button, the justification has been twofold - one, to force the Lebanese gov't to deal with Hezbollah, which it refuses to do. Two, to confine Hezbollah as best it can to Lebanese soil.
And, to take 9/11 as an example, Islamic extremists have never said, "well the majority of republican christian ideologues are in the south and midwest - let's bomb arkansas." They want bomb New York, Washington, California, Chicago... because it is a better bargaining chip. Despite the fact that New York City has perhaps the biggest Muslim population in the country... we will be subject to continued terrorist attempts or attacks. So I think that yes, in your example Mexico could/would bomb LAX or some such.
Here''s my take from Cairo. Israel for the last year has withdrawn from Gaza, been extremely restrained against rocket attacks from Hezbollah and Gaza. Israel''s top national security concern is that one of those rockets will marry up with chemical or biological weapons. And as such, the IDF for the last three years has planned at one point to sooner or later take out Hezbollah and neutralize the threat from Lebanon. Plus, in the broader contours of the big war for Jerusalem since 1948, Israel believed it''s unilateral withdraw was perceived (and it was) as weakness.
So in some ways this is an over-reaction. But the over-reaction must be seen in the context of a country that has lost all patience, that is saying to its neighbors, you are not the only people who can go crazy. You are not the only ones with a right to be unreasonable. We too are capable of extortion, particularly when our existence is so threatened. And this is a kind of extortion. Israel is telling the rest of Lebanon to send its military to the south and take on Hezbollah or else its borders will remain closed. In the end, this could be an opportunity for Lebanon to root out this destabilizing presence. But as others have pointed out, the immediate effect is that Hezbollah will gain sympathy
Overall, a great analysis! However, I would say that Israel certainly has more capacity to over-react, and even this over-reaction, is still ultimately restrained... all the same, good points!
RON
I agree with Vitamin's analysis but wonder how anyone could think that non-Hezbollah Lebanon are going to do anything to root out these idots. It's a dammed if you do/dammed if you don't kinda situation for Israel.
It will be interesting to watch this play, particularly how Jordan, Egypt and other Arab states will deal with this. I can't imagine they want to get involved in this mess.
Vitamin, my mother-in-law said that Saudia Arabia and Egypt both condemned hezbollah's actions. Any truth to that?
For some reason it seems that many people hold Israel and the U.S. to the highest standards of integrity while either ignoring or excusing the incredibly vicious and possibly evil actions of others.
There is even a professor that was just hired by the University of Wisconsin-Madison who teaches(and apparently believes) that there hasn't been a single act of Islamic based terrorism over the last ten years and that EVERY suicide bombing/terrorist attack, and of course 9/11 have been orchestrated by our CIA.
Guilt and self loathing produce some amazing results.
unless people don't agree with the general policy of the west in the middle east, and/or the policy/support of Israel form the get go. Just sayin. Its complicated and I don't think alot of people support one side or the other completely.
You're right.. it's a very complicated situation, and certainly, the U.S. involvement makes it hard for those who don't like the U.S. or it's policies in the Middle East to negate Israel's existence entirely... but I'll tell you what is NOT complicated and what does NOT involve the U.S. - people being missile targets day in and day out from various borders of a country. There is nothing virtually anyone can say about a nation deserving a halt to this... if the Palestinians or Hezbollah were to target Egyptian people and population centers every day for years, wouldn't there be a right of the Egyptians to strike back?
Foreign policy is one thing... and certainly, the U.S. has demonstrated, to say very lightly, the "complicated nature" of it... but people don't deserve to live in daily fear because they live in Israel.
RON
I agree and I don't think anyone suppports the position of Hezbollah, but at the same time I don't think anyone is supporting the indescriminate bombing and missilig that Israel has engaged in as a retalliation. to bring 9/11 in the picture, I don't think anyone in the US was against retalliation against the parties responsible. However just taking out a whole country ie. Iraq because they are thinly associated with terrorism and/or the adminstration just wanted thier oil reserves (:)) made the whole "war on terrorism" a different story. not exactly the same, but to say Israel should carpet bomb the country because to end civil war/create stability the new Lebanese Government agreed to allow Hezbollah seats in parliament is jst weak. Especially when you are trying to take the moral high ground. I just think that the retalliation/reaction could have been handled in a lot better manner. Hindsight is 20/20 though... I guess.
This is misguided on several levels.
First off, when we went to Afghanistan with massive international and national support, we killed a lot of civilians. Nobody really lost a lot of sleep because, well, that's war. We "took out a whole country" in Afghanistan. But I don't see a lot of protest.
Second off, we didn't go to Iraq for oil reserves, I think that's been clearly proven by the current oil market, we went to establish permanent military bases which is of course why this is all happening now.
I mean, what would justify Israeli military action? What does Hamas, or Hezbollah, have to do? Detonate an atomic bomb in Tel Aviv? Drive a bus full of explosives into Ariel Sharon's hospital room? Shit man.
And acting like Israel can easily take out Hezbollah while spairing the masses of innocent civilians... It would sure be nice, but that's just not reality.
First, I am playing devils advocate and second Iam responding quickly while I work but I will try to clarify.
I agree with your Afghanistan argument, and am well aware that alot of civilains were caught in the middle. I think it was slightly different in that the Taliban was not open to working with the US and helping us capture Osama & Al Qeda operatives in Afghanistan. I am not sure what lead up to the lebanon bombing diplomatically, betweeb Israel and Lebanon, but right from the onset of the attack by Israel, it seemed that Lebanon was more than happy to work with Israel. And again that is just how I am reading it form the news sources, so if that is incorrect please drop knowledge.
