donsutherland1

If a newspaper reported, "Battle tanks rumbled north, attack helicopters flew overheard and artillery fire roared... as Israeli forces pushed ahead Sunday with an offensive aimed at capturing Hamas' last strongholds and crushing the terrorist organization," one would expect loud criticism from the UN and numerous foreign states. In fact, even as Israel has embarked on military action with the more limited aim of ending Hamas' rocketfire, if it were not for the U.S. blocking a proposed Security Council Presidential Statement, already the UN would formally be on record as having condemned Israel. Not to be deterred, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon argued that Israel's military action had undermined efforts to bring peace to the region.

In reality, the UN's latest efforts to condemn Israel and the harsh words of some of its spokespersons further reinforce the double standard it has consistently applied to Israel. Almost simulataneously with the start of Operation Cast Lead, Sri Lanka launched major military operations aimed at smashing the Tamil Tigers terrorist organization. The Associated Press reported:

Battle tanks rumbled north, attack helicopters flew overheard and artillery fire roared through the jungles as Sri Lankan forces pushed ahead Sunday with an offensive aimed at capturing the Tamil Tigers' last strongholds and crushing the rebel group...

The rebels have been fighting since 1983 to create an independent homeland for Tamils, who have suffered decades of marginalization by governments controlled by the Sinhalese majority. The conflict has killed more than 70,000 people.

In contrast to the UN's frenzied action aimed at impairing Israel's efforts to defend the lives of its citizens, the UN has made no attempts to issue resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire between Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers and Secretary-General Ban did not accuse Sri Lanka's government of undermining efforts to bring peace to the region in a conflict that has claimed far more lives than have been lost in the Israel-Palestinian dispute.

The reality is that under international law, every country has an inherent right of self defense. Both Israel and Sri Lanka are exercising that right. Outside interference is not helpful. In fact, rather than saving civilian lives, outside interference can bolster the elements e.g., Hamas in the Gaza Strip, that reject peace and openly attack civilians. In the larger geopolitical context, I believe the UN's double standard has helped perpetuate the long-standing Israeli-Arab dispute. Had the UN unambiguously called on the Palestinians to accept President Clinton's bridging proposal, Yasser Arafat would have come under far more intense pressure to accept the historic opportunity for peace that he squandered. Had the UN unambiguously condemned Hamas for its acts of terrorism and held it wholly responsible for the consequences of its human shielding, Hamas might be perceived by many more people worldwide as the extremist entity it truly is.

Hamas seeks nothing less than Israel's destruction. It deliberately attacks civilians. It uses Gaza's civilian population as human shields and that is collective punishment. It perpetrates atrocities against those who dissent from its extreme views.

Tragically, those grim realities are shrouded by the UN's chronic failure to take a consistent and honest stand that holds Hamas and similar terrorist entities responsible for their actions. Instead, the UN's painstaking effort to create moral equivalency where there is none and, at times, its "blame Israel first" approach has hidden the realities of Hamas' naked aggression against Israel and her civilians. Such developments have undermined prospects for peace and security in the region.

In the end, Israel's counterterrorism operations deserve full support. Unless Hamas is significantly weakened, prospects for peace with the Palestinians will be non-existent and the future will witness only additional violence.

Jakers

Don't need to hype the awful truth. Those that have eyes to see, let them see.

True. Which puts even more blood on U.S. hands. Not that that anyone could notice.

And may he be blessed for speaking the truth.

What "double standard"? Israel compared to whom?

So, are you saying that because, in your opinion, the situation in Sri Lanka and the situation in the ME are identical, morally and legally, it was wrong to condemn Israel without simultaneously condemning Sri Lanka? That may very well be true, but the failure to condemn Sri Lanka in no way makes it wrong to condemn Israel. You can't expect that every time Israel does something nasty, that the UN should take the time to simultaneously condemn all the other nasty stuff being played out elsewhere. Israel is not the only nation to have its behaviours criticized by the UN. Its just that, thanks to the USA, it gets away with doing nasty stuff, and so to tends do it a lot more often than places which the USA does not protect with its veto.

Well. every legitimate state has that right, but in this instance, that's a moot point. But let's draw a parallel. Suppose certain Mohawk warriors got p.o.'d at the USA and started stting off car bombs in Buffalo. Would that give the USA the right to bomb the nearest reservation, and assassinate the leaders, their wives children and neighbours, of Native Political Action groups. Point it north, and say the bombs were in Montreal--would the Canadian armed forces [for lack of bombers and guided missiles] be allowed to shell the reserve, willy-nilly, into a smoking hole of submission? And would the UN be disallowed any criticism in either case unless it simultaneously condemned like actions in some other country, present or past?

