flawes are addressed.
MoS:
re: "I won't respond with ad hominem attacks. I couldn't keep up with you in any event."
In what way was my post ad hominem. I challenged your position 'Your proposed "solution" is both impractical [how to 'impose' a solution'] and morally bankrupt [e.g. ethnic cleansing].'
re: "I don't know why you focus on the abilities of the Canadian military to accomplish this task. That sounds wilfully naive to me.
A peacekeeping force, as you plainly have no understanding of the concept, doesn't have to field a contingent able to take on either protagonists in a 1 to 1 contest. I'm not sure where you found that delusion. Nice try, though."
That's perfectly true. A peacekeeping force monitors a peace agreement b/w two parties that have agreed to a peace. You didn't suggest peacekeeping. Here's what you wrote:
"has to be a peace and, as the parties won't find it themselves, we have to impose it on them. End of story.
All Israelis out of Gaza and the West Bank, all of them; [and then a bunch more demands on Israel]"
That's not peacekeeping. That is "imposing a solution" ... I read that as implying through military means.
By your response to my email, clearly that wasn't what you intended to write. What was your intent?
As to why I focused on Canada. ... isn't this a Canadian site? Who else did you mean by "we"?
A. Vertan
Fish:
Sicne you are
" somewhat familiar with the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict."
I'm going to presume you knew everything in my post, I'm just clarifying your statements so that others, who are less knowledgeable than yourself about the Arab/Israeli wars aren't accidentally mislead by your summaries.
"I am well aware that Israel was born through acts of terrorism against the British"
Israel was born by
(a) U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947)
(b) some terrorist attacks by both Arabs and Israelis against each other, and occasionally the British.
(c) British promises to Zionist movement during WWI (c.f. Balfour plan)
(d) Jewish Refugees from Nazi Germany & DPs in postwar period (from Eurpoe, and then later, when most Arab countries expelled their Jewish populations, from the middle east as well).
(d) that large number of Jews/Israelis had joined both the British Army & Hagannah to fight the Nazis & Wafdists & fellow travelers, i.e. military facts on the ground.
"But I would remind you that the more recent history should be taken into consideration as well. Try to remember that in the last few decades, Israel has done what many people thought it would never do... it backed up! Israel ended its occupation of parts of Lebanon, it even backed out of Gaza and forcefully removed its own settlers"
not sure what you mean by "last few decades" The withdrawals you're talking about all happened within the last 10 yrs or so. Israel is 6 decades old (1948-2008), the first ISraeli withdrawal from conquered territory (not counting the various 1948/49 ceasefires which I don't know enough about), was in 1956, i.e. in teh 1st decade.
Israel handed over the Sinai to UN peacekeeprs (Lester Pearson's brainchild) in return for UN demilitarizing/patroling it so that Egypt wouldn't close straights of Tiran and/or attack Israel. (and as a part of the deal to keep Eisenhower's ultimatums vs. Britain and France from blowing up NATO .. which was why Pearson cared about it in the first place).
11 yrs later, Egypt told the peacekeepers to leave and then closed straights of Tiran and prepared to attack Israel (which may begin to explain why Israel doesn't generally trust the UN)
Now I'll grant you that the '56 episode was a military withdrawal rather than a forced expulsion of civilian populations.
2nd large-scale Israeli withdrawal was the Camp David accords of the late 70s/early 80s where Israel withdrew from Sinai after controlling it for a longer period of time, and turned over all the infrastructure they'd built (e.g. oil facilities) to Egypt ... in return for American military aid to Israel and Egypt(which Israel found to be much more useful than UN sponsored pieces of paper - since now Egypt had skin in the game to discourage breaking the treaty)
3rd withdrawal was the withdrawal from central Lebanon in the 80s (pulled back from all of Lebanon except the south Lebanon border zoen).
Then there were the 2 withdrawals you're talking of above (abandoning the South Lebanon Army, and then pulling out of Gaza) ... both of which led to attacks from Islamic forces in the areas Israel withdrew from.
Now wrt your policy suggestions for Israel:
"Once again, I want to be very clear that I am not conding the Israeli counter-attack, it has been grossly disproportional in its carnage and it must stop immediately. I'm just saying that Hamas has more reason to want Gaza to be bombed than Israel has to want to bomb Gaza. Israel has foolishly played right into Hamas' hands."
You may be right that the Israeli attacks are going to fuel future Hamas recruitment, once Iran re-arms them. but I'm not sure that the alternative (allowing Hamas to continue to fire rockets into Israel with impunity) is any better. (i.e. it would also probably fuel further Hamas recruitment.
Toyama, Japan, August 1945. City 98% destroyed, few casualties as the populace fled following leaflet warning by USAAF. See USSBS.
Well Clubgitmo it seems the Japanese don't agree with the USAAF on that:
"People in Toyama once got a warning of air raid in the night of August 1st. Actually B-29 bombers flew on the city, but B-29s did not drop bombs because they were heading to Nagaoka. So people in Toyama went home and fell asleep. But after that, all of a sudden, Toyama was bombed in early morning of August 2nd by other B-29s. It could be said to be a "tactically well planned attack" in terms of effective killings of civilians."
I guess the person dropping the bombs sees things in a different light than the person on the receiving end.
Post a Comment