As far as Iraq, true, there is more to the war than Oil, but its more than just military bases as well. Neither here nor there. My point was more that people understand their needs to be or will be reaction to a terrorist/military act, but to translate that into a whole country or region being responsible is misguided. A better example would have been the bombing of the USS Cole. We gathered the intelligence of who was to blame and ultimately went after them, in cooperation wit the Yemeni gov.
And granted I am not saying that the Israeli gov. isn't doing what needs to be done, but it is looks like or is being portrayed in the news they had no contact with the Lebanese (no matter how weak it is) before attacking. Which is one reason I think it could have been handled better.
And again its not about Israel not retalliating, but how it retalliates. It seems that at the current rate of back and forth there is never going to be a clear cut winner/peace etc. You can't cut somoene's hand off for punching you in the face and then wonder why you get chastized. Neither party is right.
It's like if a bunch or hardline republicans decided the only way to stem illegal immigration is to drive down to Arizona and lob bombs over the border.
Nice analogy. It might even hold some weight if Mexico had actually been indiscriminately firing rockets into the mainland of the United States of America for the last year and some change.
For some reason it seems that many people hold Israel and the U.S. to the highest standards of integrity while either ignoring or excusing the incredibly vicious and possibly evil actions of others.
There is even a professor that was just hired by the University of Wisconsin-Madison who teaches(and apparently believes) that there hasn't been a single act of Islamic based terrorism over the last ten years and that EVERY suicide bombing/terrorist attack, and of course 9/11 have been orchestrated by our CIA.
Guilt and self loathing produce some amazing results.
True enough.. to add to your point... interestingly, I have read that neither of those countries have officially signed the Geneva Conventions OR many International Laws which everyone throws up #1 in both their faces...
Here''s my take from Cairo. Israel for the last year has withdrawn from Gaza, been extremely restrained against rocket attacks from Hezbollah and Gaza. Israel''s top national security concern is that one of those rockets will marry up with chemical or biological weapons. And as such, the IDF for the last three years has planned at one point to sooner or later take out Hezbollah and neutralize the threat from Lebanon. Plus, in the broader contours of the big war for Jerusalem since 1948, Israel believed it''s unilateral withdraw was perceived (and it was) as weakness.
So in some ways this is an over-reaction. But the over-reaction must be seen in the context of a country that has lost all patience, that is saying to its neighbors, you are not the only people who can go crazy. You are not the only ones with a right to be unreasonable. We too are capable of extortion, particularly when our existence is so threatened. And this is a kind of extortion. Israel is telling the rest of Lebanon to send its military to the south and take on Hezbollah or else its borders will remain closed. In the end, this could be an opportunity for Lebanon to root out this destabilizing presence. But as others have pointed out, the immediate effect is that Hezbollah will gain sympathy
Overall, a great analysis! However, I would say that Israel certainly has more capacity to over-react, and even this over-reaction, is still ultimately restrained... all the same, good points!
RON
I agree with Vitamin's analysis but wonder how anyone could think that non-Hezbollah Lebanon are going to do anything to root out these idots. It's a dammed if you do/dammed if you don't kinda situation for Israel.
It will be interesting to watch this play, particularly how Jordan, Egypt and other Arab states will deal with this. I can't imagine they want to get involved in this mess.
Vitamin, my mother-in-law said that Saudia Arabia and Egypt both condemned hezbollah's actions. Any truth to that?
Yes this is true. The leading Saudi state run paper ran a quote from a "senior Saudi official" putting Hezbollah on blast. And Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan have said publicly how reckless and unhelpful Hezbollah is. Hezbollah are Shiites and Mubarak, House of Saud and Hashemite dynasty look over at Iraq and fear a Sunni-Shiia civil war. And even though these leaders are basically despots and can do whatever they want, they have to worry about the Muslim Brothers. When Hezbollah hits Haifa, the rest of the Ummah basically asks the rest of the Arab leaders why some punks with a militia in southern Lebanon have more cahones than the great Arab league. This is a situation very similar to when Paul Castellana had to deal with an out of control John Gotti, who was potentially going to fuck up the whole family business. Iran and Hezbollah--Shiites--and Sunni Hamas, are kind of like Gotti. The Saudis, which are fine with Hezbollah in the 1990s when they are fighting an invading and occupying Israeli army, are basically like Castellana. The five families talk shit about the cops, but in the end they co-exist. Same with the Arab states and Israel. Saudi, Egypt, Jordan the Gulf states--all live under the yoke of American protection, just like Israel. They raise some cash on the side for Hamas, they say a bunch of shit about how terrible the zionist entity is, but that's posturing. They aint doin anything. Hezbollah, Iran on the other hand. It's totally different.
The Israeli Government are scum and the US Government are doubled standard havin chicken shits........far play to the French for yet again having the balls to stand up and say this is wrong when everyone else seems scared to...
And granted I am not saying that the Israeli gov. isn't doing what needs to be done, but it is looks like or is being portrayed in the news they had no contact with the Lebanese (no matter how weak it is) before attacking. Which is one reason I think it could have been handled better.
And again its not about Israel not retalliating, but how it retalliates. It seems that at the current rate of back and forth there is never going to be a clear cut winner/peace etc. You can't cut somoene's hand off for punching you in the face and then wonder why you get chastized. Neither party is right.
I am quite sure there was a ton of contact between the Israeli and Lebanese government... but the Lebanese government has no power and has repeatedly neglected to take any action against Hezbollah. This is going back years and years. No Islamic goverment, including our friends the Saudis, has cracked down on Islamic militancy in a way that would force a change. Strictly for show, if at all.