I don't know from Sri Lanka. That's some other thread. But I do know that two wrongs do not make a right, and that failure to condemn one wrong does not mean that you are forbidden to condemn another. And I do know that what Israel is doing now, and has been doing continuously for over a century, is wrong, wrong, wrong.


Are you one of those neo-cons cum neo-liberals who claim that FDR was to blame for extending the Great Depression into the 40's?

The truth, as all the world knows, is that is the 'outside interference' of Britain, France, etc., but principally and overwhelmingly for the past 40+ years, of the right-wing USA, especially the religious right-wing USA [which appears to be most of the USA] that has brought about, prolonged, deepened, and dehumanized this ugly quarrel.

Yeah, but then he'd have been forced to wear Depends(tm) for the rest of his life.
That's what happens to people in prison who decide to go along to get along.

Change that from 'Hamas' to 'Zionism' and you'll see where I'm coming from.

True or false, [and remember, the USA loved to napalm or agent orange entire Vietnamese villages and farms on the excuse that the Viet Cong were using the peasantry as 'human shields'. I think the Brits used some of the same logic in Ireland, and they were equally smug and self-righteous about it.
And aren't you yanks doing it in Afghanistan, even as we speak. Damn those "human shields"! Damn them, I say!!

I guess that the "blame Israel first" approach is the only morally honest way to go has just never crossed your mind, has it? You'd rather believe that the billions of non-Zionists who do blame Israel first are just a bunch of satan-inspired anti-semites, right?

Come on, face it. Until Israel has placed "settlements" on every inch of land it covets between the Nile and the Euphrates, and pacified that territory by excluding residence to anyone who has no Jewish ethnicity, and then cowed its remaining neighbours into silence by shaking its nuclear arsenal in their faces, this sh-t ain't never gonna end.

donsutherland1

Hamas bears complete responsibility for the bloodshed. Hamas rejects peace initiatives, it rejects compromise, it rejects a two-state solution. In doing so, it perpetuates violence and helps ensure a reality that serves neither Israel's people nor the Palestinians.

No. My point is that Sri Lanka's inherent right of self defense was understood. Israel's should be understood, as well. Every sovereign state has an inherent right of self defense.

Israel is a legitimate state. It is a member of the United Nations. It has exactly the same rights as those enjoyed by any other sovereign state.

Sri Lanka had a right to act in self defense and I support Sri Lanka's doing so. Israel enjoys the same right. Yet, the UN and several other international states treated each country differently, in effect, reaffirming Sri Lanka's right of self defense (the correct decision, in my view), but criticizing Israel's acting in self defense (an inconsistent and inappropriate position, in my view).

Israel was re-established in 1948. It has faced naked aggression since that time.

I have expressed no such positions here or elsewhere.

Hamas is a terrorist entity with an extreme ideology. Hamas rejects Israel's right to exist. The Hamas Charter declares, "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that."

Hamas rejects any compromises or peace initiatives and anchors that rejectionism in a radical interpretation of religion. Hamas' Charter states, "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion."

Hamas even embraces anti-semitic literature to make its anti-Israel case. The Hamas Charter proclaims, "Their [the Jewish people's] plan is embodied in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'..."

Zionism is merely the Jewish people's national expression. It concerned the re-establishment of Israel in the area of its historic roots and, afterward, the security and wellbeing of Israel. It is no different than any other people's national expression i.e., French nationalism, Egyptian nationalism, etc. The Jewish people, like any of the world's other peoples, enjoy the same freedom of national expression. Unlike the Hamas ideology, Zionism is not hateful nor does it preclude a two-state solution to the historic dispute.

I disagree that there is anything moral about a "blame Israel first" approach. Furthermore, not every person who expresses opposition to Israel's policies is anti-semitic. If, however, one treats the Jewish people in a fashion that is distinctly worse than that of other peoples e.g., argues that the Jewish people enjoy fewer rights, etc., then that is an indication of anti-semitism.

Israel has never expressed any desire or aim to hold land near the Euphrates. Israel has also returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. Israel had agreed to President Clinton's bridging proposal of December 2000 that would have given the Palestinians all of the Gaza Strip, 97% of the West Bank (inclusive of land swaps), virtually all of East Jerusalem except for the Western Wall (Judaism's holiest site). That Yasser Arafat could not summon the courage or foresight to accept the historic opportunity to create a sovereign Palestinian state does not negate the reality that Israel's actions debunk the hypothesis that Israel seeks all of the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers.

