Wednesday, July 26, 2006

War strategies

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 wrathwho 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.

19 comments:

Adam said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
programmer craig said...

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.

programmer craig said...

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?

Adam said...

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?

Non-Blogging said...

Craig,

This interesting thing is that the people in the Finnish Defence Staff who have spoken out on the deaths don't think it was deliberate. Their arguments follow the line that Israel would have gained nothing from intentionally killing UN observers. Probably that's true.

And nobody threatens here that we should attack Tel Aviv together with China, Canada and Australia. That's what Israel would actually ponder in a similar case.

However, there's quite a debate on the attack here. It's because the observer is the first Finnish victim of the crisis and despite the deaths of some dozens of Finnish peacekeepers earlier, since 1964 the first one killed by shooting or shelling.

A couple of probably valid arguments I've read include that while the deaths were not deliberate, they were not really accidents either. Remember, the shelter received the fatal blow only after 14 earlier hits. Furthermore, the observers had called IDF repeatedly asking them to halt fire to no avail. So, the argumentation is the Israeli troops are frustrated and even better, have a traditional contempt for the UN and think they can do whatever they want and get away with that anyway. Makes sense to me.

Libyan Warrior( KING OF AL-ANDLUS) said...

Yes. The UN is Israel is enemy, any organization that has compasion for human life is Israel's enemy. The United Nations is the Nations of Man United Israel hates all of mankind who r not Jews, they view them as "gentiles" who they can do whatever they please because YeaWay told them it was okay. Read your bible the Jews hate everyone but themselves and the consider themselves the "master race" and all other races, nations and peoples are "inferior' they are "gentiles" and their only purpose in this life is to serve the "masterrace".

Adam said...

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.

tommy said...

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.

Adam said...

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?

Non-Blogging said...

Great, Adam, you stole my words! Having seen all the disgusting things on www.bigpharaoh.com on how the UN is incapable of doing anything except for sheltering terrorists, smuggling drugs, using prostitutes and such, you're the first person I've seen question why we didn't hear about any Hizbollah death in relation to the shelter attack. Might be because there aren't any?

Check what I wrote in another thread here on what UNTSO can and can't do.

Tommy, I haven't seen the UN planning an investigation into what happened. Israel has promised a fill inquiry which will be exactly as "neutral" and "objective" as the UN investigating itself.

Adam said...

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 ??

Non-Blogging said...

Adam stole my words!!! Note everybody! I'm crying! And next I'm going to tell my Mom and the UN about this. They will probably issue a soft condemnation on Adam's action but do nothing else ;-).

Eurosofties of the world, unite for peace and wimpiness!

Adam said...

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.

tommy said...

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

Adam said...

Tommy,
so why dont Olmert say there was HB in da hoods?

Do you think there were?

tommy said...

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.

Non-Blogging said...

Tommy,

I don't like your thinking between the lines that the UN is responsible for the deaths of the four observers because it didn't pull them out. If the UN had, you would perhaps claim the UN is full of cowards who run away when they see a firing gun.

Imagine you have a child who you let play on a street although we know street crime exists. Big bad guys bully your child and almost hit him deadly 14 times before yet another big bad guy hits him hard enough for the hit to be fatal. Your child of course pleads 14 times for the thugs to stop bullying him. They promise but go on immediately. Your child dies. This death becomes a media scandal. Somebody writes an editorial claiming that your child allowed the bad guys in his vicinity and furthermore, it's you as the father who's to blame because you let your child play out despite the fact that other children have been beaten to death on other streets before.

I'd guess you'd be seriously insulted by that kind of thinking and blaming, and for a good reason.

I'd say myself that in the case above you could have been more careful BUT with the same logic then women could also be more careful and not use miniskirts if they want to avoid getting raped. Read: I say the victim isn't to blame but the perpetrator whatever the context is.

Moreover, the local police chief wouldn't condemn the event because the perpetrators are his friends. That's what the US in doing in the UN at the moment - instead of condemning the attack the world's moral leader thinks it's perfectly OK to kill UN peacekeepers. A perfect way to gain sympathy from other governments for the unfortunate cases when US soldiers are targeted.

programmer craig said...

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.

tommy said...

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.