Massacre in the heart of Jerusalem
It should be very easy for anyone to condemn an horrific attack like the one witnessed yesterday in Jerusalem.
At least eight Israeli students were killed by a Palestinian gunman who opened fire after infiltrating a Jerusalem seminary last night, in the worst attack on civilians in the city for four years. Many others were wounded in the attack, which according to witnesses lasted for 10 minutes, before the assailant was shot dead. The dead students were said to have been 15 and 16 years old.And yet, at United Nations, even that proved impossible.
While UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the attack, the UN Security Council failed to agree on a statement on Thursday night.
The Libyan representative said his country and several others wanted the council to couple any condemnation of the Jerusalem shootings with one against Israel for killing large numbers of civilians, including children, in Gaza.
But Russian envoy Vitaly Churkin - who currently chairs the Security Council - asked how bad a terrorist attack had to be for specific condemnation, without going through the entire history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The simple truth of the matter is that this attack was horrific enough on it's own to be worthy of everyone's condemnation. The killing of innocents is something that we should all condemn no matter who the perpetrator is.
However, the point that the Libyans are making is, nevertheless, a valid one. Is this death toll more horrific than the much larger death toll of innocents in Gaza because this death toll was caused by an individual rather than a state? For it ought not to be.
George Bush, who has yet to condemn the killing of innocents in Gaza - and who steadfastly refused to call for an end to the Lebanon war which was killing thousands of innocents - condemned the killing yesterday:
George Bush joined in condemnation of the killings, expressing his condolences to the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. "This barbaric and vicious attack on innocent civilians deserves the condemnation of every nation."
However, the ultimate hypocrisy was the condemnation uttered by David Miliband:
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said he had spoken to his Israeli counterpart and passed on his condolences. He said the killings at the seminary "are an arrow aimed at the heart of the peace process so recently revived. They should and will be deplored by all decent people."
Indeed, last week Condaleezza Rice berated Abbas for saying that he could not take part in peace talks whilst Israel was engaging in attacks on Gaza which had killed 120 people, half of them civilians. For acknowledging the horrific loss of innocent life he was accused of handing a "tactical victory" to Hamas by allowing them to hijack Arab-Israeli peace negotiations.
There was no consideration by Rice that this horrendous loss of civilian life might be "an arrow aimed at the heart of the peace process".
And therein lies the hypocrisy of the west's reaction to the crisis in the Middle East. It was spelled out to Bush according to Bob Woodward in his book "State of Denial" by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
At one point Bandar even carried a message to Bush from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia which stated, "What pained the Crown Prince more is the continuance of American ignorance of Israel upholding policies as if a drop of Jewish blood is equal to a thousand Palestinian lives.And that certainly appears to be the case here. We can all join with Bush, Rice, Miliband and others in condemning this horrendous loss of innocent life. My question is why do Bush, Rice, Miliband and others find it so difficult to condemn such horrendous losses of life when the victims are Palestinian?
Click title for full article.
8 comments:
Is this death toll more horrific than the much larger death toll of innocents in Gaza because this death toll was caused by an individual rather than a state?
What a loaded question. You don't differentiate between sadistic murders in Jerusalem and human shields used by rocket crews in Gaza.
If the terrorist had strapped a Palestinian baby on his back before he started shooting, would you be condemning the person who dared to shoot at the terrorist?
If the terrorist had strapped a Palestinian baby on his back before he started shooting, would you be condemning the person who dared to shoot at the terrorist?
Of course he would. People like Kel do not make those kinds of distinctions.
Even while Kel is trying to appear like he's condemning the murder of these teenagers, what he is really doing is showing himself once again to be the terrorist apologist and enabler that we've always know him to be.
If you cannot see a difference between directly targeting civilians for murder and the collateral deaths of civilians killed while executing military action against a legitimate military target (and yes your terrorist heroes deliberately surround themselves with civilians for the propaganda benefits of their deaths), then you are more contemptible then I had already believed.
You will lower yourself to any level to support these terrorists. You are an apologist and an enabler. I'm surprised you weren't dancing in the streets (just as throngs of Palestinians were) at the murders of these teenagers.
Jason, will you condemn an Israeli attack on Gaza that produces a 50% civilian death toll? And if you won't then it is you who are contemptible.
The point of this article was that, of course, the Palestinian attack should be condemned in the strongest possible terms, but I simply find it abhorent that people like yourself, Bush and Rice always say that Israel enages in "military action against a legitimate military target". If you are producing a 50% civilian death rate then you are either the worst army in history or no care is being taken at all to prevent civilain casualties. Amnesty and Human Rights watch have already accused Israel of the latter.
