We always read that Hezbollah or Hamas are not fighting fair because they ‘hide’ and 'blend' among the civilian population unlike the ‘heroic’ IDF soldiers ( or IOF - depending which side you are on) who are just, fair and gallant.
I won’t say that some of them are not nice or even inhumane since I’m not an idiot and do read the news in the Israeli papers and realize that many Israelis have saved the life of civilians caught up in the fight(s). However, it is my humble opinion backed by witness accounts from people who are actually victims or stranded in the war zones current and past (along with personal experience – and no you don’t get to hear about that sorry) that a ‘large’ number – which I will not define in order to remain politically correct- are not totally in synch with the military code of honour (let’s put it this way), and that goes for officers and non-officers.
Well in the current offensive in Lebanon and Gaza it looks like they’ve been caught red-handed using Palestinians as human shields.
“According to the Israeli human rights group, B'tselem, six civilians
including two minors were subjected to the illegal tactic during an incursion
into the town of Beit Hanoun last week [..]
Yekhezel Lain, research director with the Israeli human rights group
B'tselem says [..] This was a very blatant violation of the prohibition of
the use of human shields," [...]It was just soldiers hiding behind the back of
civilians who were held with force in their homes."
AND
Allegedly deliberately targeting UN posts in South Lebanon and this time killing UN observers :
“The UN in Lebanon says the Israeli air force destroyed the post, in which four
military observers were sheltering. It said the four, from Austria, Canada,
China and Finland, had taken shelter in a bunker under the post
after it was earlier shelled 14 times by Israeli artillery. A rescue team was also
shelled as it tried to clear the rubble. "
If this is true it would not be the first time a UN post was targeted , the most infamous being the Qana massacre ( Operation grapes of wrath – who comes up with these names ? seriously)
Nice job fellows you are heroes !
However, what I don’t understand is why people expect any moral integrity from their enemy, why would the world hold the IDF up to a higher standard than others , it is war, they are trained to kill their enemy and they are going to ensure they do that and survive to tell about it. A tad sad but that’s life.
Well condolences again all round even to the Israeli soldiers; after all they too have mothers waiting for them.
NOTE : Yes I know that because Israel is democratic, the perpetrators could be theoretically prosecuted, and I am impressed that the human right people reporting this ar Israelis.
14 comments:
Hmmmm....
OK, I'll bite, as a guy who has detained people while in the military.
He shows me where the soldiers positioned them: outside the entrance to his flat on the third floor, in the stairwell, facing down the steps.
Inside the flat, the soldiers punched holes in the walls of his living room, and bedroom. Through them, snipers exchanged fire with Palestinian militants. Hazem and his brothers heard it all, but could see nothing.
He says he expected to die any second. He still can't understand why, as civilians, they couldn't be kept in a room somewhere inside the house
They were detained and moved to a third floor stairwell, while Israeli troops inside the apartment exchanged smallarms fire with Palestinian gunmen.
And this witness thinks it would have been SAFER for him to be inside the apartment, with the combatants!?
This is not example of detainess being used as human shields. It's an example of detainess being kept out of the line of fire.
The conduct of the Israelis was 100% correct. They took the proper measures to ensure the saftey of the detainess as best they could. The BBC should not have published that article without consulting experts to verify the charges that are made in it.
As far as the attack on the UN,
they are trained to kill their enemy
I'm curious why you think the UN is Israel's enemy? I think that argument could be made. I'm just wondering why you are the one making it.
Secondly, what benefit do you feel that Israel accrues from attacking a UN outpost? I mean, if you seriously want to make an argument that the attack was deliberate, there must have been a reason for it, right? What have you heard about what those UN observers were doing, that I have not? Were the combatants? Were they hostiles? (under the laws of war, a "hostile" is a non-combatant who is subject to attack due to their association with enemy combatants)
If neither of those things is true, then how can you say Israel was attempting to destroy an enemy?
I'm seriously trying to understand this theory that it was deliberate. I don't know anything more about what happened yesterday than anyone else does, but it just doesn't seem like an accusation that makes much sense to me. What am I missing?
Craig, I do indeed owe you an apology om my Hezbollah statements and I will write it.
But now that you are fired up: please not just for me but for all our readers:
Your thoughts on Qana?
Craig, I owe you:
I find your positions personally repugnant. I might be willing to discuss it with you anyway, if you ever bothered to correct yourself when you get caught in factual errors, but you don't. You just continue with the attacks.
I earlier said that the Hezbollah had killed 200 Americans. I compared that to a high, not substantiated, number of annual US murder victims. You corrected me and mentioned a much higher number of American victims to the Hezbollah. If I remember correctly your number was well over 350. I was wrong. I admit, my comparison was pretty irrelevant. Most importantly: I was just juggling with numbers, but those numbers touch you deeply on a personal level. I had no right to do it. I do apologize.
