Our Defense Forces, our war crimes, our terrorism

[ProgressiveMuslim]

By Bradley Burston

Tags: Burston, war crimes, terror

(snip)




I want to apologize for the unforgivable.

It is time for us to stop "understanding" why we kill so many Palestinian civilians. It is time for us to stop explaining away the deaths we excuse as the unfortunate and incidental by-product of a terrible war.

If it had been only an isolated incident, a tragic aberration, I would have kept my peace, said nothing, just moved on.

But the same crime, the same - let's call it by its real name - atrocity, has been committed time and again, under the same circumstances, for the same reasons, with the same indefensible result.

Someone in an IDF uniform, in a position of responsibility, gave an order. We will probably never know who. Nor will we know who loaded the shell into the tank gun, if that was, indeed what happened, or who armed the air-to-surface missile, if that was what happened, who sighted the target, who gave the order to fire, who carried it out.

What we do know is that a mother in Beit Hanoun, a devastated area of northern Gaza from which Qassams and mortars are fired at Israel, was seeing to the breakfast of her four small children Monday morning when their world exploded.

We know that they are all dead.

The army said it fired two missiles at Palestinian militants near the tin shack of the Abu Meatik family, detonating explosives carried by the militants, sparking a "secondary explosion" that struck the home.

Witnesses said that a tank shell sheared through the roof and killed everyone inside, among them Rudina Abu Meatik, 6, her brothers, Saleh, 4 and Mousab, 15 months, and her three-year-old sister, Hana, 3.

We console ourselves, here on the Israeli side of the border, that, unlike the suicide bomber, the box cutter terrorist, the drive-by machine gunner, the Merkaz Harav gunman, the deaths of the children and their mother in Beit Hanoun were a terrible case of bad fortune.

We salve our doubts by stressing - and this is true - that the Israeli army never intentionally targets non-combatants. We protect our fragile consciences by suppressing case after case of Palestinian civilian casualties.

We deflect our guilt by shifting the blame to Hamas, to the Jihad, even - and for this I apologize seventy-fold - to the failure of Palestinian civilians to rise up and stop the terrorists.

We are prepared to excuse it again and again. We excused it when we heard the news today, just as we excused it in November, 2006, when an IDF artillery piece killed 19 people in Beit Hanoun, some of them children still sleeping in their beds when the shell hit.

No more.

read the whole thing..
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978661.html

[RC]

1. Violence begets violence. Give Peace a chance.

We need more Jimmy Carters and less Condoleezza Rice.

In the grand scheme of things, this planet is but a small, insignificant dust mote among the stars. We fight among ourselves as if we really matter, never looking beyond our own finger tips, never thinking beyond the moment. Always assuming everyone else should think and do as we do. The human animal is a very arrogant, self centered animal. We are planting the seeds for our own extinction.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. I hope everyone reads this article...

I've read stuff from him before that I strongly disagree with, but this was a very powerfully written article. This bit in particular stood out for me...

'It would pay, in this regard, for us to review the reasons why Palestinian mortars and Qassam rockets fired at civilian centers are considered a war crime. "Because Qassams are not capable of accurate targeting, it is unlawful to use them in or near areas populated with civilians," Human Rights Watch said after a Qassam killed a Sderot mother of two children, days after the 19, mostly women and children, were killed in Beit Hanoun.

It would pay, in this regard, for us to recognize that despite cutting edge technology, we can aim neither tank shells nor missile with assurance.

"International humanitarian law prohibits direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects as well as indiscriminate attacks and attacks that cause disproportionate damage to civilians," the organization declared. "A prohibited indiscriminate attack includes using weapons that are incapable of discriminating between civilians and combatants or between civilian and military objects."

We all know why we send in the assault helicopter, and the tank, and the fighter-bomber, and use them against Palestinians. We use them for the same reason we pulled out of Gaza. To spare our own soldiers. We know that occupation takes huge numbers of troops. We use armor against humans in order to limit the exposure of our own soldiers to risk.

The way we use them, however, kills children.'

[The Magistrate]

3. Well Written, Ma'am, But Hardly Persuasive Beyond The Emotional Level

The author correctly acknowledges that Israeli forces were not directly targeting non-combatants.

The author is also correct in pointing out that indiscriminant fire is criminal.

He is correct that the Israeli military engages its enemies in a manner calculated to minimize casualties to itself.

He omits, however, any consideration of the obligation laid by the laws of war on combatants to avoid taking up positions, and conducting operations, in a manner which puts non-combatants at risk when they are engaged by the enemy.

He is also not correct in classing the Israeli fire in this instance as indiscriminant, and omits any consideration of the balancing of direct military advantage gained by an action with the foreseeable risk to non-combatants it entails, which is also part of the body of law in question.

Israeli fire in this instance was quite discriminant. Several individuals were engaged in sequence by precisely aimed munitions, and they were struck by them. There was no general bombardment of the area the targetted combatants were in; the munitions employed had a restricted blast area, tailored to task of destroying their small target with as little risk as possible to others nearby. That in one instance, there was in the event involvement of nearby non-combatants does not alter this. The law does not require perfection in execution, only that reasonable precaution to minimize harm to non-combatants be taken, and reasonable precaution towards this end seems to have been exercised.

The general position of the Israeli government, that responsibility for casualties to non-combatants in instances like this rests with those combatants who take up positions among, and conduct operations among, the civil populace, is a sound one, and the principle it rests on cannot be ignored in assessing liability in instances like this. Even were one to grant the bulk of the author's points, it would remain that responsibilty for the death of this family was shared mutually between the Israeli military, and the combatant members of the militant body the Israelis engaged. These latter fulfilled no part of their legal responsibiity to conduct their operations in a manner that minimized risk to non-combatants in the event they were engaged by their enemy's forces. The laws of war do not convey an immunity from engagement to combatants who are so positioned that assailing them must entail risk of harm to non-combatants. Were this so, all combatants would surely go into battle with gaggles of women and children nearby as the surest means of protecting themselves. But in fact, doing this is a war crime, and conducting operations in a manner that employs 'human shields' is a crime whoever does it (and on occassion the Israeli miltary has certainly done so).

