This latest incident started because of the Hezbollah incursion into Israel against all of the resolutions of the United Nations, against all of the understandings now of international law."Incident"? They've lost the plot. Here's a bit of perspective on his efforts to paper over the Israeli maelstrom of death:
reprisals that have killed 53 civilians in Lebanon since Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers a day earlier.Murdering 53 civilians (and rising) for 2 captured soldiers? Topping off over 50 civilians killed in Gaza in a futile response to 1 soldier taken prisoner there?
I can see why Israelis get so angry at comparisons with the hated Nazis, it's because they're so damn easy to make sometimes:
In a number of occupied countries, the Wehrmacht's response to partisan attacks was to take and shoot hostages, up to 100 hostages for every German killed.Sure Mr Howard, is this what you are saying, that every time some terrorist scumbag attacks the Israeli military then that entitles Israel to kill 50 times as many civilians in reprisal?
Are you out of your mind?
Israel has the right to target and kill those who are attacking their own people. Hezbollah and Hamas are riddled with maniacs who don't care what the outcomes of their actions are, who don't care if their own civilians are killed along the way.
Surely though there's got to be a limit to what Israel's allies will tolerate? This is just mass murder, it is beyond any form of justification whatsoever. And because this large-scale killing of civilians clearly and unambiguously constitutes a crime against humanity, one that could easily be argued before any competent court, this madness will haunt Israel for a long, long time.
11 comments:
good to see someone on the left finally admitting that the intentional killing of civilians is completely unjustifiable and the actions of murderous human scum, whether Israeli or Palestinian
I think the crux of the problem lies between what you are saying, armaniac, and the response you received from splatterbottom.
- The killing of innocents is to be condemned, no matter who perpetrates the act.
- The destruction of property, especially vital infrastructure, does not lend itself to making "the people of the enemy" understand your position, nor does it allow the government to improve the security situation.
- History will always play a big part, and attempting to define who started what is near pointless. Both sides, particularly in the case of Palestine/Israel, have committed despicable acts over the last century.
I've always said the killing of innocent civilians is wrong and at the crux of the problems, and that both terrorist targetting of civilians in Israel AND israeli expansion into land they have no right to occupy are continuing barriers to peace.
Go to bethlehem bloggers, in the links to the side, scroll down to the post on the wall passing through bethelhem, and see me getting a caning from BOTH sides on this basis.
Why am I not talking about it here? Because that is not the subject here. Israel is a sovereign nation carrying out reprisal killings.
More crucially to our debate, my government and its close ally do not support and prop up the Palestinians- they prop up and support Israel.
"against all of the understandings now of international law."
Now? Now? What changed? (No need to answer this: 9/11). Everything has changed. Maybe not in writing - which I have been told a lot of law is written in - but just changed. Trust us).
Puke.
Great post, Armaniac. I really came by to hear the only Lefty on the entire planet who actually thinks bombing kids is a crime. Very RWDB of you, old cock!
Trackback.
Bravo. I think the only sensible position to take is to condemn the killing on both sides.
I do but I don't accept that we can stand back and say well there's a bit here and a bit there- a sovereign state that carries our blessing can't go mindlessly slaughtering civilians in reprisal.
Anonymous and the hippy, is that really how you see things? Is it just because 'lefties' usually mention the actions of Israel(or the greater west) first? Because 'we' usually put the greater number before the smaller number?
Having said this, i'm beginning to think that while condemning both sides is the only logical position to take, it's not neccesarily the most sensible. I think in order to communicate with both sides we have to accept a certain (in the short term unshakeable) belief in self-defense and/or righteous revenge. Also I think it is useful to always try and remember what Hamas or hizbollah might do if they had the means and might of the Israel Defense Force.
Sorry if spelling = bad, i'm in a hurry. Good stuff Armaniac.
Armaniac, the IDF are not mindlessly killing civilians. They are dropping leaflets and giving the civilians advance warning of bombings.
That's a lot more than the other side are doing.
Great post Armaniac.
(Gratuitous sarcastic hack at anonimous deleted.) Apologies to all.
Twenty more Lebs died while I play with this piss-ant Political Correctitude. Sorry to have bothered you.
Andru I think you may be on the money: as with Iraq, what's noticeable is the lack of dispassionate realist analysis from the right, once the home for such thinking.
I don't see any evidence that this will lead to a positive outcome for Israel, leaving aside endless debates about who started it and who is most culpable.
Post a Comment