Later, President Clinton would write of Yasser Arafat in his memoirs:

Perhaps he simply couldn’t make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman. He had grown used to flying from place to place, giving mother-of-pearl gifts made by Palestinian craftsmen to world leaders and appearing on television with them. It would be different if the end of violence took Palestine out of the headlines and instead he had to worry about providing jobs, schools, and basic services. Most of the young people on Arafat’s team wanted him to take the deal. I believe Abu Ala and Abu Mazen also would have agreed but didn’t want to be at odds with Arafat.

When he left, I still had no idea what Arafat was going to do. His body language said no, but the deal was so good I couldn’t believe anyone would be foolish enough to let it go...

Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions.

In sum, Israel is not to blame for the perpetuation of the historic dispute. Yasser Arafat squandered the historic opportunity for peace. After Israel had fully disengaged from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, Hamas and other terrorist organizations squandered the opportunity that was available for economic and political development in the Gaza Strip. Hamas' actions led to the current military operation that is now underway. Hamas' locating its facilities, weapons, and operatives among civilians is wholly responsible for civilian casualties that have occurred and might yet result in the ongoing military operations.

DivineComedy

We know no Jimmy Cotter Pin or Queen Noor or any other leading articulation of that type (“LIBERALS”) will call for the United Nations (of tyrants too) to occupy Gaza as per the UN Charter, until Hamas is no more, and peace and prosperity can grow in Gaza. In reality any UN roll will continue the conflict forever. The world, as Queen Noor did today, will push to give Hamas free room and board. When they are fed and watered, and prosperous, they will stop hating Jews.

Lerxst

How does this put any blood on U.S. hands? Exactly?

I think the point is that they are criticizing Israel for taking military action to defend it's people and the U.N. is attempting to block it politically. While another nation does the same thing basically and get's a pass. My questions to you would be:

• do you feel Israel has a right to protect itself or not?
• do you believe Sri Lanka has a right to protect itself or not?
• do you see a difference in what Sri Lanka is doing and what Israel is doing?
• do you believe the U.N. should take steps against Sri Lanka for what they are doing?

Why is it a moot point? It's the very core of the issue.

Does the Reservation Police and the Bureau of Indian Affair support and protect the Mohawk warriors? Or would they help us go in and get the culprits? Do the tribal leaders politically and financially support the Mohawk Warriors? Do many of the citizens on the reservation hide the Mohawk Warriors and let them build their bombs or store their munitions in their homes? Would the citizens and their leaders on the reservation directly interfere with federal authorities who were trying to bring the Mohawk Warriors to justice for their crimes? If you are going to set up this "parallel" I think we need a few questions answered first. Further, your insinuation that Israeli troops deliberately assassinate innocent women and children as a matter of practice is very disingenuous. Yes, in war there is collateral damage and it's horrible. But you should ask yourself why Hamas would negate the ceasefire and openly attack Israel knowing that it would bring war to Gaza.

Is the U.S. protecting the Mohawk Warriors and allowing them free reign to send bombs into Canada?

Your parallels do not work.

I agree that two wrongs don't make a right, but the topic is basically the hypocrisy of the U.N. And what has Israel been doing continuously for over a century?

Certainly U.S. foreign policy has it's failings, but I would ask you to provide at least some specifics as to how the U.S. is to blame for the prolonged and ugly history of this conflict. Because we supported Israel, our ally, and didn't allow their Arab neighbors to overwhelm them militarily? That's what we are getting at here it seems...Israel's very existence. Please, expand upon your commentary here.

Do you support the actions of Hamas? If so, why?

No, I wouldn't. Much like your parallels above, you can't just make that statement and expect people to intelligently decipher your thoughts. Too broad and not nearly as easy to define as you may think.

No, we are not doing "the same thing" in Afghanistan. In fact what we are doing in Afghanistan is nowhere even close to what Hamas is doing in Gaza. How can you even draw a comparison here? I think you are simply not wording your post properly or something. The U.S. used Agent Orange in Vietnam as a defoliation agent (one of the Rainbow Herbicides used during the Herbicidal Warfare program) to deny the enemy the use of the jungle for cover and concealment and crops needed for supplying food stuffs. It was not used because the VC were using peasants as human shields. Napalm was used against the enemy, and yes there were instances where villages were hit and civilian casualties occurred (it can be argued that many of those incidents were the fault of the South Vietnamese air force...but then again, it was a war). We didn't use napalm against civilians because they were being used as human shields by the VC. Provide some kind of evidence to establish the veracity of your statement, otherwise your parallel here is meaningless.

No, the blame Israel "first" approach is not the only morally honest way to go. Far from it. And I see no need for you to build a straw man here. Engage the poster over what they have actually said.

And there it is.