And again, I will ask: how should Israel retaliate? What is appopriate? When one country attacks another, I didn't know there were boundaries as to what was and was not considered an appopriate response. This isn't like Hezbollah attacked the Israeli embassy in Beirut - they've been volleying rockets into Israel proper for years and attacked an army station inside Israel.
1) As far as rocket attacks go, from what I was reading, there were many who felt like Israel was getting missile attacks while it held the Occupied Territories and even Southern Lebanon, so withdrawing from many of those areas, doesn't really change that equation.
2) Hezbollah shows all of the pros and cons of democratiziation in the Middle East. They participated in Lebanese elections, have a bunch of seats, have actually worked towards negotiations and compromise within the government, even with the Druse-Christian community, are known for their vast social programs to the Shiites in the South who have always been ignored and been towards the bottom of Lebanese society, at the same time, they are still openly hostile towards Israel, and get a bunch of military aid from Syria and Iran.
3) While many here talk about what else could Israel do after Hezbollah's attacks and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers I feel like this use of overwhelming force in response may be for not. To use the hip term these days, but in asymmetrical warfare, overwhelming force does not really work in the long run. Israel has attacked the airport, the ports and the highway to Syria saying that these are the means that Hezbollah gets its military aid, but Hezbollah probably already has a very large stockpile of weapons right now. As Vitamin pointed out, these attacks are probably rallying Lebanese support behind Hezbollah against what they see as Israeli aggression. Not only that, but the Lebanese government isn't that strong to begin with so Israel's attacks are only weakening it. If the hope is to force the Lebanese govt to move troops into the South and root out or even just confront Hezbollah it's probably not going to happen. Such a confrontation might 1) lead to a new civil war, 2) lead to the Lebanese army being defeated, neither of which would help Lebanon, nor Israel for that matter in the end. Overall then, it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't for Israel in terms of responses.
Vitamin, my mother-in-law said that Saudia Arabia and Egypt both condemned hezbollah's actions. Any truth to that?
Not to answer for Vitamin, but I know that Saudi Arabia HAS come out and condemned Hezbollah. And that is rather unprecedented. I think that the more moderate Arab governments are finally starting to realize that groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda would do nothing but destabilize their own region and it's in their own best interest to see that such extremist groups are erradicated - one way or another. There is simply no room in a peaceful, civilized world for such organizations. One can only hope that the rest of the world will finaly wake up and come to their senses as well.
Overall then, it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't for Israel in terms of responses.
Which is why I think they've escalated.
Look, everyone's been spoiling for this fight. So here it is. Syria, Iran, Al Qaeda, they can all have at it. That, I think, is what Israel is thinking because there are no good options other than to let out all the aggression that everyone has been attempting to cool.
If citizens of a country are breaking International Law isn't it that country's governements responsibility to stop them??
And if they can't don't they(and unfortunately their people) have to face the consequences??
This seems pretty simple to me.
If some lunatic militia in Montana was shooting 1,000's of missiles into Canada our Government would be held responsible for stopping their actions. And if for some reason they couldn't(or wouldn't) and Canada retaliated who would blame them??
If citizens of a country are breaking International Law isn't it that country's governements responsibility to stop them??
Yes, however I am just not sure and have not seen anything that has said that the Lebanese government had the chance to try and stop it on there own or in conjunction with Israel. I highly doubt that the Lebanese government would OK the airport missile attack.
One can only hope that the rest of the world will finaly wake up and come to their senses as well.
I think in the end, we can all sit here and type for hours about what the problem is, and what needs to be done. However, I don't think anything will come as close to the truth as this statement...
Ultimately, it will take more routine first-hand experience of nations worldwide in sufferring the effects of constant terrorism until they will be able to truly sympathize with Israel. 7/7, the bombings in Mumbai this past week... anomolous in those countries, but a regular occurence in Israel (so much so that business' like restaurants, ice cream shops, even music stores all have to have mega security or no one will go there for fear of being blown up). Until that begins to happen in other places on a regular basis, and perpetual fear literally soaks the minds of those nation's people, nothing will change because like everything in life, sometimes, the hardest lessons have be learned first hand.
1) As far as rocket attacks go, from what I was reading, there were many who felt like Israel was getting missile attacks while it held the Occupied Territories and even Southern Lebanon, so withdrawing from many of those areas, doesn't really change that equation.
2) Hezbollah shows all of the pros and cons of democratiziation in the Middle East. They participated in Lebanese elections, have a bunch of seats, have actually worked towards negotiations and compromise within the government, even with the Druse-Christian community, are known for their vast social programs to the Shiites in the South who have always been ignored and been towards the bottom of Lebanese society, at the same time, they are still openly hostile towards Israel, and get a bunch of military aid from Syria and Iran.
3) While many here talk about what else could Israel do after Hezbollah's attacks and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers I feel like this use of overwhelming force in response may be for not. To use the hip term these days, but in asymmetrical warfare, overwhelming force does not really work in the long run. Israel has attacked the airport, the ports and the highway to Syria saying that these are the means that Hezbollah gets its military aid, but Hezbollah probably already has a very large stockpile of weapons right now. As Vitamin pointed out, these attacks are probably rallying Lebanese support behind Hezbollah against what they see as Israeli aggression. Not only that, but the Lebanese government isn't that strong to begin with so Israel's attacks are only weakening it. If the hope is to force the Lebanese govt to move troops into the South and root out or even just confront Hezbollah it's probably not going to happen. Such a confrontation might 1) lead to a new civil war, 2) lead to the Lebanese army being defeated, neither of which would help Lebanon, nor Israel for that matter in the end. Overall then, it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't for Israel in terms of responses.
Just my 2 cents.