Boiled down, the author's point would seem to be that the Israeli military ought to conduct operations in a manner that exposes its members to greater risk of casualties, if by doing so it can minimize still further the risk of harm to enemy non-combatants. That is a sound enough point, in my view, though it really is a trickier thing to put into practice than it may seem on paper. It is also more of a political question than a legal one. It seems to me that a democratic government, particularly a democratic government in a polity in which the overwhelming majority of voters can be classed as service members or relatives or friends or spouses of service members over the course of their lives, would have great difficulty putting into operation a policy that amounted to increasing its own military casualties, for whatever end. Viewed coldly, of course, it is possible such a policy could bring political benefit internationally, but people seldom view coldly the loom their own death, and the death of those near and dear to them.

[Vegasaurus]

4. As long as the militants hide among civilians and want to kill any Israeli

(and their actions prove as much), it doesn't behoove Israel to put their own citizens in danger while reducing the danger to the Palestinians.

If the Palestinians want fewer casualties, then they should throw away their militancy, their violence, their terrorism, and their goals of getting rid of all Jews and all of Israel.

[Ken Burch]

19. If the Israelis want fewer casualties, then they should forever remove the settlements

on the West Bank(non-Israeli territory)stop the home demolitions, end the blockade of Gaza, and start treating Palestinians as human beings.

The Palestinians are the victims in this. When you kill four times as many people as the other side, you lose forever the right to claim to be fighting a defensive war.

The only way to end the war is through equality and justice.

And an admission, at long last, that the whole thing has NEVER been the exclusive responsibility of Palestinian "terrorists". An admission that the IDF has as much blood on its hands as anybody.

[msmcghee]

5. I think this sentence is quite significant.

"Were this so, all combatants would surely go into battle with gaggles of women and children nearby as the surest means of protecting themselves."

The IDF video clearly shows the militants gathering and conducting their operations mixed in and among clustered civilian homes in a neighborhood with small streets and passageways. They duck in and out of those gates and passageways and run along the road right next to several civilian homes in the course of the short clip.

Before the first missile was fired at them you can even see the leader apparently issuing battle orders and pointing with his arm the direction that his troops should take to meet up with some other militants. They essentially were doing exactly what you describe. They " . . go into battle with gaggles of women and children nearby".

I find it amazing that those who abhor "killing, no matter who does it" fail to see the enormity of this crime that virtually assures the high likelihood of deaths and injuries of innocent civilians. Instead, we get the usual bromides of moral equivalence by some - and the usual accusations that Israel intentionally targets civilians by others.

[The Magistrate]

7. To Be Fair, Ma'am

It should be borne in mind that partisan forces cannot exist in the face of a conventionally dominant military force without availing themselves of shelter among their civilian populace. The advantages of a conventional military force in battle are so great that partisan bodies simply must avail themselves of this in some degree if they are to survive and fight at all. The laws of war remain a pretty poor fit with partisan forces, and with guerrilla war over-all. But there is no doubt that the laws of war should not be construed so as to render illegal the normal operation of partisan forces. Prior to the early Hague conventions, the customary usages of war dictated that partisans were liable to execution out of hand, and they were viewed as roughly equivalent to persons practicing piracy on the high seas. It was clearly the intent, even from the earliest days, to admit partisan forces as legitimate combatants, in contradiction of the earlier custom.

Guerrilla war is a vexed problem, owing chiefly to its principal means of achieving its goals. The chief aim of guerrilla operations is to goad the conventional opponent into atrocious over-reaction, that will discredit it politically, both internationally and among its own citizenry. The principal means by which guerrilla forces seek to achieve this is by committing atrocious outrages of their own, that must force their opponent into some sort of action. Guerrilla forces count mostly on the much greater power available to their conventional opponent to ensure that what the latter does in reaction will be of much greater scale, and hence seem even more appalling, than what they themselves do, and thus gain to their benefit the balance of outrage and shock when the sides are contrasted. It will be clear from this that 'non-violence' on a Ghandian pattern is simply the logic of guerrilla war pushed to one of its potential extremes, for this sort of action depends for its effect on successful goading of an opponent into atrocious action, but without troubling to commit any of its own, and thus ensures the balance of outrage will rest against its opponent.

Matters become even more vexed when the concept of 'People's War' is examined. The modern Maost template for guerrilla war, forged in the Communist rebellion against the Nationalist Chinese government, and resistance to Imperial Japanese occupation, envisions the whole of the people as participants in the struggle, whatever their condition, sex, or even age. It goes beyond merely turning a blind eye to guerrilla activities and maintaining silence in the face of soldiers and providing a sort of shrubbery among which the fighters and active sympathizers can find concealment. All are active participants, though the form of their active participation is in most cases one that does not require arms. Of course, it suites the chiefs and cadre driving the enterprise to pretend the deaths of persons not actually part of an armed corps of fighters are the deaths of 'innocent' non-combatants for purposes of propaganda, but they will also, for propaganda aimed at a different audience, cry up these same deaths as the glorious end of heroes in the people's cause. 'People's War' is essentially the non-state version of the industrialized total wars that dominated the first half of the twentieth century, in which governments directed the activities of their countries so thoroughly to the war effort that it was difficult find an enterprise within their rule or sizeable number of their citizens whose activities made no contribution to prosecution of the war, and just about any wrecking an enemy could contrive, or just about any killing it could manage, could be fairly characterized as doing some harm to the military effort the country was making. Total mobilization, whether by a state or a non-state authority, renders distinction between combatant and non-combatant a blurred and foggy thing indeed.

"No law which conflicts with the ability of a force in the field to survive is ever likely to be much observed."

[Lithos]

13. At a high level this is true

But the details differ, particularly from that of the Maoist template. I think the ultimate goal of most guerrilla forces operating up through the mid 20th century was based on strong ultra-nationalism and not so much ideologies.

As for Hamas, How many guerrilla factions have become essentially defacto parties of state, while at the same time preserving their original enemy as well as their rival? While you could claim that the Maoist/Nationalist areas were distinct states, Japan as an enemy was fleeting temporally and not as dominant in events as Israel is today.