__________________
Step into my office....

GRod

I am very new to this forum but in reading this thread I can understand how bold and audacious Israel can be and how heinous not only war can be but how Hamas could use human shields. Having the UN, Israel and Hamas on the same page and speaking in truths has unfolded as such: each side pointing fingers going na-na-na boo boo.

Israel will always act as if they have a big stick because America gave them the bigger sticks(armament). Hamas will always have nothing but their pride and honor against Israel's armament and what the UN decides will always fall by the way-side in many instances(not saying always but in most cases).

I am not an expert on the matter but I surely can say that the terrible aspect of war is death and no good has come from an aggressive approach by Israel. Personally I believe Israel's aggression is simply Israel showing off and running military drills. What is sad is the lack of communication the US has with the UN, Israel and Hamas. Everyone has a right to defend themselves but the simple fact is no one wants to communicate with one another. War is trajic and no one really wins in war, there are only casualties. Hamas are terrorists, plain and simple and I do not condone nor agree with such an organization. What I'm saying is that it all is a complete and utter mess that unfortunately has no end in site because no one is REALLY talking with one another.

Tashah

Aggressive? Hamas has been firing missiles into Israel since 2004. This is 2009.

I don't imagine Hamas would agree with your analysis.

Israel did communicate. Everyone knew this was coming. Since early December 2008, Israel had publicly warned Hamas of the grave consequences of continued missile attacks. Every available means was employed... diplomatic notes, the press, radio, the Internet, leaflets. Mubarak and Abbas warned Hamas to stop. Two weeks ago Israel filed official complaints at the United Nations... no response. Israel communicated. No one listened.

Israel and Abbas are talking. Israel and Syria with Turkey as an intermediary are talking. Hamas has refused to negotiate with Israel. Hamas refused to attend reconcilliation talks with Fatah in Egypt. Hamas refused to renew the latest ceasefire. At some point, Hamas has to either face reality or disappear for peace to be at all possible.

btw... Welcome to Debate Politics

__________________

donsutherland1

Several quick points:

1. Self defense is not aggression.
2. Hamas chose to end its ceasefire and increase its attacks on Israel.
3. Bombardment of civilian centers is an act of aggression. Hamas engaged in such aggression and Israel's Operation Cast Lead is a response to that aggression. Operation Cast Lead is self defense.
4. Talking can be effective with pragmatic groups. Hamas is not a pragmatic group.

Hamas is an extreme rejectionist group. It rejects Israel's right to exist. It rejects compromise and peace initiatives. It anchors its rejectionism in religion so as to bind itself against compromise.

Key excerpts from Hamas' Charter include:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that...

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion...

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Recognition of a state's right to exist is a starting point for diplomacy, not an end point. After all, if one does not recognize a state's right to exist, then one will not allow oneself to be bound by treaties or other agreements that create obligations with respect to the state that one does not recognize. If "peaceful solutions" are rejected out of hand and "jihad" is the only means by which Hamas seeks to pursue its radical objectives, talk is not a solution. If an entity declares that compromise and recognition of a state's right to exist is an abuse of religion, then the entity has all but rendered itself inflexible, as religious principles are far more fundamental and enduring than secular political ones. Not suprisingly, even with stiff international sanctions, Hamas has persistently rejected Israel's right to exist, refused to abandon violence, and refused to be bound by existing diplomatic agreements (the Madrid Quartet's terms for Hamas' engagement).

GRod

As I indicated I am not all that knowledgeable about the entire situation so Tashah and donsutherland1, both of you have supplied very good information for me and for that I must give thanks. Watching bombs on television or reading about them in the newspaper is definitely depressing and I knew Hamas was an extremely radical group that has refused to communicate with anyone.

To note: Since Saturday 500 deaths in the Gaza Strip with 100 Civilians amongst the dead. Civilians including children. After 8 days still no stop to Hama’s’ rockets. Israel’s objective was limited to take control of the Hama’s launch sites which could take time. Israel says the objective is to restore quiet to Israel's south, not to bring down Hamas or reoccupy Gaza.

My point is what both you, Tashah and donsutherland1 re-iterate, which is that this whole situation has casualties and is messed up beyond all recognition.

Thank you both for your comments. I certainly did not intend to blatantly condemn one side or the other, I condemn the whole situation.

partier9

Agreed, Israel was attacked first therefore it has a right to defend itself against Hamas. If the UN was really serious about creating peace in the Middle East they would either allow Israel to take out Hamas or put soldiers into the areas and quell the violence. But because they refuse to do either and they just want the immediate deaths to stop, they are continuing this conflict and bring more deaths to the innocents in Gaza and Israel in the future.

__________________
If I had a billion dollars?