Hamas: The Brave resistance
The worst enemy of the Palestinian people, the worst enemy is not Israel, ... is the Hamas. (BHL)
I. According to Art. 4 of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, protected persons are those
who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
II.i . Report:
Israel's Channel One News reported on Monday evening that Hamas is hiding its most potent missiles under Gaza City's main hospital. "
II.ii. Report:
At least 30 people were reportedly killed and 53 wounded in an explosion in a UN-run school in the town of Jabalya in the northern Gaza Strip, according to Palestinians. The IDF issued a statement saying the school grounds were used by terrorists to fire mortar shells at the troops. According to the IDF, among the dead were members of a Hamas launching cell, including operatives Immad Abu Askar and Hassan Abu Askar.
The infantrymen returned mortar shell fire into the school grounds, the army said. Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school triggered the secondary explosions which killed scores of Palestinians on the site.
II.iii: Report:
As far as is known, the facts regarding the Gaza incident are that about thirty people were killed, including 28 civilians and two Hamas terrorists. The terrorists, Imad Abu Askhar and Hassan Abu Askhar, had gathered refugees fleeing the shelling and forced them into the school yard, where they were used as human shields. An IDF film made in 2007 shows similar use of human shields, a policy that has been repeatedly endorsed by the Hamas.Yesterday, 80 truckloads of humanitarian aid were shipped into Gaza from Israel. While UN officials complain of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Hamas has been seizing humanitarian aid, food, medicines and fuel for its own use or to sell to residents. Hamas has also been preventing civilians from fleeing south out of Gaza city to avoid the fighting. Inside Gaza, IDF soldiers found a maze of tunnels beneath Gaza houses, including one that was a setup for kidnapping Israeli soldiers by mounting an operation similar to the 2005 Hezbollah operation in Rajjar.
III. What does the Geneva Convention say about this kind of military deployment?
Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Art. 29. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.
posted by The Contentious Centrist @ Tuesday, January 06, 2009
33 comments
33 Comments:
The irony being....?
I know this is a pro-Zionist site but for the sake of your reader or anyone passing-by, please be open-minded and speak more of the truths. There are many uncensored photos published at the http://www.aljazeera.com/index.html site of war crimes by being committed by the Israeli military against innocent children and toddlers in Gaza which was never reported by any of the western media or has been distorted through spining the truth as you are cleverly doing it right now.
Anon: It appears you think that pictures of dead babies are evidence of "war crimes". I'm not in habit of linking to websites which rejoice in whipping up outrage in their viewer by posting graphic pictures of the horrors of bombing. The whole point that you refuse to accept is that whatever horrors you watch on al-Jazeera you should blame directly on Hamas, the democratically elected leadership of Palestinians. They brought this suffering upon their own people, in a very meticulous and pre-meditated way.
Any intelligent and fair person who can make up two and two knows this simple and painful truth.
Exactly. It's the sad truth that civilians are always casualties in any modern war. It's also sad, albeit predictable, that people like "anon" refuse to admit that there is a big difference between targeting civilians in acts of terror (Hamas) and collateral damage (IDF).
These are important differences that are not simply a matter of who has more military might or who "controls the narrative".
The irony being....?
Graeme, then Will, wrote:
"The irony being..."
The source quoted is the DFLP, Naweef Hawatmeh's organization which was responsible for the 1976 Maalot massacre when dozens of Israeli schoolchildren were murdered after being taken hostage by Palestinians.
Both Graeme and Will are notorious for their pillocky prattiness. It now appears that there are also serious gaps in their knowledge of historical events.
"They brought this suffering upon their own people, in a very meticulous and pre-meditated way."
No, I do not accept that at all. They did not drop bombs on themselves. That would be like saying the Israel's brought the rocket attacks on themselves by building a wall and "ghettoizing" the Palestinians, and the Palestinians brought attacks on themselves by sending suicide bombers over to Israel, or the Israelis brought attacks on themselves by building the settlements, or Israel brought the whole mess on themselves when Israel was established, or the Palestinians brought attacks on themselves because they resist doing what the Israelis want them to do.
You know folks. It is a mess. Elsewhere I wrote that civilians are going to be killed if Hamas keeps rocket launchers in civilian areas. That is not unusual that rockets are in civilian areas during war. There was a silo about 8 blocks from my house during the Cold War with ICBMs I think they were called. (I am on the East Coast)
If ever there were rules of war. They no longer exist. Reporters are killed, UN workers are killed and so are Red Cross workers. We become more like barbarians daily.
The whole situation is untenable.
edit- saying the Israelis
edit rules of war, they no longer..