I don't think this calls into doubt the democracy agenda. Hezbollah was preparing for war, lobbing missiles etc. before Syria left lebanon and there were relatively free elections. Furthermore, Hezbollah runs its own areas--or ran its own areas--like the clerical mafia they are. So one can be for the democratization of the middle east and still be against hezbollah, because the freedom agenda is more than just confessional elections. And Hezbollah is a detriment to Lebanese democracy, as evidenced by their provocation of three days ago.
Furthermore, the Lebanese army could win a confrontation with Hezbollah with Israel blowing up its arm depots and training camps.
Overall then, it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't for Israel in terms of responses.
Which is why I think they've escalated.
Look, everyone's been spoiling for this fight. So here it is. Syria, Iran, Al Qaeda, they can all have at it. That, I think, is what Israel is thinking because there are no good options other than to let out all the aggression that everyone has been attempting to cool.
I'm just sayin. A lot of people's gut reactions would be to blow hell out of things in a situation like this, but Hezbollah is not a state. Attacks on the airport, ports and road to Damascas don't really "hurt." The idea that you can kill a lot of them or blow up enough shit to tame or defeat them may not really work.
Overall then, it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't for Israel in terms of responses.
Which is why I think they've escalated.
Look, everyone's been spoiling for this fight. So here it is. Syria, Iran, Al Qaeda, they can all have at it. That, I think, is what Israel is thinking because there are no good options other than to let out all the aggression that everyone has been attempting to cool.
I'm just sayin. A lot of people's gut reactions would be to blow hell out of things in a situation like this, but Hezbollah is not a state. Attacks on the airport, ports and road to Damascas don't really "hurt." The idea that you can kill a lot of them or blow up enough shit to tame or defeat them may not really work.
Well it might not work in terms of routing Hezbollah but I was more implying that it might bait the others into a larger conflict, which it seems everyone's spoiling for at this point.
If citizens of a country are breaking International Law isn't it that country's governements responsibility to stop them??
Yes, however I am just not sure and have not seen anything that has said that the Lebanese government had the chance to try and stop it on there own or in conjunction with Israel. I highly doubt that the Lebanese government would OK the airport missile attack.
in fact they didn't. The parliament voted within hours on a resolution that failed to condemn the attack, but also claimed no prior knowledge. This prompted a threat from Hezbollah. Though they won't say it publicly, there are a number of Lebanese who would like nothing more than for Hezbollah to be crushed. Though as I said before in the short term, bombing the shit of a country is a sure fire way to get the people living there to hate you.
As Vitamin pointed out, these attacks are probably rallying Lebanese support behind Hezbollah against what they see as Israeli aggression.
Yes. And during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon I would personally have sympathized with the Lebanese. But not now. Hezbollah, as a faction of the Lebanese government has now, for the past year, been the agressor by firing rockets into Israel on a daily basis. This is not a "complicated" situation by any means as far as I see it. I'm just suprised that it's taken so long for Israel to retaliate.
Not only that, but the Lebanese government isn't that strong to begin with so Israel's attacks are only weakening it. If the hope is to force the Lebanese govt to move troops into the South and root out or even just confront Hezbollah it's probably not going to happen. Such a confrontation might 1) lead to a new civil war, 2) lead to the Lebanese army being defeated, neither of which would help Lebanon, nor Israel for that matter in the end. Overall then, it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't for Israel in terms of responses.
Just my 2 cents.
And a lot of good old fashioned Jew-hating doesn't hurt either.
As Vitamin pointed out, these attacks are probably rallying Lebanese support behind Hezbollah against what they see as Israeli aggression.
Yup
Israel's targeting of Lebanese infrastructure seems cruel and misguided. Bridges, power substations, fuel depots, airport runways. That's great - glad my tax dollars are funding such diplomacy.
Also, I don't think one can compare the military resources of the Israel and Lebanon.
I did, however, hear about them blowing up a family having a picnic on the beach in retaliation
Palestinian fired rockets. Do the knowledge.
'heard about'? With all due respect, I think it's best you become more saavy on the topic, from both sides, before you throw around your opinions in this area.
For the record, my posts have clearly indicated my position. However, that doesn't stop me from consulting news sources like aljazeera or the daily post (lebanon), or even reading books like those written by Noam Chomsky (who, symbolically, is another problem in the Middle Eastern conflict - one thing that the other side does NOT suffer from nearly as much is dissent - i gotta hand it to the terrorists - they are making a UNIFIED FRONT against Israel).
RON
Yeah RON, heard, as in eating at Del Taco last June and overhearing the news on the television. Your condescending tone is not welcome here, hommie. While I may not know as much as you, what I do know entitles me to an opinion.
One Israeli suggestion for Friday's blast has been that it was caused by a mine laid by Hamas militants, but this was dismissed by a bomb damage expert who visited the scene.
Mark Garlasco, working for the US-based Human Rights Watch group, said victims' injuries were not consistent with explosives blowing up in the sand beneath them.
"My assessment [is] that it's likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza."
One Israeli suggestion for Friday's blast has been that it was caused by a mine laid by Hamas militants, but this was dismissed by a bomb damage expert who visited the scene.
Mark Garlasco, working for the US-based Human Rights Watch group, said victims' injuries were not consistent with explosives blowing up in the sand beneath them.
"My assessment [is] that it's likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza."
Do the knowledge.
Oh, you mean the overtly, unabashedly ant-semitic, anti-Israeli Human Rights Watch? Okay. That settles everything then.
We all know Israel is the super power in that region. They want to "punish" the people of Lebanon for not taking action against Hezbollah.
It always pains me to see the people caught in the middle. I can't see how other means couldn't have been taken.