The closest I can think of were the Partisans/Chetniks of Yugoslavia during WW II, though that model again suffers from the short time duration.

L-

[The Magistrate]

15. In My View, My Friend

The 'Maoist template' for guerrilla war exist seperately from the particular ideology of Mao, as pattern of mobilization, strategy and tactics, just as, say, the template of 'Blitzkrieg' exists seperately from the Hitler-era Wehrmacht as a pattern of successful organization, strategy and tactics. Any strong passion, from ultra-nationalism to religious fervor, can fill the role of animating spirit Communist revolution played in Mao's actual operations.

It is not by any means my contention that Hamas is actually conducting a full-bore 'people's war' operation. While some elements akin to such a thing can be discerned, there is not nearly sufficient social cohesion, nor capability to discipline the populace, present in the situation. My purpose was simply to present some description of basic elements of guerrilla war, something that is not widely understood.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. Magistrate, how do you understand Hezbollah's brand of warfare?

[The Magistrate]

28. Mixed Reviews, Ma'am

Its cross-border attacks against military patrols are legitimate acts of war. Its random rocketing is not a legitimate act of war.

In its basing, in its storage of munitions and such, it employs the usual guerrilla strategy of taking up positions among civilians, and this is illegitimate.

As your question did not touch upon the group's ideology and motivations, or its position and conduct in Lebanese politics, or the international scene, there is no need to address these considerations at this point.

[bemildred]

22. It seems to me that both sides here are conducting military operations in a civilian area.

The fact that one side is doing it where it lives and the other is not merely makes clear who is being attacked and who is not at any particular time. There is no neutral field where the war might be conducted according to the "rules". The same can be said of the rockets going the other way, of course, there is no place for the civilians in the targeted areas to go, and nowhere else for the IDF to be but among them.

And there is no real solution but to negotiate a settlement (no pun intended), otherwise things will continue as they are now.

[Vegasaurus]

23. Considering that one of the governments of the Palestinians

refuses a settlement, it looks like things will stay as they are now (or get even worse for the Palestinians).

[bemildred]

24. Which, according to The Magistrate, is what the Palestinian resistance wants.

Is that really what Israel needs and wants? Ought the IDF allow itself to be led around by the nose by the likes of the various Palestinian resistance splinter groups?

[The Magistrate]

26. No, Sir, The Body Politic Of Israel Needs To Reject Its Own Maximalists, And Thoroughly

The problem is 'hard men' and 'ultras', whatever side they are on....

[Ken Burch]

66. Then why did you start your contributions to this thread by dismissing Burston's position?

Isn't what he's doing about "rejecting the maximalists"(in whose ranks we can clearly include the high command of the IDF)?

[The Magistrate]

25. There Is Something To That, My Friend

We have gone several rounds in the past on whether the concept of rules for war even makes much sense, given the nature of the actitivity, and what is at stake for participants. Part of my focus on the subject is simply that cries of 'war crime!' are raised so frequently and so one-sidedly that it seems useful to set out what the rules actually are, and what a reasonably even-handed application of them would look like.

If there were some evidence that the rocketeers in Gaza were taking Israeli military positions as their aiming point, my attitude towards them would be quite different. But no such evidence has been presented, not even in the claims of the rocketeers themselves, to the best of my knowledge.

When the Israelis fire from a distance at a combatant target positioned among enemy civilians, there can be no question of the Israelis seeking shelter from the presence of non-combatants, though there can be question of whether the Isarelis are taking sufficient care to avoid harm to non-combatants. The operation of partisan forces among their own civilians, and the consequences to the latter this routinely results in, are so deeply built in to the whole structure of guerrilla fighting, that it can be safely presumed that the two-fold motive of gaining some degree of immunity from attack, and if that fails, of gaining propaganda advantage from harm to non-combatants, is present.

We are certainly in agreement that a negotiated settlement is required, and aware that any such settlement will, by the very nature of compromise, disappoint the hopes of many on both sides. The most depressing element of the situation is the great likelihood things will simply cripple on along their current path....

[bemildred]

31. Well, as you know Sir, I prefer to view it as a pragmatic issue.

It is easier to make ones case, and one need not resort to allegations about war crimes and human shields and other such appeals to higher authority and the emotions of ones audience.

I just wanted to point out that if your enemies' goal is to provoke you into committing atrocities, then you would be well served to consider going out of your way to avoid doing that.

[bemildred]

36. In fairness ...

I would add that this is an argument that can be applied to some of the Palestinian resistance groups, quite as well as to the IDF, at times.

[The Magistrate]

39. We Are In Agreement There, Sir, On Both Counts

[bemildred]

48. FWIW, I find Burston to be something of a drama queen.

He takes all sorts of "interesting" positions and writes good purple prose. Sort of like talk radio in the US, but without as much right-wing bias. I have posted him a number of times to "stimulate debate", which seems to be his primary function.

[Sezu]

87. No settlement possible

Hamas is promising eternal war until Israel is gone it appears.

"Palestine will be liberated and not one meter of its land will be missing," Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar declared on Tuesday.


"The new generation of Palestinians has been entrusted with the task of liberating all of Palestine," said Zahar, who was speaking to students at the Sultan Suleiman Boys School in Gaza City, expressing confidence that the Palestinians would eventually achieve their goal.

"Allah's promise will be fulfilled," he said. "Victory is on its way."

Zahar said Palestinians would never give up their right to all of Palestine, "no matter how much time passes and how fierce the enemies are."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668628892&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[msmcghee]

27. If I don't assume you are being disingenuous in this post . .

. . then I am forced to question your intelligence. I'd rather not do either so let me explain my problem.

It seems completely obvious to me that one side, the Palestinain militants, are shooting rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israeli civilian areas across their border. This has been occurring regularly since Israel vacated Gaza. Periodically, the IDF are tasked with going in to Gaza to eliminate or reduce that rocket and mortar fire. The militants firing at Israel are located in and amongst civilian neighborhoods mostly in Northern Gaza. If there's anything that should be obvious to any observer it's that Israel has no real choice in the matter. They can either go into those neighborhoods to get at the militants and kill them - or they can sit back and let the militants kill Israeli civilians.