The fact that you can't even condemn a 50% civilian death rate shows me how beyond the pale you are.
And a man who supports torture - which you have - doesn't get to call anyone else contemptible.
The fact that you can't even condemn a 50% civilian death rate shows me how beyond the pale you are.
I don't recall being asked to condemn anything. In any event, why don't you explain to me why "civilians" are often killed whenever one of these terrorist leaders is killed. Further, explain how you feel casualties could be minimized when killing these terrorists.
And a man who supports torture - which you have - doesn't get to call anyone else contemptible.
So you keep saying, despite the crystal clear English I used when stating that I in fact do not support torture, but whatever. Obviously you feel if you keep saying it enough times then maybe someone will think it's true.
What is without argument however is your support for terrorists. Such support by people such as yourself throughout the world enables them to continue their murderous tactics. That anyone could lend such support to people who deliberately target children for murder, and in fact celebrate such murders, is beyond contempt.
I don't recall being asked to condemn anything.
Really? Here's a hint. It was round about where I said:
Jason, will you condemn an Israeli attack on Gaza that produces a 50% civilian death toll?
In any event, why don't you explain to me why "civilians" are often killed whenever one of these terrorist leaders is killed. Further, explain how you feel casualties could be minimized when killing these terrorists.
Because Israel fired rockets into civilian areas. And you are assuming that terrorists should be killed. They are criminals who should be arrested. Extrajudicial killings are illegal, not that I expect someone like you to be bothered a hoot about illegality.
And the fact that an Israeli minister promised a Palestinian Holocaust if Palestinian rockets kept coming in the opposite direction makes many of us suspicious that perhaps insufficient care is being taken to avoid civilian casualties. After all, the minister in question has not been fired.
So you keep saying, despite the crystal clear English I used when stating that I in fact do not support torture, but whatever. Obviously you feel if you keep saying it enough times then maybe someone will think it's true.
Jason, it's a matter of record on here that you said:
Enabler, eh? If by "enabler" you mean someone who doesn't get all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions (none since 2003), then I guess that's me.
You refuse to get "all broken up" over your government using waterboarding. I know you have said you only care about what is legal under US law, but under current US law waterboarding, thanks to Bush's veto, is now legal. And yet, most of the planet - and most US citizens - consider water boarding to be torture. You defend waterboarding on the grounds that "it is legal under US law", it therefore is indisputable that you defend the use of torture. Because as long as it's legal in the US you will simply state - George Bush style - that as it's legal in the US it can't be torture. It's an insane argument, but that is actually your position. You've stated it many times.
What is without argument however is your support for terrorists.
Go fuck yourself. If you think I write this every day so that shits like you can throw that kind of crap around I'll ban you in a millisecond.
That anyone could lend such support to people who deliberately target children for murder, and in fact celebrate such murders, is beyond contempt.
The difference between us Jason is that I condemn the violence on both sides of the dispute. I condemned the horrible attack in Jerusalem and I also condemn the Israelis when they employ responses to terror that are guaranteed to produce civilian casualties. You find excuses for this just as you find excuses for torture - "it's legal Kel, so it can't be torture! We do it and we're the good guys!"
Your utter immorality has always left me quite speechless, like the time you decided that suspects "weren't human" so anything done to them was fair game.
So, prove how even handed you are. Will you condemn an Israeli attack on Gaza that produces a 50% civilian death toll or will you once again try to find excuses?
Because Israel fired rockets into civilian areas.
Close, but more precisely, because the terrorists deliberately hide amongst civilians knowing that their deaths (real or otherwise) are worth their weight gold in propaganda.
They are criminals who should be arrested. Extrajudicial killings are illegal, not that I expect someone like you to be bothered a hoot about illegality.
Make up your mind, is Israel at war or aren't they? On numerous occasions you've shouted that Israel is guilty of war crimes, which means you must believe that they are at war. If they are at war, then terrorist leaders are legitimate military targets and any claims of "extra-judicial killings" are spurious. If they are not at war, then claims of Israel's supposed war-crimes are spurious. So which is it today?
You refuse to get "all broken up" over your government using waterboarding.
I'll try this once again, using small words where possible. I stated: "If by "enabler" you mean someone who doesn't get all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions (none since 2003)". Notice the bold section. I have noticed you always try to pretend you didn't see that bit.