I said that Palestinians were shot dead in clashes sparked by Sharon’s Temple-mount visit. I had not checked my facts. Most probably no such thing happened, and I stand corrected. The reason for this was that the person who told me probably had confused it with the 1990 Temple-mount riots, where 17 Palestinians were shot dead.
I withdrew my Guantanamo-statement and gladly admitted it was irrelevant. Twice. At least.
What I said on the war on drugs, and why I said it, I have explained maybe twice.
I think that is all.
The United Nations does it again!
It turns out that one of the Canadian soldiers feared dead was reporting that Hezbollah was all over United Nations positions, including his own, and the UN did nothing....
A Canadian general stated:
"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case -- three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were (sic) targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007626.php
There needs to be an investigation all right. An investigation of the UN for incompetence, once again.
Unfortunately, it will simply lead to another pathetic cover-up most likely.
The UN sucks. Kofi is a creep.
Tommy!
It seems to me you are saying that it might be that the IDF did obliterate the UN position intentionally, to kill HB. Interesting idea. Did we see any report on killed HB on that spot?
And you mock the UN. Exectly how could four guys keep the HB away if the HB really wants to be there?
NB, u Euro-softie peace-monger!
well, u've stolen my words so many times that I had to steal them back!
And Tommy,if you want to be consistent with what you say:
Either the HB were there, then why does Olmert say it was a mistake?
Or they were not, then in what does that "UN incompetence" have to do with the attack ??
Debate grows over Israel strategy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222064.stm
But then WE know what THEY always say about the Beeb.
Adam,
There could have easily been a mistake if Hezbollah was in the vicinity.
The bottom line is that professional gasbag, Kofi Annan, should have pulled these peacekeepers out a week earlier, when things began to get hot.
Once again, the SecGen of the UN is derelict in his duty.
Pamela, over at Atlas Shrugs, had a good response:
"Jew Hater Kofi: STFU"
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/07/kofi_stfu.html
BTW, the UN and Hezbollah have been real chummy with each other on the Lebanon-Israel border:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005611.htm
Tommy,
so why dont Olmert say there was HB in da hoods?
Do you think there were?
Adam,
I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah was in the vicinity. However, if they didn't hit any, Hezbollah fighters would have certainly fled in the wake of a close airstrike.
Then again, maybe it was just a mistake.
At the end of the day, though, the peacekeepers had no business being there and should have got out a long time ago.
NBA, I also do not know what the UN Peacekeeprs are doing there. Seriously, they are "observers" in the niddle of a war zone. They are inhabiting the same physical space with Hezbollah. I don't understand the thinking behind it. If they don't have the power or the authority to disarm Hezbollah according to resolution 1559, they should leave the area. Hezbollah will use them as human shields with even more alacrity than they use Lebanese as human shields.
instead of condemning the attack the world's moral leader thinks it's perfectly OK to kill UN peacekeepers.
I thought France was the world's moral leader. In any case, I haven't even seen such a claim that it's OK - I've seen people attacking Kofee Annan for his outrageous claims the attacks were deliberate. Perhaps you should ask the world's leading moral authority, France, why the United Nations has such an obvious bias. Hezbollah has murdered UN peacekeepers before, and I don't recall a peep from that body about it.
A perfect way to gain sympathy from other governments for the unfortunate cases when US soldiers are targeted.
We don't seek sympathy for our dead. We've never gotten it, and never will get it. We get people dancing in the streets when Americans are killed.
We don't want sympathy. We want the perpetrators brought to justice. Never ask for pity from the pitiless.
Non-blogging,
If the UN had, you would perhaps claim the UN is full of cowards who run away when they see a firing gun.
I like the idea of associating children with the UN. The UN is quite childish, no doubt!
In regards to your comments:
The UN is full of cowards.
However, I don't blame the bottom-level UN troops, they are just regular soldiers, often from fine militaries, who are doing what their superiors, all the way up to Café Annan himself, tell them to do. (Which, judging by their accomplishments on the Israel-Lebanon border, isn't much of anything.) I would only claim the peacekeepers were cowards if I expected them to do actual fighting. They clearly were not going to engage in any combat. Given that, the smartest thing they could do is get out of the way, stay out of harm, and not make themselves a liability.
Imagine you have a child who you let play on a street although we know street crime exists.
A better analogy would be if I were to allow my child to play in the street while a crime was occurring in the immediate vicinity, not merely just being in an area known to have crime. If I didn't get my child out of harm's way, while shots were being fired down the street, I would indeed hold that the parent was being irresponsible.
Furthermore, if a shooting occurred in the area due to a criminal shooting at the police and the police, in response, accidentally shot my child in the crossfire, as sad as it would be, I would still have to blame the criminal first and foremost for instigating the shootout.
Post a Comment