Lanny Davis: Israel, Gaza, and the Double Standard

[shira]

The appointment by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of former Sen. George Mitchell as a special envoy to facilitate a successful Middle East peace process is good news. But to make progress, they will first have to declare war and win victory over the double standard that is hypocritically applied to Israel, as most recently seen during and after the Gaza intervention.

I support — with certain preconditions met — a two-state solution, as did Presidents Clinton and Bush and Israeli governments over the past 10 years. But there can be no two-state solution unless there is a single standard in judging Israel vs. the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists: Israel must have the right of self-defense against the terrorists who launch rockets intentionally to kill their civilians. And there is no "proportionality" principle when it comes to defense against terrorism. It’s that simple — applicable to the United States or any other state attacked by terrorists, including Israel.

First, a few indisputable and documented facts that demonstrate how insidiously the double standard against Israel operated during and in the aftermath of the Gazan intervention:

Israel withdrew from all its military forces from Gaza in 2005 and, since that withdrawal, Hamas launched more than 8,000 rockets intentionally aimed at civilians in Southern Israel. Thus, every launched rocket aimed at civilians is a war crime. Yet few, if any, human rights groups or U.N. leaders since the Gaza intervention have called for Hamas to be tried for war crimes.

<snip>

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Israel-Gaza-and-the-Doub-by-Israel-Project-090126-82.html

[ShortnFiery]

1. IMO, Lanny Davis is a small and pathetic soul. Why does he still have a platform?

:shrug:

[bunnies]

3. Not to mention completely delusional.

I actually lol'ed reading that.

[shira]

5. so please explain the fallacy of Davis' argument

if you can

[bunnies]

8. The fallacy?

This flies in the face of logic so many times that it would take me an entire day to respond to it all. Lets take just one section, for example...

It is a documented fact that Israeli Defense Forces continually tried to prevent civilian casualties while still defending themselves from these terrorist attacks.

Really?! Let me guess who documented that 'fact'... the IDF?!

They sent tens of thousands of text messages and cellular phone calls to Gazans — to warn civilians to evacuate areas used by Hamas for launching rockets;

Text messages. Oh and lets not forget the fliers they dumped out of planes. Of course, lets completely overlook the fact that the people HAD NOWHERE TO GO. Or that they bombed the houses that the IDF actually sent people to.

they called off attacks when they saw Hamas pushing women and children up front as shields; and they used targeted weapons and "smart" bombs to avoid civilian casualties as best as they could.

What? "pushing women and children up front as shields" Up front of what? Where? Who says? The IDF?
Oh and they used 'smart bombs'. ok. But they also used White Phosphorus. In a densely populated urban area. Oops!

Yet when the IDF’s weapons unintentionally caused civilian deaths,..."

Is that what its called when the soldiers are told to shoot every thing that moves?

Its laughable, Shira. Really.

And then:

Lannyland:
When the Israeli Defense Forces returned Hamas rocket fire launched in close proximity to an U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) school compound in Jibalya, some IDF shells mistakenly landed within the compound and tragically killed and wounded innocent civilians and children. The Israeli government expressed sorrow and grief for that accident and initiated an investigation into what happened and why.

Reality:
The UN school had given the IDF its GPS coordinates. The IDF bombed the school. A place of refuge. The IDF then used a years-old picture to try to make people "think" rocket fire came from there. They lied, the tried to cover it up, and I guess I missed all that sorrow and grief.

[shira]

9. so let's get this straight

Sending text messages, calling via phone, leaflets, interrupting Gaza TV broadcasts about moving away, aborting bombing missions.......these are not precautionary measures?

Would you prefer they NOT do this? Or do you think it would have made NO difference had they not done any of the above?

As for Hamas firing from the UNRWA building, it's been admitted by an UNRWA official that there was firing right outside the building (see end of article):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7815630.stm

So how do you get that the IDF just got the idea that it would be a great thing to deliberately fire on the UN compound for no other reason than to kill or scare shitless the inhabitants inside?

As for white phosphorous, do you have ANY serious proof it was used as a weapon to deliberately harm people? It's usage as smokescreen is legal under laws of war.

[bunnies]

15. yes, lets.

They're not precautionary measures when those about to be bombed have nowhere to go. Especially considering that the houses they *do* go into get bombed anyway. Truth is, there is no save place in Gaza when Israel is bombing. The UN incident(s) prove that. I've yet to see any evidence that said text messages saved any persons life and in the case of that house where 100 people were told was 'safe' exactly the opposite is the case.