When General Sherman burned Atlanta, the fine ladies of that city asked him why he was perpetrating such cruelties on the South. He answered: "There are two reasons. Firstly, you are responsible for starting the war. Secondly, war is hell."
Pretty much the same can be said to the Palestinians today.
Then the suicide bomber could tell the same thing to the Israelis he blows up in a pizza shop.
Blaming resolves nothing. The fact remains, Israel is a sovereign country and it exists whether anyone questions its legitimacy or not. Hamas is not a country. It is a terrorist organization, despite it was elected by the people without a country. At best it is sheer insanity. My head swims when I discuss it. I am ill-equipped to do so, but what happens there affects us all; therefore I must observe it. The complexities are mind-boggling. It is impossible for me to separate emotions from what is practical because I don't know what the practical approach would be and nothing I have read is satisfying.
The internet is certainly not a source, because there is no way to know where the truth is. For every argument one can find a counter. As a result these discussion go nowhere. Where are the brilliant minds? I think they are still only on the library shelves where they have been for those decades before the internet. Perhaps we need to look under "V" for Voltaire.
"...Then the suicide bomber could tell the same thing to the Israelis he blows up in a pizza shop..."
But he'd be lying. The Zionist Movement and Israel never started any war.
"Blaming resolves nothing...Perhaps we need to look under "V" for Voltaire."
Blaming is shorthand for resolving moral issues of culpability, responsibility and justice.
Voltaire was a vicious anti-Semite. No self-respecting Jew would agree to his ideas or values.
One can abhor aspects of what a person believes and agree with many of their ideas and values.
How one can dismiss Shakespeare, Goethe or Voltaire to name a few because of their alleged or documented antisemitism? Distinguishing the man from his works seems an important distinction.
Voltaire felt the greatest crime was war and that each side claims they are justified. He believed the notion of justice is natural and as such is accepted by everyone, yet man fools himself by claiming his cause in a war is just.
"Voltaire said...yet man fools himself by claiming his cause in a war is just..."
Really?
The fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto were fooling themselves when they said their cause in war was just? The soldiers and underground fighters of Israel were fooling themselves in 1948, 1967 and 1973 when they said their cause in war was just?
Anyone walled off from food, medical assistance and work will fight to survive. Voltaire did not advocate masochism. The Jews were fighting for their survival which is human nature, isn't it?
You are quite incorrect about Voltaire regarding the Jews and war. It is best not to rely on things out of context.
Even thumbing though his Philosophical Dictionary you would find he is coming from a place that is quite acceptable.
It may be on the Gutenburg project or some other site.
Commener MM will always reserve a warm corner in her heart for antisemites.
"The defenders of Voltaire have continued to argue that he was not personally an anti-Semite but only guilty of some rhetorical excesses. That is not how those who were arguing for and against the emancipation of the Jews, both in his own time and in the next several generations, read him. Jacobins such as Jean Francois Rewbell in the 1790's and the socialist Pierre Proudhon in the next generation are among the many figures, especially of the left, who justified their arguments against the Jews by quoting Voltaire. Such figures were not quarreling with Judaism; they were attributing innate wickedness to the Jewish character. This is racist anti-Semitism. Such opinions helped open the door to the horrors of our century."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDF1F3CF933A0575AC0A966958260
There is a significant difference between having a warm spot in the corner of one's heart for someone who is an antisemite and having a warm spot in the corner of one's heart for someone because they are an antisemite. Perhaps there is no difference to Anon or N. That would surprises me about N.
I brought up Voltaire because he opposed war. Anon decided that was irrelevant, that Voltaire's antisemitism cancelled him out to all self-respectng Jews. That I find a pity and most definitely not true.
A bookshelf must have a Shakespeare or Marlowe, Dickens or T.S. Eliot, Voltaire or Heidegger or all of them. despite their alleged antisemitism that I don't doubt, but my heart holds them all close.
Peace.
"...despite their alleged antisemitism that I don't doubt..."
Alleged? If you don't doubt it how can it be merely "alleged"?
Voltaire was the founder of a strain of thought that has been demonstrated to be the precursor for fascism and totalitarianism. It is no coincidence that he was also deeply antisemitic.
T.S Eliot and Heidegger were also fascist and Nazi sympathisers. They were enemies of humanity, not just of Jews.
As for Shakespeare and Marlowe, they belonged to the premodern world, and different criteria are needed to judge them.
Of the examples given only Dickens belongs in the camp of enlightenment and decency. For surely the depiction of Fagin and his exploits is more amusing than offensive.
"T.S Eliot and Heidegger were also fascist and Nazi sympathisers."