First of all, Israel is NOT a superpower, by any regional standards. Population wise, it is the size of Toronto. Land-mass, maybe 3x Toronto. Budget wise, it is a *tiny* fraction of any reasonably sized country, with expenditures, including defense, being $50 billion US (with a considerably lower level of revenues). That superhappyterrific and absolutely necessary IDF that everyone always mentions first about Israel has crippled the people economically, and there are few capitals in the developed world (I say 'developed' because everyone always equates israel with the West) one can travel to where it is clear that the infrastructure has been so heavily debilitated by decades of fighting. By world standards, Israel is a 3rd world nation, however, because of the systematic global anti-semetism, no one will admit to that.
And militarily? I would say having over 100 nuclear weapons makes you a super power, no?
One Israeli suggestion for Friday's blast has been that it was caused by a mine laid by Hamas militants, but this was dismissed by a bomb damage expert who visited the scene.
Mark Garlasco, working for the US-based Human Rights Watch group, said victims' injuries were not consistent with explosives blowing up in the sand beneath them.
"My assessment [is] that it's likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza."
Do the knowledge.
Oh, you mean the overtly, unabashedly ant-semitic, anti-Israeli Human Rights Watch? Okay. That settles everything then.
Man wtf are you all talking about? Does the world hate The Jews and I just don't know about it? Please back up your statements with some facts, Paul.
Man wtf are you all talking about? Does the world hate The Jews and I just don't know about it?
Yes.
Please back up your statements with some facts, Paul.
Facts? I'll let you be the judge. Although, at your request, here are some informed "opinions" on Human Rights Watch that a simple google search came up with (this one from Wikipedia). Since we're talking about an "opinion" in the first place (one held by HRW in regards to what ultimately happened to a Palestinian family on a beach), I'd say one good opinion deserves another...
Human Rights Watch has been criticized by various human rights activists, non-governmental organizations, politicians, and media as having an anti-Semitic or anti-Israel bias. This includes the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, the Anti-Defamation League, Honest Reporting, NGO Monitor, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Abraham Cooper, Anne Bayefsky, Gerald Steinberg, Isi Leibler, Shimon Peres, Elihai Braun, and Ana Palacio. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America ran an article on their website in 2005 titled ???What is Human Rights Watch's Agenda???? In this article CAMERA stated that Human Rights Watch is ???A self-appointed arbiter of human rights abuses around the world??? and that, ???This would be a noble and worthy mission if it were carried out objectively, without regard to political or ideological agenda. Regrettably, this is not the case.???[4] CAMERA has also stated, ???AI and another "voice of international appeasement" ??? Human Rights Watch ??? have consistently directed their righteous ire at Israel, sparing the real human rights abusers.???[5] In a 2006 communiqu?? Honest Reporting wrote, ???Human Rights Watch, along with many other organizations which claim to focus solely on human rights without a political agenda, have hardly proven themselves to be an "unbiased" source.??? Furthermore, the communiqu?? asserted, ???HRW is not held accountable to anybody but its own staff??? and, ???The organization's bias against Israel is hardly new.???[6] The Anti-Defamation League, in response to coverage of the Jenin Massacre, stated that Human Rights Watch was among the groups that, ???Pre-judged Israel's behavior.??? The Anti-Defamation League also wrote, ???Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged Israel with violations of international law and war crimes. Neither discussed the international law violations involved in arming a refugee camp, or demanded the United Nations be held in any way accountable for its lack of oversight in the camp. While Human Rights Watch acknowledged in a May 3 report that there was no evidence of a massacre and that Palestinian gunmen had contributed to endangering Palestinian civilians, they continued to emphasize that there was prima facie evidence Israel committed war crimes.???[7] The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council concluded an anti-Israel bias in the 2002 article titled, ???Israel???s critics and their war with the truth.??? Regarding an apparent double standard, this article questioned, ???It is hard to explain why victims of slavery and slaughter are virtually ignored by American progressives. How can it be that there is no storm of indignation at Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, which, though they rushed to Jenin to investigate false reports of Jews massacring Arabs, care so much less about Arab-occupied Juba, South Sudan's black capital? How can it be that they have not raised the roof about Khartoum's black slaves????[8] An NGO Monitor Summary in 2006 commented, ???While NGO Monitor's analysis shows a significant reduction in Human Rights Watch's disproportionate focus on Israel in 2005, compared with 2004, clear evidence of systematic political bias remains.??? NGO Monitor added, ???Many HRW publications continue to reflect what can be described as gratuitous political attacks against Israel, often based on unverified media reports, and reflecting a hostile political agenda. Similarly, as found in NGO Monitor's 2004 report, HRW's use of language to condemn Israel is highly politicized, especially when compared to reports on other countries in the Middle East, such as Iran, Egypt, Syria, and Libya, and continues to deny Israel the right to self-defense under international law.???[9] A quantitative study carried out by NGO Monitor asserted an anti-Israel bias as well.[10] Anne Bayefsky concluded that there was an anti-Semitic agenda at Human Rights Watch based on her observations at the 2001 World Conference against Racism. Bayefsky wrote, ???When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do ?? notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth's umbrage at criticism.??? As a participant at the World Conference against Racism, Anne Bayefsky also commented on how she was excluded from the meeting due to her participation with The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, ???As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend.???[11] Abraham Cooper, another participant at the 2001 World Conference against Racism, reiterated Anne Bayefsky???s conclusions when he wrote, ???Contrary to the May 27 letter by the executive directors of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International U.S.A., Anne Bayefsky (Ending Bias in the Human Rights System, Op-Ed, May 22) was correct to criticize those two groups for their roles at the United Nations conference against racism in Durban, South Africa, last year.??? Cooper added regarding the forum document, ???The concerns of one group of victims -- the Jewish people -- were left off that document, with the silent acquiescence of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.??? Abraham Cooper also recounted, ???Like many other Jewish delegates at the conference, I was subjected to physical intimidation and threats.???