As far as the UN bldg - Israel is *still* lying about it and nowhere does it say "right outside the school"

Update: Chris Gunness, the spokesman for the UN relief agency Unrwa, has since said of the school attack that the Israeli army, in private meetings with diplomats, had admitted that the mortar fire came from outside the school compound and not from within it. "This is an extremely important distinction because we have been accused of very serious allegations that our premises were being used to fire rockets," he said.

Reuters reports: "The Israeli army said on Wednesday it stood by its statement of the day before in which said mortars had been fired "from within" the school, but then issued another statement dropping the word "within" to say "mortar fire from" the school."


Either way the IDF was given the coordinates of the school and chose to fire at it knowing the chance was good that it would be hit. And no one in their right mind, if sparing civilians was the slightest bit important to them, would risk the lives 100's of innocent people in a UN building to kill one man shooting a rocket that isnt hitting anything.

With regard to the WP - there are photos of it was being used before the ground invasion even started - so please explain to me what the hell they needed a "smoke screen" for. Was this to protect the Gazans from the horrifying sight of warplanes raining down bombs on them? To keep them from seeing the incoming missiles that they couldnt stop anyway? Please.

The leaps of logic are the size of the grand canyon.

[GoesTo11]

16. Maybe Israel should spend just one hour trying to actually cause civilian deaths

and we could see what they do when that's their goal. Then we could use that as a benchmark in the future. So if Israel could cause 25,000 deaths in an hour (no nukes allowed), but in fact cause 100 within a week, we could say that they were operating at 0.00005 of their genocidal capacity.

Note: I don't really think this would be a good idea.

[shira]

18. you have no evidence

that Israel used WP deliberately as a weapon against Palestinians.

But that doesn't stop you from frothing at the mouth, ranting and raving.

Stunning.

And are we to believe that if Israel never sent ONE text message, phone call, leaflet, etc... that no lives would have been saved? I mean - it's not like you believe they help matters. So it's your opinion that had Israel just gone about their business with NO warnings, the death count would be the same?

Are you serious?

As for the mortar fire from outside the school - that was yet another bogus report that somehow made its way around the world before the truth could get its pants on, wasn't it? If you can't blame Israel for targeting a UN building, you've gotta get them for "something", right? Oh yes, lying. Of course you don't understand that at a time of war, whether the mortar is coming from within or outside the building - a difference of a few meters - that's not such a great difference maker to young, anxious men targetted by such mortars.

But do go on, it's entertaining.

[Tripmann]

19. Shira,

this arguement about the IDF not using WP as a weapon really does insult the intelligence of the people on this forum.

If I go fishing using sticks of dynamite in waters I know to be packed with divers, I am still responsible for any deaths or injuries I cause, even though I can reasonably argue that my only intention was to catch fish. Would I be going to jail? Are my intentions a defense?

Another analogy.

If I empty a bag of pennies off the empire state building as a physics experiment, I must reasonably expect to cause deaths by my actions and am responsible for same, even though my actions were in the name of science. Would I be going to jail? Are my intentions a defense?


Using deadly WP in the most densely populated place on earth has the same outcome whatever your intentions. Is it a defense? Is it even an excuse?

War crime.

[shira]

2. rest of the article

Hamas used civilians and civilian locations in Gaza — schools, hospitals, and residential complexes — as shields behind which they launched their terrorist rockets. That, too, is indisputably a war crime. Hezbollah did the same thing from Lebanon. Yet again, there is only silence about Hamas and Hezbollah being prosecuted for war crimes.

Iran funds and supplies terrorist weapons to both Hamas and Hezbollah. Yet nations of Western Europe, many of which were the locations of recent street protests calling for prosecution of Israel for war crimes, have been active in trade and commerce with Iran, and seem strangely silent about criticizing Iran's funding of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism.

It is a documented fact that Israeli Defense Forces continually tried to prevent civilian casualties while still defending themselves from these terrorist attacks. They sent tens of thousands of text messages and cellular phone calls to Gazans — to warn civilians to evacuate areas used by Hamas for launching rockets; they called off attacks when they saw Hamas pushing women and children up front as shields; and they used targeted weapons and "smart" bombs to avoid civilian casualties as best as they could. Yet when the IDF’s weapons unintentionally caused civilian deaths, leaders of the United Nations and “human rights” groups call for war crimes investigations. And there are few, if any, counter voices challenging the United Nations at least to be even-handed and demand war crimes investigations of Hamas and Hezbollah. (including the Secretary General, who has not been hesitant to criticize Israel but strangely silent about Hamas).
Then there is the accusation that Israel committed war crimes by using “excessive” force and causing “disproportionate” civilian deaths compared to the number of Israelis who died due to Hamas rockets.