I think that is an unfair characterization of Eliot. He was indifferent to the plight of Jews probably because of a deep loathing and fear he had of them ("free thinking Jews" were not "desirable") but I don't recall him as being a Nazi-sympathizer. He was a friend of Ezra Pound, who was a fascist and an out and out antisemite, though.
"...I think that is an unfair characterization of Eliot..."
T.S. Eliot was a strong supporter of Charles Maurras, the leader of Action Francaise. It was the leading French fascist party in the 1920s and 1930s, and was responsible for killings and violence against democratic and liberal French public figures. It also identified with and spoke out for the regimes of Mussolini, Franco and Salazar.
Eliot entirely deserves to be called a fascist sympathiser.
Eliot was not a Nazi sympathizer, for all of his sins of moral judgment.
"...despite their alleged antisemitism that I don't doubt..."
Alleged? If you don't doubt it how can it be merely "alleged"?
clarification: I have not doubted there is veracity in the accusations of antisemitism in those writers mentioned, but for others it is alleged. I grant you it was poorly expressed, that's all.
Anon-Is it possible you believe the creative output of an artist should be dismissed by Jews if the artist is an antisemite. I know I could not dismiss the work of Velázquez and Caravaggio or the novels of Hemingway because they were antisemites. I admire them all greatly. Personally I don't know any Jews who would dismiss them either.
N. Did you mean communicateur/euse when you called me a commener [sic] or where you calling me a commoner (;=+)) commener doesn't work, nor does commen"t"er, a verb.
You are ever so sharp, Haynes.
"...Is it possible you believe the creative output of an artist should be dismissed by Jews if the artist is an antisemite..."
We were discussing political and philosophical beliefs, not creative output.
But since you ask...
The value of artistic creations is highly subjective. Not everyone likes Hemmingway's staccato, or Caravaggio's droopy limbed man-sylphs. Even universally admired geniuses such as Shakespeare and Goethe can be faulted, the first for not knowing how to deploy irony with subtlety, the latter for cloying humour which was at best heavy-handed.
And when an artistic creation carries an antisemitic message, you bet I'll dismiss its value.
"And when an artistic creation carries an antisemitic message, you bet I'll dismiss its value."
TS Eliot's poetry has these quotes eternally embedded in it:
"A saggy bending of the knees / And elbows, with the palms turned out, / Chicago Semite Viennese."
"'On the Rialto once. / The rats are underneath the piles. / The jew is underneath the lot. / Money in furs. The boatman smiles,"
Don't you think these are powerful poetic images, even as they express Antonio's same ancient fear and contempt? I find utility in these examples of Eliot's poetry, that he was a friend and colleague of Jewish intellectuals (Isiah Berlin one of them) and could still channel the barbarian in him when speaking about them. In poetic form, he exeplifies the eternal unsolvable contradiction expressed in Himmler's famous speech at Posnen:
"And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew."
Perhaps he had Nazi sensibilities, after all.
“The defenders of Voltaire have continued to argue that he was not personally an anti-Semite but only guilty of some rhetorical excesses.”
The Marxists say the same thing a/b Marx & Engels and the anarchists say the same thing about Proudhon & Bakunin. They fail to address the obvious, all of these individuals hated Jews and envisioned a Jew free world in the society of the future whether socialist, communist, or anarchist.
However, I agree with MM when she writes:
“There is a significant difference between having a warm spot in the corner of one's heart for someone who is an antisemite and having a warm spot in the corner of one's heart for someone because they are an antisemite.”
These conversations always remind me that I enjoy the music of Miles Davis while thoroughly despising his abuse of women. Am I a brute for listening to--and enjoying--his music? Or perhaps I am indifferent enough to the suffering of others (those he beat) that I can put it all aside and say, "Yes, the man was a brute. But listen to that trumpet..."
NC, there is a third possibility, that one likes antisemites for being antisemites but claims that it is their creative achievements they admire. As it happens, I have known commenter MM for a few years on cyberspace and heard her defend Louis Farrakhan, Norman Finkelstein, Richard Falk.
She once justified Barenboim's indefensible personal decision to play Wagner despite general opposition from Holocaust survivors, misrepresenting the reason for that opposition by reducing it to "Because Hitler liked him.". Making it seem as though the Holocaust survivors were petty and irrational in their objection to the man whose ideal was a pure Aryan music cleansed of any "Jewish elements" (which is what endeared him to Hitler) and whose music Jews were forced to play while other Jews were being led to the gas chambers.
She likes to quote the people who have something very nasty and outrageous to say about Jews. And if they are Jews, all the better to celebrate them.