The militants do have a choice. They can stop the rocket and mortar attacks. That would also stop the IDF from going into Gaza since stopping the rockets and mortars is their publicly well-described reason for going in there - and so far, every time they go in that is what they try to accomplish.

Negotiate a settlement? Like what? If Israel agrees to stop going in to Gaza to kill the militants - the militants will stop trying to kill Israeli civilians? Since the militants have the option of shooting or not - and Israel has no option except to stop them when they do - why don't the militants simply stop shooting? Why is a "settlement" even necessary for the killing to stop?

Perhaps you could explain this in clear simple terms for me because to be honest, to me this is simply reality-defying nonsense - a "stage" of the process as the Hamas themselves describe it, designed to help them achieve their long term goal and in the meantime give some moral credibility to their operations which happen to be war crimes. And, those who support this nonsense seem to me to be on Hamas' side as far as reaching that goal. Since it seem so incongruous to me, that anyone who actually hoped for peace in the Mideast would be siding with Hamas on this matter, perhaps you could explain the reason for the huge disconnect I am experiencing here.

[bemildred]

32. Assume what you like, you always do. nt

[msmcghee]

33. I prefer to hear your explanation. That's . .

. . why I asked for it rather than make assumptions. I guess if the choice is between a lame explanation or no explanation - you have wisely chosen the latter. I'd think you'd enjoy a chance to make your point clear - if you have one that's worthy of examination.

[bemildred]

34. I prefer not to repeat myself. nt

[msmcghee]

35. Yes, that would be terrible waste. I'll keep . .

. . checking back to see if you change your mind.

[rockymountaindem]

6. You should be a professional writer

You summed it all up right there.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. Except for the "capitalization" thing... nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. Time will tell. nt

[The Magistrate]

10. It Wounds All Heels, Too, Ma'am

Time is a very versatile critter....

[notfullofit]

11. Depends on whose side it is on,

time that is.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. What do you want from me, Magistrate?

I'm really not clear at all.

[The Magistrate]

14. Rest Assured, Ma'am

You are not looked to for satisfaction of any want of mine.

[Ken Burch]

20. "Time wounds all heels"?

You're using old Ann Landers quotes in a discussion of Israel/Palestine?

Sheesh....

[oberliner]

21. I thought it was from Easy Aces

Congress is back in season!

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Three questions...

1. How close was the combatant being fired at to the house the non-combatants were in?

2. Bradley Burston mentioned other instances of Palestinian civilians being killed, including the death of a family during a bombardment of Beit Hanoun in 2006. Could you explain that one and how Bradley Burston is wrong about it?

3. Do you view the deaths of Israelis in as cold and unemotional way as you do of Palestinians?

[The Magistrate]

29. Three Answers, Ma'am

First, apparently pretty damned close, otherwise there would have been no involvement of the structure, however fluke, in the blast, whether it reslted from the primary, or a secondary, explosion. Whatever the distance, however, the root of the problem remains the proximity of the combatant himself to non-combatants. There is no need to repeat here the points set forth above regarding this.

Second, it is not my purpose, nor does it particularly interest me, to rake over past incidents. It is simply a fact that war is, as the old poster ran 'dangerous to flowers and other living things', and these dangers are compounded when one body of combatants routinely takes up fighting and basing positions among non-combatants, things according the laws of war it should not do. The likely, and frequently realized, consequences of doing this amply demonstrate why that regulation exists.

Third: yes.

[Ken Burch]

38. The actual quote was "war is not healthy for CHILDREN and other living things".

It was a great slogan. Don't trivialize it.

And the fact is, the continued building of settlements has left the Palestinians with little alternative but to resist by any means. They tried moderation in the Nineties, and all the "pro-Israel" types kept saying "not enough, not enough, not enough. We have to keep stealing their land to build settlements and we have to keep humiliating them".
Even Barak did that, and thus knowingly sabotaged his own "peace process" just in the name of looking "tough".

The settlements are what cause the armed resistance. There's no excuse to build a single settlement more. And the Israeli government has no right to complain about anything the Palestinians are doing as long as it keeps approving more settlements and more land theft. The way to end this is for the Israeli government to start treating the Palestinians as human beings, not simply dismiss them as "the enemy".

The Palestinians, sadly, are doing what any people would do when another people was oppressing them. I'd rather they did it another way, but really, who am I to say?

[The Magistrate]

40. What Was it, Sir? "The Mind Rembers, But The Body Forgets"?

It was a silly slogan then, and a sillier poster, and it was the flower form of it, doubtless, that struck the thing in my mind.

If you are genuinely of the impression 'armed resistance' owes only to settlements, it is hard to see much point to pressing an exchange with you in the limited time at my disposal. Two points are so glaring that they need engagement in brief. First, here is no right to 'resist by any means': the right to resist invasion, occupation, etc. is certainly established and worth upholding, but this right does not entail a right to perform criminal acts in pressing that resistance. Second, it is abundantly clear that both sides regard the other as the enemy, and engage in a good deal of dehumanization accordingly: it is not a fault peculiar to one side, nor is it something peculiar to this conflict, but rather a general trait of humankind at war.

"I'm going home now. Someone bring me some frogs and some bourbon."

[Ken Burch]

41. No, the armed resistance doesn't owe ONLY to the settlements

It goes back to the lie that Palestine was "a land without people".

It owes to the deliberate dispossession of innocent people in 1948, a dispossession that was not only an unforgiveable injustice to the Arab population of Palestine, but also, in the end, a cruel betrayal of the Jewish refugees who were brought to the Mandate because the "European democracies"(and the United States and Canada, to their eternal disgrace)refused to take them in. Those refugees, who had already suffered far too much, were abused both by the antisemitic arrogance of the wealthy and safe countries who could easily have absorbed them all, but were tricked by leaders like Ben-Gurion and Begin who set them up for a life where they were forced to fight with another group of people just coming out of centuries of colonial oppression for a tiny, essentially useless wedge of land.