What would have been the reaction of most Americans (or most of the civilized world, for that matter) if someone had made the charge that the U.S. and its military forces were guilty of war crimes after Sept. 11, 2001, because, while bombing Al Qaeda and the Taliban government harboring them in Afghanistan, “excessive” numbers of civilians were tragically but inadvertently killed — because the number killed exceeded the 3,000 people who died on 9/11?

I suggest the reaction would have been, universally, “that is nuts.”

Yet where is that universal reaction when the same charge of “excessive” or “disproportional” force is made against Israel in defending itself against Hamas and civilian deaths are unintentional too? Only silence, it seems.

The double standard again.

When the Israeli Defense Forces returned Hamas rocket fire launched in close proximity to an U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) school compound in Jibalya, some IDF shells mistakenly landed within the compound and tragically killed and wounded innocent civilians and children. The Israeli government expressed sorrow and grief for that accident and initiated an investigation into what happened and why.

But an UNRWA spokesperson named Christopher Gunness was widely quoted in leading U.S. media calling for an investigation of Israel for committing possible war crimes.

Mr. Gunness actually insisted — I am not making this up — that there is an important distinction between Hamas fighters launching terrorist rockets from just within the compound, which could not be confirmed, vs. launching such rockets from just outside of the compound, which was widely confirmed as true. Yet because Hamas was launching just outside the fence, Mr. Gunness did not think it necessary to call for an investigation of Hamas for committing war crimes.

That’s more than a double standard. It is gross hypocrisy — supported by hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars in a non-transparent, largely unaccountable U.N. agency. Legislation is being considered in the Congress to bring more transparency and accountability for UNRWA. That is long overdue.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who may be the next prime minister of Israel, summarized the situation up very well when he told the Wall Street Journal over the weekend:

“We grieve every child, for every innocent civilian that’s killed either on our side or on the Palestinian side. The terrorists celebrate such suffering, on our side because the openly say they want to kill us, all of us, and on the Palestinian side because it helps them foster this false symmetry, which is contrary to common decency and international law.”

Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Mitchell will need to devote much attention and effort and apply all their skills and energy to bring about peace in the Middle East. But if they are to have any chance at all, the world’s leaders must abandon the double standard and apply a single standard of justice and fair play to Israel as they would want applied to themselves and other civilized nations.

Only then will those committed to peace in the Middle East have a chance to isolate the terrorists who who celebrate death, not life; who intentionally kill innocent civilians; and those in Teheran who fund and supply them.

[bemildred]

4. It gets kind of like a recording after a while.

The laws of war only apply when you are not at war. It's like Catch-22.

[shira]

6. huh?

[bemildred]

7. Huh? indeed. nt

[shira]

10. just gibberish, then?

or would you like to explain?

[bemildred]

12. Apparently.

Your befuddlement is fine with me.

[shira]

13. great

and your indifference to the clear double-standard mentioned in the OP, as well as your apathy towards Hamas' victimization of Palestinians is duly noted.

[bemildred]

14. Write a book about it. nt

[madrchsod]

11. there will never be a two state solution.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Lanny was an unabashed Clintonista apologist

and it looks like he is carrying out the same role on behalf of the Israel Lobby.

[Jefferson23]

20. There is no "proportionality" principle when it comes to self-defense

against terrorism..it's that simple. I guess Davis has no concern for his own credibility if he can make statements such as that.

[pelsar]

21. i would love to know what the formula is...

so what exactly is this proportionality...its written a lot, but i've never come across the actual definition or formula....will you explain or link me to it?

or is it some kind of vague "whatever i think it is" kind of thing......

[Jefferson23]

22. According to Davis there is none.

He supports in that statement the carnage that took place in recent weeks in Gaza. The US Senate and the Congress seem to agree with him, with very few dissenting votes on that resolution which did not request restraint btw.

Interesting also is that Davis doesn't seem to think there should be a "formula", as you phrase it, at least he doesn't suggest one in this piece. Davis has no credibility here imo because he nor the United States for that matter openly discusses that no peaceful alternatives were applied here first, he instead jumps in with the right to defend themselves, evidently without restraint.

Proportionality in defense is far too elusive to define for those who do not wish to seek it.

[pelsar]

23. i asked you....

where can i read about it....the "official" one.......

[Jefferson23]

24. What official one? Would there need to be an "official" one in order

for Israel to apply it?