[12] Gerald Steinberg is one of the more vociferous critics of Human Rights Watch. In a 2006 National Review article titled ???Human-Rights Schizophrenia??? Steinberg wrote, ???During the height of the terror attacks against Israel, HRW focused one-third of its entire Middle East effort on condemnations directed at Israel. This went far beyond legitimate criticism, and suggested an obsession.??? Steinberg asserted further, ???The most infuriating instance of HRW???s bias came in 2004, when Roth went to the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to promote ???Razing Rafah,??? a one sided denunciation of Israeli policy. Its contents were based primarily on unsubstantiated reports of Palestinians, selected journalists, and so-called experts on tunneling.??? He concluded with, ???So either it is I, along with other critics of HRW, who blindly oppose legitimate criticism of Israel (it might be dismissed as part of a neoconservative ideology), or it is Roth and HRW who apply different and unique criteria that single out Israel unfairly. The evidence shows that it is the latter.??? [13] Isi Leibler, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, stated that Human Rights Watch is among the groups that, ???Have long track records of bias and employing double standards in relation to Israel.???[14] Elihai Braun wrote an entry for the Jewish Virtual Library regarding the 2001 World Conference against Racism. While not explicitly criticizing Human Rights Watch, Braun claimed that it was among the groups that endorsed a resolution containing anti-Jewish terms. Braun wrote, ???Major human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Lawyers for Human Rights, and Physicians for Human Rights also expressed criticism of the anti-Jewish language of the NGO resolution, but raised their concerns two days after the conclusion of the NGO conference. Overall, they endorsed the resolution.???[15]In an address to the Anti-Defamation League, a former Foreign Minister of Spain, Ana Palacio, asserted that Human Rights Watch ignored anti-Semitism as an issue of importance over other human rights issues, such as gay or refugee rights. In this address she stated, ???Disinterested NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism.???
"Others have described CAMERA as an "ultra- right wing pro-Israel lobby group that attempts to suppress criticism of Israel" which uses inflammatory rhetoric to bolster its position."
"Some critics, especially on the left, allege the ADL willfully exaggerates the prevalence of anti-Semitism, especially among Muslims. The critics also claim that the ADL defines legitimate criticism so narrowly that even moderate analysis of Israel could be categorized as anti-Semitic."
"Honest Reporting is a media watchdog group that monitors and reports anti-Israel bias. The organization was founded by Aish HaTorah on the initiative of "4 or 5 of us British university students, kicking ideas around, frustrated and wondering what we could do to help Israel."[2] It originated as a website although it now exists as an independent organization. It is claimed to be the largest organization in the world fighting anti-Israel media bias."
"Critics dismiss NGO Monitor as politically motivated and biased. At Political Research Associates, Jean Hardisty and Elizabeth Furdon describe it as a "conservative NGO watchdog group, NGO Monitor, which focuses on perceived threats to Israeli interests", adding that "The ideological slant of NGO Monitor's work is unabashedly pro-Israeli. It does not claim to be a politically neutral examination of NGO activities and practices."
So much for getting to the bottom of that, eh?
I'm done here. I don't want the fact that I'm questioning anything to come off even remotely the wrong way.
I'm done here. I don't want the fact that I'm questioning anything to come off even remotely the wrong way
Question all you want. I just think it speaks volumes when you profess shock and bewilderment that (gasp) anti-semitism exisits and thrives around the world.
Everyone is to blame.
Again, I ask... where was all this condemnation that I'm seeing here now during the past 365+ days when Hamas and Hezbollah were constantly firing missiles into Israel?
1) As far as rocket attacks go, from what I was reading, there were many who felt like Israel was getting missile attacks while it held the Occupied Territories and even Southern Lebanon, so withdrawing from many of those areas, doesn't really change that equation.
2) Hezbollah shows all of the pros and cons of democratiziation in the Middle East. They participated in Lebanese elections, have a bunch of seats, have actually worked towards negotiations and compromise within the government, even with the Druse-Christian community, are known for their vast social programs to the Shiites in the South who have always been ignored and been towards the bottom of Lebanese society, at the same time, they are still openly hostile towards Israel, and get a bunch of military aid from Syria and Iran.
3) While many here talk about what else could Israel do after Hezbollah's attacks and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers I feel like this use of overwhelming force in response may be for not. To use the hip term these days, but in asymmetrical warfare, overwhelming force does not really work in the long run. Israel has attacked the airport, the ports and the highway to Syria saying that these are the means that Hezbollah gets its military aid, but Hezbollah probably already has a very large stockpile of weapons right now. As Vitamin pointed out, these attacks are probably rallying Lebanese support behind Hezbollah against what they see as Israeli aggression. Not only that, but the Lebanese government isn't that strong to begin with so Israel's attacks are only weakening it. If the hope is to force the Lebanese govt to move troops into the South and root out or even just confront Hezbollah it's probably not going to happen. Such a confrontation might 1) lead to a new civil war, 2) lead to the Lebanese army being defeated, neither of which would help Lebanon, nor Israel for that matter in the end. Overall then, it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't for Israel in terms of responses.
Just my 2 cents.
I don't think this calls into doubt the democracy agenda. Hezbollah was preparing for war, lobbing missiles etc. before Syria left lebanon and there were relatively free elections. Furthermore, Hezbollah runs its own areas--or ran its own areas--like the clerical mafia they are. So one can be for the democratization of the middle east and still be against hezbollah, because the freedom agenda is more than just confessional elections. And Hezbollah is a detriment to Lebanese democracy, as evidenced by their provocation of three days ago.
