Bloggen er deaktivert for kommentarer. Det tar nok tid å skrive den, om jeg ikke må chatte med gud og hvermann om den i tillegg. Det er en annen grunn også; å ha en internettdiskusjon om Palestina er en rimelig håpløs affære, som jeg erfarte da jeg postet et innlegg på Lonely Planets reiserådforum.
En kar ville reise rundt i Libanon, Syria og Israel/Palestina for å se sider av konflikten som ikke kom fram i "vestlige medier." Så jeg svarte, ga noen tips om hvor å reise, og la til at han burde legge Lonely Planet-boka hjemme, eller i det minste skaffe seg et eksemplar av den palestinske reiseboka "Palestine and Palestinians", fordi Lonely Planet-boka er ganske dritt når det kommer til Palestina. De slår seg på brystet med at de har våget seg inn på Vestbredden, men byer som Nablus, Hebron og Ramallah vies kun en spalte hver. Og, avsluttet jeg, boka glanser over en god del krigsforbrytelser.
Og der var vi i gang.
"The OP (original poster) is interested in an unbiased view of the conflict in the Middle East and wants to personally tour and meet people to understand all sides of the issues. I hope he recognizes your post for the biased propaganda that it is and I hope that he remembers that unbiased means listening and seeing both sides, i.e. visiting places like Sderot, Kiryat Shmona or Ma'alot and talking to the citizens there about their suffering."
"....and it glosses over a lot of war crimes.
=================================
What 'war crimes'? Just because certain Israel-bashing UN agencies and NGOs are of the (biased) opinion that there are 'war crimes' does not make it a fact. Many others are of the opinion that the 'war crimes' label is nonsense and insulting. Please keep your (insulting) politics to yourself."
"#4 (a1) :
Thasos said "Ramallah, a great, bustling city, where there's lots to do, merits only a column in LP, and it glosses over a lot of war crimes.". I assume he meant that LP glosses over crimes like suicide bombers, etc."
Jeg var dum nok til å svare. Jeg gjentok synet jeg har uttrykket på bloggen tidligere:
"I meant war crimes like Jenin, the Gazas, the Lebanons, the separation barrier. I do not pull my political "opinions" out of a hat; several human rights organizations (including Israeli ones) have copiously documented that Israel commits war crimes. LP does not gloss over suicide bombings, which it shouldn't, and I'm not minimizing suicide bombings. LP has yet to write something about the recent Gaza war, but the UN appointed a South African Jewish Zionist with family in Israel to head up an investigation, which found, again, that Israel committed war crimes. The biased, anti-semitic whatever just doesn't fly anymore, because the whole world can't be lying, and the IDF can't be the only institution telling the truth.
Quick example: Massacre at Qana, as I mentioned. LP writes this up in its Middle East book as (I'm paraphrasing slightly, as I don't have the book in front of me) an "incident in which IDF forces were charged with causing tragic civilian deaths. (...) Reports indicated that 106 people were killed." The IDF deliberately (concluded the UN) shelled a UN compound clearly marked as such (and it had been there for years), tearing to pieces civilians sheltering inside. "Reports indicated" that around 130 people were killed, the final death toll was established at 106 people, mostly women and children. Yes, Hezbollah were shooting rockets from nearby (although at IDF troops planting mines inside Lebanese territory), but that does not excuse murder, I'm sorry. Also, the "tragic" bit is interesting. Most deaths are tragic. That's an umbrella generalization to take comfort in, but the truth is much more searing and hard to deal with."
Svar tilbake:
"#9 (thasos)
I meant war crimes like Jenin, the Gazas, the Lebanons, the separation barrier.
======================================
Just as I thought. :)
It's unbelievable how intellectually lazy so many people are. They form their opinions based on the opinions of others, rather than researching the facts to form their own independent opinion. Do you know the facts about the "Jenin massacre" myth? Since you won't believe anything I say anyways, why not look up the text of the UN report on what happened in Jenin. Basically it boils down to this: Both Palestinians and Israelis agree that 52 Palestinians were killed. The Palestinians say that a little over half were 'innocent civilians'. The Israelis say that a little less than half were 'innocent civilians'. And this was armed combat in a heavily-populated urban area, since the Palestinian terrorists fought from amongst the civilian population (the use of 'human shields', which is a 'war crime' BTW). If you define those facts as a massacre, so be it.
I do not pull my political "opinions" out of a hat; several human rights organizations (including Israeli ones) have copiously documented that Israel commits war crimes.
========================================
No one said you did. Like I said, you are just a lazy intellectual who bases their opinions on the opinions of others (not *facts*) - in this case, the opinions of very biased Israel-bashing NGOs and UN agencies, who consistently blame Israel for everything no matter what. Do you know what a 'war crime' actually is according to international law? Obviously not. And those organizations apparently do not either - or don't want to know. They all offer their opinions without ever explaining how they reached their conclusion that Israel committed 'war crimes' - no quotes from the relevant parts of international law. Civilians dying in a conflict is not necessarily a 'war crime' (see Article 28 of the 4th Geneva Convention) and using civilians as 'human shields', as the Palestinian terrorists do, definitely is (Article 51 of the First Additional Protocol). And they never mention the blatant 'war crimes' of the Palestinians in Gaza who purposely target civilian population centers in Israel. These rockets have no military value whatsoever and are solely a terrorism weapon."
Jeg var dum nok til å svare igjen:
"11
I just now saw some post at the top of the Middle East forum, asking people to leave politics out of it. I will, just after I post this.
I have no problem calling the deaths of 24-25-26 civilians a massacre. Is there a tipping point? Where does something officially become a massacre? Ten dead? Fifteen? No, civilians dying does not per se constitute a war crime, but the "willful killings" of civilians do. That's from the Human Rights Watch report on Jenin. These organizations know international law and the Geneva convention in and out.