That means that waterboarding was not systemic and only happened on three occasions, and not at all since 2003. As it's not systemic nor an ongoing policy, and given the bios of the three individuals, I'm not going to work myself up into a frenzy about it. If it were systemic, I'd be more concerned. Given that though, if the practice was found to be illegal under US law when those interrogations took place, then there needs to be some legal recourse. If there is no determination made regarding the legality of the procedure under US law at that time, and given that it's not systemic nor ongoing, then there's probably no need to waste too many brain-cycles on it.
Go fuck yourself. If you think I write this every day so that shits like you can throw that kind of crap around I'll ban you in a millisecond.
And we are back here to your inability to make any kind of rational argument. You have loudly proclaimed your support for Hamas, a terrorist organization. You have decried attacks against Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. You cheerlead at every opportunity for the defeat of US forces in Iraq by terrorist forces such as those of al Qaeda in Iraq, meaning you call for their victory. That is support for terrorists.
The irony of you lobbing similar claims at me regarding torture and you getting all worked up over me pointing out your support of terrorists is not lost on me.
As far as banning me, your options are twofold: ban my account, or ban my IP (or a range of IP addresses). I can use other accounts at will, meaning you would be forced into constantly trying to figure out who I am and then deleting everything you thought was from me. Or I could simply present different IP addresses every time I came here (it's trivial if you know what you are doing) if I were so motivated. My point being it's not worth either of our troubles.
I condemned the horrible attack in Jerusalem
You condemned it with a caveat. There's always a "but..." with those of your ilk when it comes to Israelis being murdered through Palestinian terrorism. And it is absolutely repugnant that you refuse to acknowledge any moral difference between deliberately targeting civilians for murder, and collateral deaths from strikes against legitimate military targets when those targets purposefully seek to maximize the civilian death toll.
Your utter immorality has always left me quite speechless, like the time you decided that suspects "weren't human" so anything done to them was fair game.
Firstly, as I've stated before, I'll put my morality against your moral bankruptcy any day of the week. You support terrorists, cheerlead for the defeat of the US, deride US military personnel ("a few bad apples my ass"), and draw moral equivalence between deliberate cold-blooded murder of civilians and collateral deaths caused by legitimate military action. I'm not sure anything else needs to be said on that matter.
So, prove how even handed you are. Will you condemn an Israeli attack on Gaza that produces a 50% civilian death toll or will you once again try to find excuses?
I never said I'm even handed when it comes to terrorism. I will never excuse it, nor will I draw insane moral equivalences between murder and unintended deaths. I will state that the Israelis must do everything they can to protect themselves while trying to eliminate the unintended deaths of non-combatants. At the same time, I will condemn the cowardly terrorists for hiding amongst civilians in the hopes that civilian deaths lead to a propaganda victory. This terrorist leader continues to keep his women and children around him instead of distancing them, knowing the danger. There is no excuse for that. The Israelis need to do all that they can to minimize casualties to only those in the house immediately sheltering the terrorists, and avoid collateral destruction. If they know that collateral destruction is going to be too great, then they need to seriously weigh their course of action. I will not however pretend that there is some kind of moral equivalence between the two acts. As the other poster said, Palestinian terrorists could strap babies to their backs while launching missiles against Israel, and you'd call them baby murderers if they retaliated.
Make up your mind, is Israel at war or aren't they? On numerous occasions you've shouted that Israel is guilty of war crimes, which means you must believe that they are at war.
Israel's crime is one of collective punishment which she commits as the occupier of the West Bank and Gaza. Her duty under law is to protect those people.
That means that waterboarding was not systemic and only happened on three occasions, and not at all since 2003. As it's not systemic nor an ongoing policy
It is an ongoing policy. The US retain the right to do it again, that's what Bush's verto was about.
As far as banning me, your options are twofold: ban my account, or ban my IP (or a range of IP addresses). I can use other accounts at will, meaning you would be forced into constantly trying to figure out who I am and then deleting everything you thought was from me. Or I could simply present different IP addresses every time I came here (it's trivial if you know what you are doing) if I were so motivated. My point being it's not worth either of our troubles.
Even if you posted anonymously Jason, I'd recognise your style in a second.
I condemned the horrible attack in Jerusalem
You condemned it with a caveat.
Point out where I did that. You're simply lying now.
I never said I'm even handed when it comes to terrorism. I will never excuse it, nor will I draw insane moral equivalences between murder and unintended deaths. I will state that the Israelis must do everything they can to protect themselves while trying to eliminate the unintended deaths of non-combatants. At the same time, I will condemn the cowardly terrorists for hiding amongst civilians in the hopes that civilian deaths lead to a propaganda victory.
In other words, as suspected, you will not condemn it. Why am I not remotely surprised?
Post a Comment