Furthermore, the Lebanese army could win a confrontation with Hezbollah with Israel blowing up its arm depots and training camps.
From what I've heard Hezbollah has actually adopted pretty well to parliamentary politics within Lebanon. I just heard a BBC report this morning about how they made an alliance with an up and coming Christian who might eventually become head of the country for example. What I was trying to say that here is an Islamist group that seems to be adapting to democracy on the one hand within the country, but is still holding on to all its weapons and being aggressive without, i.e. to Israel, which is why I said they are a pretty good example of the pros & cons of democratizing the Middle East.
As for the continued military campaign in Lebanon, I have no idea how it will turn out, I just hope it doesn't escalate. I keep on thinking of the last time Israel went in. They might have forced the PLO out of Lebanon, but they didn't destroy them and they created Hezbollah as a violent reaction as a consequence. Going against a government and a country like Syria is one ting, going against a non-state actor like Hezbollah is entirely different.
Comments
And, to take 9/11 as an example, Islamic extremists have never said, "well the majority of republican christian ideologues are in the south and midwest - let's bomb arkansas." They want bomb New York, Washington, California, Chicago... because it is a better bargaining chip. Despite the fact that New York City has perhaps the biggest Muslim population in the country... we will be subject to continued terrorist attempts or attacks. So I think that yes, in your example Mexico could/would bomb LAX or some such.
I agree with Vitamin's analysis but wonder how anyone could think that non-Hezbollah Lebanon are going to do anything to root out these idots. It's a dammed if you do/dammed if you don't kinda situation for Israel.
It will be interesting to watch this play, particularly how Jordan, Egypt and other Arab states will deal with this. I can't imagine they want to get involved in this mess.
Vitamin, my mother-in-law said that Saudia Arabia and Egypt both condemned hezbollah's actions. Any truth to that?
There is even a professor that was just hired by the University of Wisconsin-Madison who teaches(and apparently believes) that there hasn't been a single act of Islamic based terrorism over the last ten years and that EVERY suicide bombing/terrorist attack, and of course 9/11 have been orchestrated by our CIA.
Guilt and self loathing produce some amazing results.
First, I am playing devils advocate and second Iam responding quickly while I work but I will try to clarify.
I agree with your Afghanistan argument, and am well aware that alot of civilains were caught in the middle. I think it was slightly different in that the Taliban was not open to working with the US and helping us capture Osama & Al Qeda operatives in Afghanistan. I am not sure what lead up to the lebanon bombing diplomatically, betweeb Israel and Lebanon, but right from the onset of the attack by Israel, it seemed that Lebanon was more than happy to work with Israel. And again that is just how I am reading it form the news sources, so if that is incorrect please drop knowledge.
As far as Iraq, true, there is more to the war than Oil, but its more than just military bases as well. Neither here nor there. My point was more that people understand their needs to be or will be reaction to a terrorist/military act, but to translate that into a whole country or region being responsible is misguided. A better example would have been the bombing of the USS Cole. We gathered the intelligence of who was to blame and ultimately went after them, in cooperation wit the Yemeni gov.
And granted I am not saying that the Israeli gov. isn't doing what needs to be done, but it is looks like or is being portrayed in the news they had no contact with the Lebanese (no matter how weak it is) before attacking. Which is one reason I think it could have been handled better.
And again its not about Israel not retalliating, but how it retalliates. It seems that at the current rate of back and forth there is never going to be a clear cut winner/peace etc. You can't cut somoene's hand off for punching you in the face and then wonder why you get chastized. Neither party is right.
Nice analogy. It might even hold some weight if Mexico had actually been indiscriminately firing rockets into the mainland of the United States of America for the last year and some change.
True enough.. to add to your point... interestingly, I have read that neither of those countries have officially signed the Geneva Conventions OR many International Laws which everyone throws up #1 in both their faces...
RON
Yes this is true. The leading Saudi state run paper ran a quote from a "senior Saudi official" putting Hezbollah on blast. And Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan have said publicly how reckless and unhelpful Hezbollah is. Hezbollah are Shiites and Mubarak, House of Saud and Hashemite dynasty look over at Iraq and fear a Sunni-Shiia civil war. And even though these leaders are basically despots and can do whatever they want, they have to worry about the Muslim Brothers. When Hezbollah hits Haifa, the rest of the Ummah basically asks the rest of the Arab leaders why some punks with a militia in southern Lebanon have more cahones than the great Arab league. This is a situation very similar to when Paul Castellana had to deal with an out of control John Gotti, who was potentially going to fuck up the whole family business. Iran and Hezbollah--Shiites--and Sunni Hamas, are kind of like Gotti. The Saudis, which are fine with Hezbollah in the 1990s when they are fighting an invading and occupying Israeli army, are basically like Castellana. The five families talk shit about the cops, but in the end they co-exist. Same with the Arab states and Israel. Saudi, Egypt, Jordan the Gulf states--all live under the yoke of American protection, just like Israel. They raise some cash on the side for Hamas, they say a bunch of shit about how terrible the zionist entity is, but that's posturing. They aint doin anything. Hezbollah, Iran on the other hand. It's totally different.
The Israeli Government are scum and the US Government are doubled standard havin chicken shits........far play to the French for yet again having the balls to stand up and say this is wrong when everyone else seems scared to...
I am quite sure there was a ton of contact between the Israeli and Lebanese government... but the Lebanese government has no power and has repeatedly neglected to take any action against Hezbollah. This is going back years and years. No Islamic goverment, including our friends the Saudis, has cracked down on Islamic militancy in a way that would force a change. Strictly for show, if at all.