Human shields - I'm not going to defend Hamas on anything. And the UN investigation into the Gaza war condemned both Hamas and Israel for war crimes, for both deliberately targeting civilian population centers. The thing to remember here, though, is that the Palestinians killed 13 Israelis (well, technically nine, since four IDF soliders got killed by friendly fire), and Israel killed 1300 Palestinians. The IDF also blatantly uses Palestinians as human shields, sending civilians into potentially booby-trapped homes despite it being outlawed by the Israeli Supreme Court, Again, this isn't a secret, or a conspiracy, this is all there to read for anyone who bothers, you can read Israeli papers, like Ha'aretz or The Jerusalem Post.
But usually, the facts don't matter in a discussion like this, and I can see why they beg people to don't talk politics. So unless there is some very obvious reason to retort in the future, I will consider the matter, not closed, obviously, but impervious to rational discussion based on the historical record and facts."
"12
#11 (thasos)
I just now saw some post at the top of the Middle East forum, asking people to leave politics out of it. I will, just after I post this.
======================================
Better late than never. Please refrain next time from inserting your political opinions.
I have no problem calling the deaths of 24-25-26 civilians a massacre. Is there a tipping point? Where does something officially become a massacre? Ten dead? Fifteen? No, civilians dying does not per se constitute a war crime, but the "willful killings" of civilians do.
=========================================
Absolutely. I agree with you 100%. However, you presume (very wrongly) that Israel willfully targets and kills civilians as a policy. Sure - in wartime there there are many civilian deaths. For example, look at what NATO forces did in the Balkans. However, no one would seriously suggest that, say, Danish or Dutch forces deliberately killed civilians as a policy. Isolated incidents - most likely, and certainly in the case of Israel. However, these are investigated and the perpetrators are brought to trial. Compare this with Palestinian terrorists who deliberately target and kill civilians as a policy. How can you even compare the two? Your PC 'moral equivalence' is sickening.
That's from the Human Rights Watch report on Jenin.
=====================================
How does HRW know that Israel willfully killed civilians? How do they even know that civilians were killed? They weren't there. They got some very biased reports from the local Palestinian population. And how does one define a 'civilian'? The Palestinians think just about everyone is - even if he has a weapon on him (almost none wear uniforms).
These organizations know international law and the Geneva convention in and out.
=======================================
They may or may not know. However, why do you assume that their opinion is the gospel truth and that their interpretation of international law is the only 'correct' one? These are very biased Israel-bashing organizations. Why don't they condemn Hamas at least as harshly as Israel since, as I'm sure even you'll agree, Hamas is much worse on civilian-targeting than Israel. Almost nothing from them. Almost all their 'ammo' is pointed at Israel.
Human shields - I'm not going to defend Hamas on anything. And the UN investigation into the Gaza war condemned both Hamas and Israel for war crimes, for both deliberately targeting civilian population centers.
=======================================
Again that 'moral equivalence song'. That's the problem with these reports. The UN investigation relied solely on what Palestinians told them - while Hamas officials looked on. What did you expect they'd say under those conditions? And the investigation totally ignored the reams of evidence and testimony of individuals in Israel's favour. And I stress again: Hamas's policy is to target civilians. Israel's isn't. That's the big difference. Isolated 'war crimes' by individuals is almost always certain in war. For example, look at what happened in Afghanistan at the hands of a one or more Canadian soldiers. No one (rightly) would even think of suggesting that Canadian soldiers target citizens as policy. The perpetrators are brought to trial. Same in Israel. There are quite a few incidents of individual actions currently being investigated by Israel and some have already been charged with crimes.
+The thing to remember here, though, is that the Palestinians killed 13 Israelis (well, technically nine, since four IDF soliders got killed by friendly fire), and Israel killed 1300 Palestinians. +
==============================================
So? What does this 'numbers game' prove? Only that Hamas couldn't care less about its civilians lives as they use them as human shields and do not build shelters for them so that far fewer would be hurt. Compare that to Israel who makes sure that its soldiers receive the maximum protection and insists that no building be built in the country without an appropriate shelter.
The IDF also blatantly uses Palestinians as human shields, sending civilians into potentially booby-trapped homes despite it being outlawed by the Israeli Supreme Court. Again, this isn't a secret, or a conspiracy, this is all there to read for anyone who bothers, you can read Israeli papers, like Ha'aretz or The Jerusalem Post.
=================================
Quite correct. However, you are again saying that this is IDF policy rather than isolated incidents of individuals. After the Israel Supreme Court decision this de facto policy was stopped. Compare that with Hamas whose policy is using its own civilians as human shields.
But usually, the facts don't matter in a discussion like this, ....
========================================
Exactly my sentiments. :)
....and I can see why they beg people to don't talk politics. So unless there is some very obvious reason to retort in the future, I will consider the matter, not closed, obviously, but impervious to rational discussion based on the historical record and facts.
====================================
No one has ever accused me of being irrational - no matter how much they disagreed with me. That's a first. The problem with what you write is that it is based on opinions rather than facts. I always strive to base my opinions on facts, not on someone else's opinions."
Karen er besatt av ordet "meninger". Den internasjonale domstolen i Haag "mener" at Israel ikke har noe krav på Vestbredden og øst-Jerusalem, det er bare en av mange meninger, blant dem meningen at Israel eier hele skiten fordi det står i Bibelen.
Jeg tar gjerne en debatt, men det er viktig at partene lever på samme planet, og det er ingen hensikt i å debattere noen som, i min mening, ikke har den minste kunnskap om situasjonen i Palestina.