There was no excuse to drive 750,000 people, people who bore no responsibility for the European Holocaust whatsoever, away from their homes by force. The process could have been done through negotiations and compromise. There could have been a real effort to bring these two groups, both of whom were history's victims, together in a national project for justice. But this wasn't even tried. And good people like Martin Buber were mocked and treated with derision for even suggesting it.

Israel is not going to go away, but it needs to be radically changed. Only when Israel has radically changed, only when it has abandoned the insistence on imposing its way by force, is there any real liklihood of getting the Palestinians to change their tactics. At present, the Israeli government has no right to just keep repeating a demand that the other side, in effect, unilaterally disarm. Not only the settlements, but the checkpoints, the theft of the olive trees, the theft of the water, and the daily humiliations Palestinian people are subjected to will have to be stopped if anyone expects the violence to stop.

The answer is each community treating the other as human beings. And as the dominant community, the community holding all the real power in the current power dynamic, Israel will have to go first.

This could not be too much to ask.

[The Magistrate]

42. If You Say So, Sir

"It ain't what you don't know, it's what you know that ain't so, will get you every time."

[eyl]

43. You are aware, are you not

that attacks on Jews in Mandatory Palestine preceded 1948 by a number of decades?

[Ken Burch]

51. In smaller numbers, yes. This was because the two communities

were already battling for the lands of the Mandate. The Palestinian Arabs would have attacked anybody else who was trying to take their lands as well. The issues was not wanting to be dispossessed, not antisemitism.

The Zionists should have listened to people like Martin Buber, who urged a conciliatory approach to the Palestinian Arabs.

It never had to be "fire and blood".

[pelsar]

52. so if an arab from syria...

bought the land from the absent landowners and started farming it using his own laborers (non locals)......they would have been attacked as well?....and are you aware of the immigration of arabs from other areas that came to Palestine to work....and werent attacked by the "natives"?

[Ken Burch]

53. That isn't a valid comparison.

A valid comparison would be a group of, say, American Evangelical Christians(especially "Christian Zionists")coming in, pushing Palestinians off their land, taking over the water supply, and attempting to declare the whole area a "Christian state", in which Palestinians had no other options but staying on as second-class citizens and cheap labor or going into exile.

Or, to a different degree, the Ottoman Empire, which always faced armed resistance from the indigenous communities in Palestine.

You have got to accept the fact that this was never about "antisemitism" in the European sense, and that it was never fair to act as if the Palestinians and the other Arabs were the successors to the Nazis as the scourges of the world's Jewish communities. It was about one people, a people who had lived in those lands for centuries, perhaps for a milennia or longer, not wanting to be dispossessed and left stateless. Both the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine have suffered, and have been played off against each other by imperial powers. Both have done harm to each other. At the moment, the Israeli government bears the greater responsibility for the situation because it holds most of the real power.

The Palestinians were hurt as badly by Israeli actions as Israelis were hurt by misguided past Palestinian choices. Neither side has an exclusive claim to victimhood.
The way to end this misery is equality, peace, democracy and justice. That's not too much to ask.

And no matter how hard to try to pretend the contrary, I'm NOT anti-Israel. Israel is there. It's going to continue to exist. It no longer faces any real threats of being put out of existence, other than the insistence of every Israeli government, even the Barak government in the Nineties, on refusing to treat the Palestinians as an equal power in negotiations and the insistence on trying to make every situation end in "victory".

The lands of the Mandate were never "a land without people". The Israeli government needs to admit this, and needs, finally, to apologize for the expulsions and for refusing to let the refugees come back after it had won in 1948. Had they been allowed back, a democratic and peaceful state with equality for all would now exist in Palestine. It would be a state that actually would be "a light unto the nations".

[notfullofit]

54. Do you really believe this?

'It no longer faces any real threats of being put out of existence'

[Ken Burch]

56. There's certainly no chance that Hamas could actually beat the IDF.

And no other Arab force actually WANTS to destroy Israel. With the rest, it's just rhetoric. In case you haven't noticed, even Syria and Libya haven't lifted a finger against them in years.

I'm not saying the region loves Israel. Only that the region isn't obsessed with destroying them. If they ever actually were.

You can't really believe the "we're in a fight for our lives so nobody has the right to criticize anything we do" meme, can you?

[notfullofit]

59. In response......

"I'm not saying the region loves Israel."
That's an understatement.

"Only that the region isn't obsessed with destroying them. If they ever actually were. "
Are you sure about this?

"You can't really believe the "we're in a fight for our lives so nobody has the right to criticize anything we do" meme, can you?"
Of course not!

[Ken Burch]

61. The answer to defusing regional hostility towards Israel is to stop the mistreatment of Palestinians

The status quo in Israeli security policy is only making the situation worse. In every way. Why is this so hard for some people to accept?

Israel is a nation. Palestine is also a nation. Both communities have equal roots and equal rights.

The standard approach too many people have of saying "Oh, the A-rabs just have to 'accept the Jewish state' and that's all that matters" is to blame for keeping the worst of Israeli security policies in place and for preventing real debate on these issues.

Antisemitism is evil and must be stopped. But that doesn't mean that what the Israeli government is doing must be left unchallenged.

[msmcghee]

62. Israel's security measures are the result . .

. . of attacks against the people of Israel.

Why can't people just understand that when the attacks actually stop (and not just temporarily) - the security measures will no longer exist.

[Ken Burch]

65. Israel can't ask the Palestinians to stop fighting back while it keeps building MORE settlements.

No people on Earth ever stopped fighting while another people kept taking more and more of their land.

The settlements were never acceptable and have to be dismantled. The West Bank is and has always been Palestine.

[msmcghee]

68. The building is going on in the Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem.

There is no building in Gaza. All the settlements and all Jews were removed from Gaza. The people of Gaza are firing the rockets. Sometimes reality sux.

"The settlements were never acceptable and have to be dismantled." Different question. They probably will be (most of them.)

"The West Bank is and has always been Palestine." Read some history then get back to me.