Additionally, she has a very unique and charming way of passing political judgment when the politician happens to be a Jew, such as:
"… now a misguided madman Jew Lieberman is saying we must bomb Iran.”
or:
"I don't like the " Zionist" attitude that Israel can do no wrong and that anyone criticising Israel is automatically wrong or called an antisemite. The ease with which that falls off the lips of some Jewish organizations is a load of steaming turd."
MM is far less restrained when she speaks to her few friends on a very obscure message board than she is on this blog (I visit that BB regularly; it is so reflective of the current perversion of what passes for good thinking on the left these days).
I have no idea why she visits my blog, having described me as a Kahanist and a far Right loon.
Oh, btw, funny coincidence, NC. I put on music every morning by way of waking my daughter gently and this morning I put on Miles Davis's version of the Concierto d'Aranjuez. I had not listened to it for over two years!! And here you are, mentioning him, 5 hours later!
You have come close to interpreting what I have said in the past, but it is distorted, which matters. I have never defended Louis Farrakhan. I have said I understood him. I have said that his power has been to insist that his flock do not drink or take drugs, that they have jobs and maintain a family life and take responsbility for their lives. I worked across the street from his congregation and had many students who belonged to his group. I never came close to saying whoop de doo I love that he is antiwhite and antisemitic. That he hates Jews I understand and he hates Koreans for the same reason. I consider it stupid.
I come to your blog because it is interesting and intelligent. If you prefer I don't come, all you need do is say so.
I admire Richard Falk and have mixed feelings about Fickelstein and I adore Barenboim whom I have had the great pleasure to meet. As for Joe Lieberman I have no respect for him anymore. The fact that he is a Jew who has ripped off Jews in my state annoys me and those who he has ripped off financially and ethically to get elected. It is a personal opinion shared by many Jews and non Jews in my state. He is a disagraceful, arrogant lying low life.I love his wife and think her mad to stay with him.
You have a right to speak ill of me if behave badly on your forum which I do not believe I have. I can refrain from coming here if you prefer. I come because you have an interesting and intelligent blog. I have enjoyed it. I do not think ill of you. If I did in the past, it was in a different venue under different circumstances and because of unpleasant encounters. I am not much for hanging on to past angers. I deal with people as they deal with me. You have been pleasant to me on this forum, but I now do feel unwelcome...
"...Don't you think these are powerful poetic images..."
Emmanuel Litvinoff wrote of Eliot's perverted Christianity as follows:
I am not one accepted in your parish.
Bleistein is my relative and I share
the protozoic slime of Shylock, a
page
in Sturmer, and, underneath the
cities,
a billet somewhat lower than the
rats.
Blood in the sewers. Pieces of our
flesh
float with the ordure on the Vistula.
You had a sermon but it was not this."
“NC, there is a third possibility, that one likes antisemites for being antisemites but claims that it is their creative achievements they admire.”
Of course, the ones who won’t say they hate Jews openly. How did I forget these stealthy antisemites? I’m not sure what the situation is like in Canada but in the U.S. I think these sorts are more common on the radical left than the radical right. Nazis and other right-wing extremists will come straight out and declare “We hate Jews” while the radical lefty fans of people like Gilad Atzmon will say “We have nothing against Jews. Some of my best friends are Jewish. I really love the work of Noam Chomsky…”
I have only been readings MM’s comments for the past couple of months here at your blog. 99% of the time (or more) I disagree with what she writes. But in this case I thought about my own tastes in music/visual art/literature, etc. and tend to agree that it is important to differentiate the art from the artist. I used the Miles Davis example b/c I am more of a jazz head than a connoisseur of classical music.
Similar discussion taking place at Martin’s blog (Nice Diary: Shame About Politics):
http://martininthemargins.blogspot.com/2009/01/nice-diary-shame-about-politics.html
Anyone who writes, “I don't like the "Zionist" attitude that Israel can do no wrong and that anyone criticising Israel is automatically wrong or called an antisemite” is not paying attention.
No Zionist or “Zionist” advocates such a position. Zionists criticize Israel on a regular basis. As has been pointed out a million times, what matters is the content of the critique.
I was reminded of Gilad Atzmon when I encountered this guy mentioned and linked to in "yates" first comment:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16873276&postID=1057568576212125196
The main reason for the association was this post on Z-word blog. Please read the comment left by "auntie shlomi" and my response:
http://blog.z-word.com/2008/11/the-holocaust-mindset/
"No Zionist or “Zionist” advocates such a position. Zionists criticize Israel on a regular basis. As has been pointed out a million times, what matters is the content of the critique."
This fallacy, which has become the sixth pillar of antisemitic lore, was termed by David Hirsh of "Engage" as "The Livingstone formulation". You can find its meaning and provenance by googling it.
Post a Comment
<< Home