[Ken Burch]

73. I didn't even mention Gaza. And nothing outside of the Green Line is legitimately Israeli.

Not according to international law.

Those settlements are not worth sacrificing the chance for peace. They have no positive role to play.

[Shaktimaan]

70. uh-huh

The West Bank is and has always been Palestine.

Except for when it was Syria.

[msmcghee]

72. Or Jordan. n/t

[Ken Burch]

75. Saying the West Bank is and has always been Palestine

is not discredited by the fact that other nations or empires ruled it.

You wouldn't say that the fact that Ireland was British soil until 1922(and some of it still is)discredits the existence of the Irish nation. Or that India wasn't India when it was part of the same empire.

[pelsar]

so america is really indian country? n/t

[Ken Burch]

82. Actually, yes, by right.

Which is not to say the U.S. should be disbanded. Only that it is immoral to privelege European culture or to continue to actually defend "Manifest Destiny". The correct response is humility, redistribution of wealth and power, and multiculturalism.

And btw, nobody who supports Palestinian self-determination gives the U.S. a pass about what it's done to its first peoples. You never had any of us in a contradiction on that one.

[pelsar]

91. of course its hypocritical.....

disband the settlements?...disband Detroit

should the settlers sell off or give back their homes to the Palestinians?.....how about "do as i do, not as i say"....where are you going to live after you return yours?

or is there a time limit here where the settlers because they are only 40 years in to the "manifest destiny" should leave, and the "white, liberal americans are over 200 years into their "manifest destiny."

[Shaktimaan]

92. I don't see how you can claim to speak for everyone who supports Palestinian self-determination.

And btw, nobody who supports Palestinian self-determination gives the U.S. a pass about what it's done to its first peoples. You never had any of us in a contradiction on that one.

That's a pretty large, diverse group of people you're speaking for. But I don't really see a contradiction anyway. I firmly support Palestinian statehood, self-determination and autonomy from Israel. As does pelsar, and most, if not all of the other frequent "pro-Israel" members of this board. You and I don't disagree on that general goal. I suspect our opinions diverge when it comes to the details, such as right of return or the validity of the green line as a permanent border.

You see, it is possible to support Palestinian statehood without demanding the dissolution of Zionism, just as it is possible to refuse giving manifest destiny a pass without also demanding that Manhattan be returned to the native Americans. There's also a big difference between merely "not giving the U.S. a pass about what it's done to its first peoples" and actually demanding restitution for them that greatly affects your own life. So nobody who supports Palestinian self-determination gives the U.S. a pass about what it's done to its first peoples? Big whoop. I have yet to see a single one of them donate their house to AIM. It's easy to demand "justice" when it isn't your own life, or your family's life that hangs in the balance.

[pelsar]

80. double text n/t

[Shaktimaan]

83. You misunderstand.

I was making a joke. You see Syria didn't rule Palestine. The area that is now Israel and the OPT was considered part of Syria for hundreds of years. What you said, "The West Bank is and has always been Palestine," that is totally incorrect. The idea of a separate nation called Palestine there didn't exist before the end of WWI and the British Mandate. They called it Palestine because that was the Roman name for that area for a while, thus it was a neutral name.

But the idea of Palestine the country is very new. And the idea of Palestine the national identity is even newer, really only having developed over the last few decades.

[Vegasaurus]

60. There are those in the region who are obsessed with destroying them

Do a little reading of the Hamas charter, for starters.

Come back for more reading later.

[pelsar]

67. extremely naive ......

The way to end this misery is equality, peace, democracy and justice. That's not too much to ask.

i notice in your posts two characteristics: a flexible history designed to "make things even"....and a constant attempt to explain that the problem is everybodys fault spread evenly.....thats what i like about gaza...israel left, destroyed settlements and gets a daily dose of kassams ...though i'm sure you can find a way to make the kassams israels fault (to make it even....)

btw when you write "justice and democracy....I'm just curious but which cultures version of justice and democracy are you referring to?

[Ken Burch]

89. The most universal notions of human rights and democracy...the ones shared by most people

And what's truly naive is to pretend, as you do, that the whole thing is because "those Arabs just hate Jews".
Some are bigots, as there are bigots in every other country on the Earth. But antisemitism is not what motivates most Palestinians. If somebody else came in and expelled them, do you honestly think they'd be ok with that just because it wasn't Zionists doing the expelling? If so...well...why?

Do you really, sincerely believe that the settlements, the hardline Israeli security policies and the expulsions of '48 have nothing to do with the present state of affairs in Israel/Palestine?

Do your really believe the Palestinians have no legitimate grievances?

How on earth can YOU believe this?

The fact is, the Palestinians are human beings. The truth is, collective punishment is always wrong. The reality is, if inflicting collective punishment on Palestinians hasn't stopped what the Israeli government calls "terrorism" yet, it isn't going to. The only way to stop it is to change the conditions that cause it. The only way to stop it is to admit that the land is theirs as much as it is yours, and that they have a right to be there and to live in equality with you.

This isn't naivete. It's common sense.

To keep doing things your way is to guarantee that your children will be soldiers unto their tenth generation. Is ANYTHING worse a curse like that?

[Shaktimaan]

94. Did I miss something?

When has pelsar ever insinuated that he actually thinks any of these things that you adamantly insist he sincerely believes?
When did you say "that the whole thing is because "those Arabs just hate Jews," pelsar? Or that "the Palestinians have no legitimate grievances?"

Next time Ken, maybe you should find out what his actual opinion on the conflict is before you begin ridiculing it.

This isn't naivete. It's common sense.

*sigh* Why is it always the ones who see a common sense solution to the mid-east crisis that end up being the ones who seem to know the least about its actual history?

[Shaktimaan]

55. Quick question.

If the issue that sparked Palestinian violence was fear of dispossession by Zionist immigrants, then how come the initial attacks were specifically against the non-Zionist, native Jewish communities, such as the massacres and ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem, Safed and Hebron in 1929?

[Ken Burch]

57. Look, what's your point? There were a few Palestinian Arabs who didn't like Jews

It was far worse in Europe. Those incidents, loathesome as they were, don't prove that the whole thing was about antisemitism.

It's time to admit that both communities were victims.

[notfullofit]

58. I do believe

there's a helluva lot more than just "a few"

[Ken Burch]

63. You are confusing, in most cases, justified resentment of Israeli security policies

and justified rage at the theft of Palestinian land and water since 1948 with Nazi-style antisemitism. There are some antisemities in the Middle East(but not more than there were or are in Europe or North America), but the driving force in the region's history has never been "Oh, we just don't want Jews living here". If it had been about that, there would not have been huge, thriving, and more or less accepted(or at least no worst treated then their Ashkenazim counterparts in Europe) Mizrahi Jewish communities throughout North Africa up until 1948.

Those communities were expelled in large measure by the North African Arab countries(an action that was stupid, as well as immoral)in response to the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians. Had it not been for the expulsion of the Palestinians, those communities would still be there today. After being expelled, the Mizrahim(who had never been Zionist before the expulsions, btw, as Zionism had been an exclusively Ashkenazim movement prior to then)then ended up in a new home where they were and are treated as second-class citizens by the Ashkenazim(many of whom refused to vote Labor in the last election, including Shimon Peres for the sole reason that Labor dared to challenge the contemptuous Ashkenazim treatment of Mizrahim by electing a Mizrahi, Amir Peretz, as leader.)

Both sides in this war are to blame. The Israeli government is the side with the most power, though. And it continues to use its power to take more Palestinian land and thus prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state(as we all know, a noncontinuous Palestinian state that did not include all the lands of the West Bank would not be able to survive).

The answer is justice, not endless whining about how "they won't accept us...they have to accept us", as if Arab acceptance of Israel was ever the only issue.

[Shaktimaan]

69. No, my point is this.

You are basically asking us to understand that Palestinian violence was a natural and inevitable reaction to Zionist immigration and nationalism; that any people probably would have done the same thing if faced with the likelihood of political disenfranchisement and probable loss of self-determination, right? Well, I find it frustrating that you identify with the Palestinian's reaction, finding it understandable, while being unable to see the nakba in a similar way, as a reaction to decades of ruthless violence and ethnic cleansing against the Jews of Palestine. (Not against just the Zionists, or even initially the Zionists, but against any and all Jews, starting with the native population who had been living there for thousands of years.)

If Jewish nationalism and immigration was enough to justify Palestinian violence, then is it not understandable that such indiscriminate and unprovoked massacres, coupled with a constant refusal to compromise, rejecting both coexistence and every partition plan offered, left the Zionists with very few options aside from transfer?

The Arabs made it clear that their goal was the dissolution of Israel and expulsion of the Jews, (if not all of them then at least the "recent immigrants.") You seem convinced that had Israel allowed the Palestinians to return that peace would have blossomed from then on. But if that was the case, then why did the Palestinians initiate the war to begin with? Why not have their single, shared state as Ben-Gurion offered to them in his declaration of independence? Amid the unanimous Arab states' refusals to consider peace, what assurances did Israel have of anything but a continuation of the status quo thus far... Palestinian hate, anger and rejectionism?

Bearing that in mind, what solutions existed aside apart from genocide or transfer?

[eyl]

44. The nineties were "moderation"?

Are you aware that terrorism against Israelis increased quite significantly starting immediately after the signing of the Oslo Agreement?

[Violet_Crumble]

49. So it would have been closer than 100 metres to the house...

Whatever the distance, however, the root of the problem remains the proximity of the combatant himself to non-combatants.

Then why does the IDF have rules of engagement that disallow firing within 100 metres of homes?

The rules of war exist for very good reason, and it's not possible imo to put some rules forward as being rules that should be respected, while discarding rules of war that exist to protect civilian populations. Fighting from residential areas is against those rules, but it is not a justification for the group they're fighting to break other rules in the process...

[Ken Burch]

18. Thanks for posting this, It's a courageous thing to do.

n/t.

[The Magistrate]

30. Courageous, Sir, Seems Something Of A Stretch....

What actual danger does the act expose this person to?

[Ken Burch]

37. If he's Jewish, it exposes him to being called a "self-loathing Jew"

or "anti-Israel", which can instantly cut him off from friends and, as Michael Lerner found out from the very mild criticisms he's made of Israeli policy, can lead to death threats.

If he's gentile, it can get him falsely accused of "antisemitism".

There are a lot of people who can't tolerate ANY criticism of Israeli security policy, as you know.

So yes, it does expose this person to considerable risk.

[LeftishBrit]

46. He is Jewish, and I presume Israeli; at any rate, he has served in the IDF

No doubt writing the article will expose him to some criticism. (He's written things at various times that would expose him to criticism from both sides.) But so can writing any article or opinion piece. He is not likely to be murdered, put in prison, or even lose his job.

I respect Bradley Burston a lot; he is one of my favourite journalists about I/P issues; but describing this as exposure to 'considerable risk' is a bit strong, unless one treats any criticism or disagreement as a major danger.

[pelsar]

47. considerable risk?....omg...almost lost my keyboard on that one.....

drinking coffee and reading the DU can be dangerous......

perhaps the israeli death squads might come after him...or the naval commandos as per the EI article might "drown him.".....or ....the worst of the worst, he might be called a "leftest or some other nefarious name...

[Ken Burch]

64. Why are you so contemptuous of the man? You know he's right about what the IDF's been doing.

And you know that the IDF will never again be a people's army and that what they're defending is a right wing state that has abandoned all the ideals Zionism once claimed to stand for.

[Shaktimaan]

71. you know pelsar's in the reserve, right? np

[Ken Burch]

74. Actually no, I didn't.

There is much debate amongst the ranks of both reserve and active-duty IDF personnel over what's being done in the Territories, btw. And there are large numbers of reserve and active-duty IDF personnel who now refuse to serve in the Territories.

[pelsar]

76. I'm afraid you dont know that much about the IDF

i'm just back from a short stint in the reserves....as usual i served with both reservists and regular duty personal.....the reservists all volunteers, since getting out is very easy, in general most have a "left bent"....of those i was with perhaps 5% were off to the right.

and the mix?...very much a "peoples army" from the girls of n. tel aviv to the bedouin trackers Ethiopian and american medic.

and the debates about the territories?...thats been going on since 67, nothing new about that...

and the "large numbers" of refusniks....sorry they were larger during intifada I, those that dont want to go, simply get out of the reserves or are let out, hence the actual numbers are unknown and in fact are not even much of a discussion topic.

anything else you need to be corrected about?

[pelsar]

77. I'm contemptuous of calling his writing "couragous".....

writing an article criticizing israel does not take any special kind of courage...hes not risking his life, his livelyhood or even 'death threats.....

and israel being a "peoples army"....last time i looked there was quite the variety of people serving...from all over israel....and the top combat units are busy turning away potential applicants from such "lefty cities like zichron who try but cant make the grade.....

[Ken Burch]

78. The fact that there are all sorts of people serving is not the same thing as being a "people's army"

A people's army puts progressive idealism first, not "crushing the foe".

Especially since it's been proven that "crushing the foe" and "creating facts on the ground" don't actually solve anything in this situation.

[pelsar]

79. new definitions?

a peoples army puts progressive idealism first?...where is that written?

[Ken Burch]

81. That's what it means.

A people's army doesn't fight for land for the sake of fighting for land.

A people's army doesn't stop women in labor from getting to hospitals.

A people's army fights to create a world where war doesn't exist. The IDF doesn't. The IDF just fights to hold another people down. It has no ideals anymore.

The answer is negotiations, compromise and equality. Not "winning". "Winning" doesn't mean anything in the I/P struggle anymore.

[Shaktimaan]

84. Where are you getting this definition from?

It is unlike any understanding of the term "people's army" that I've ever heard.

[Ken Burch]

85. A people's army is an army that fights for liberation and justice.

Neither of which has anything to do with what the IDF fights for.
There's no good reason for anyone who thinks of him or herself as "left" to join it. It's battles are only for right wing goals now. It serves no recognizably positive or progressive objective, and doesn't make anyone's life better.

And if it weren't for the continuing settlement construction, and the roadblocks, and the home demolition, the IDF wouldn't HAVE to keep fighting.

Face it, the iron fist doesn't work.

[Shaktimaan]

86. Where are you getting this definition from though?

I understand what you believe it is. But it isn't one I've ever heard before.
Where did you learn this?

[pelsar]

90. i guess i'd better pass the info on....

There's no good reason for anyone who thinks of him or herself as "left" to join it.

all those lefties in the IDF are just "wrong"......i should remind all of those israeli citizens getting missiled everyday that the IDF shouldnt be trying to stop them. The guys patrolling the N. Border?.... wasting gas, Hizballa really wouldnt cross the border or just shoot at israeli citizens randomly. And the Jordanian and Egyptian broder, those guys who occasionally try to slip past the IDF patrols are only looking for a party and the IDF simply is bothering them.

and the roadblocks?...guess you right, having busses blown up is soo much more "progressive"...amazing how the "lefties" in the IDF cant see that.

i'll be sure to pass on the info (though i'll make sure that no one is drinking any coffee-the philosophy professor with me, might just go into "shock")

[pelsar]

93. minor "challenge"

A people's army puts progressive idealism first, not "crushing the foe".

armies..as we know them today and as they have always been known, put "crushing the foe" as their first priority...that is how armies are defined, their reason to be. Perhaps you have an example (somehow i doubt it) of this "peoples" army of yours that does not put "crushing the foe" as their first priority and lesson?

any country, any era will do......

[LeftishBrit]

45. Good article..

and note that he prefaces the current version with the following:

'Allow me, if you will, to preface this piece by pointing out to those of you who began your comments "If you had ever served in the IDF ..." to state that it was because I served in the IDF, as a combat medic, as an enlisted man and for 16 years in annual reserve duty, that I wrote what I wrote and felt what I felt. And if what I wrote was an over-reaction, it was for this reason as well.

Allow me to add, as well, that I believe that a tremendous effort has been made by the IDF to limit Palestinian civilian casualties, especially since late 2006, and statistics bear this out. But I still believe that more can, and must, be done in this regard.'

[Scurrilous]

50. Investigation of criminal offenses by IDF soldiers

Unit Index 2006, 2007

<snip>

"The publication of this data sheet, the second in the series, is part of a project
conducted by Yesh Din in 2008, to increase the transparency of law enforcement
procedures in the IDF upon soldiers suspected of committing criminal offenses in the
Occupied Territories against Palestinian civilians and their property. As part of the
project, Yesh Din aims to reveal figures and information regarding the investigation
and prosecution processes that follow incidents in which members of the security
forces are suspected of committing offenses against Palestinian civilians. Most of this
information has never before been revealed and, in some cases, it has not even been
collected by the public authorities that oversee law enforcement, nor was it in the
possession of the IDF. The two data sheets published by Yesh Din so far, and
additional data sheets that will be published in the coming months, are intended to
make the information available, in order to allow the public to assess - for the first
time - whether and to what extent the IDF is fulfilling its duty to protect the civilian
population that is not involved in fighting. That duty is enshrined in the laws of
belligerent occupation, which is the branch of international law that deals with the
laws of armed conflict, and in international human rights law.

The figures of the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division (MPCID), collected at
Yesh Din's request and provided to the organization by the IDF spokesperson, allow a
first glance at the "Unit Index": the list of IDF units whose soldiers are suspected of
the largest number of offenses against Palestinians and their property in the
Occupied Territories - offenses of abuse, looting, illegal shooting and killing
innocents. The index provides information both on the single battalion level and on
the brigade level. That information is detailed in the second part of this data sheet.

The first part of the data sheet presents current information about the opening of
investigation files by the MPCID and the submitting of indictments by the Military
Advocacy General (MAG) in the last several years, in relation to criminal offences
committed by IDF soldiers against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories."

http://www.yesh-din.org/site/images/DS2Eng.pdf

[Sezu]

88. Israel has convicted many of its soldiers

Hamas, none.