And again, I will ask: how should Israel retaliate? What is appopriate? When one country attacks another, I didn't know there were boundaries as to what was and was not considered an appopriate response. This isn't like Hezbollah attacked the Israeli embassy in Beirut - they've been volleying rockets into Israel proper for years and attacked an army station inside Israel.
1) As far as rocket attacks go, from what I was reading, there were many who felt like Israel was getting missile attacks while it held the Occupied Territories and even Southern Lebanon, so withdrawing from many of those areas, doesn't really change that equation.
2) Hezbollah shows all of the pros and cons of democratiziation in the Middle East. They participated in Lebanese elections, have a bunch of seats, have actually worked towards negotiations and compromise within the government, even with the Druse-Christian community, are known for their vast social programs to the Shiites in the South who have always been ignored and been towards the bottom of Lebanese society, at the same time, they are still openly hostile towards Israel, and get a bunch of military aid from Syria and Iran.
3) While many here talk about what else could Israel do after Hezbollah's attacks and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers I feel like this use of overwhelming force in response may be for not. To use the hip term these days, but in asymmetrical warfare, overwhelming force does not really work in the long run. Israel has attacked the airport, the ports and the highway to Syria saying that these are the means that Hezbollah gets its military aid, but Hezbollah probably already has a very large stockpile of weapons right now. As Vitamin pointed out, these attacks are probably rallying Lebanese support behind Hezbollah against what they see as Israeli aggression. Not only that, but the Lebanese government isn't that strong to begin with so Israel's attacks are only weakening it. If the hope is to force the Lebanese govt to move troops into the South and root out or even just confront Hezbollah it's probably not going to happen. Such a confrontation might 1) lead to a new civil war, 2) lead to the Lebanese army being defeated, neither of which would help Lebanon, nor Israel for that matter in the end. Overall then, it really is damned if you do and damned if you don't for Israel in terms of responses.
Just my 2 cents.
Not to answer for Vitamin, but I know that Saudi Arabia HAS come out and condemned Hezbollah.
And that is rather unprecedented.
I think that the more moderate Arab governments are finally starting to realize that groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda would do nothing but destabilize their own region and it's in their own best interest to see that such extremist groups are erradicated - one way or another.
There is simply no room in a peaceful, civilized world for such organizations.
One can only hope that the rest of the world will finaly wake up and come to their senses as well.
Which is why I think they've escalated.
Look, everyone's been spoiling for this fight. So here it is. Syria, Iran, Al Qaeda, they can all have at it. That, I think, is what Israel is thinking because there are no good options other than to let out all the aggression that everyone has been attempting to cool.
If citizens of a country are breaking International Law isn't it that country's governements responsibility to stop them??
And if they can't don't they(and unfortunately their people) have to face the consequences??
This seems pretty simple to me.
If some lunatic militia in Montana was shooting 1,000's of missiles into Canada our Government would be held responsible for stopping their actions. And if for some reason they couldn't(or wouldn't) and Canada retaliated who would blame them??
Yes, however I am just not sure and have not seen anything that has said that the Lebanese government had the chance to try and stop it on there own or in conjunction with Israel. I highly doubt that the Lebanese government would OK the airport missile attack.
I think in the end, we can all sit here and type for hours about what the problem is, and what needs to be done. However, I don't think anything will come as close to the truth as this statement...
Ultimately, it will take more routine first-hand experience of nations worldwide in sufferring the effects of constant terrorism until they will be able to truly sympathize with Israel. 7/7, the bombings in Mumbai this past week... anomolous in those countries, but a regular occurence in Israel (so much so that business' like restaurants, ice cream shops, even music stores all have to have mega security or no one will go there for fear of being blown up). Until that begins to happen in other places on a regular basis, and perpetual fear literally soaks the minds of those nation's people, nothing will change because like everything in life, sometimes, the hardest lessons have be learned first hand.
Well, that and everyone has to stop hating Jews.
I'm out.
RON
I don't think this calls into doubt the democracy agenda. Hezbollah was preparing for war, lobbing missiles etc. before Syria left lebanon and there were relatively free elections. Furthermore, Hezbollah runs its own areas--or ran its own areas--like the clerical mafia they are. So one can be for the democratization of the middle east and still be against hezbollah, because the freedom agenda is more than just confessional elections. And Hezbollah is a detriment to Lebanese democracy, as evidenced by their provocation of three days ago.
Furthermore, the Lebanese army could win a confrontation with Hezbollah with Israel blowing up its arm depots and training camps.
I'm just sayin. A lot of people's gut reactions would be to blow hell out of things in a situation like this, but Hezbollah is not a state. Attacks on the airport, ports and road to Damascas don't really "hurt." The idea that you can kill a lot of them or blow up enough shit to tame or defeat them may not really work.
Uh, yeah.
Those French are the epitome of a country that always stands up for what is right.
Well it might not work in terms of routing Hezbollah but I was more implying that it might bait the others into a larger conflict, which it seems everyone's spoiling for at this point.
in fact they didn't. The parliament voted within hours on a resolution that failed to condemn the attack, but also claimed no prior knowledge. This prompted a threat from Hezbollah. Though they won't say it publicly, there are a number of Lebanese who would like nothing more than for Hezbollah to be crushed. Though as I said before in the short term, bombing the shit of a country is a sure fire way to get the people living there to hate you.
Yes. And during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon I would personally have sympathized with the Lebanese.
But not now. Hezbollah, as a faction of the Lebanese government has now, for the past year, been the agressor by firing rockets into Israel on a daily basis.
This is not a "complicated" situation by any means as far as I see it.
I'm just suprised that it's taken so long for Israel to retaliate.
And a lot of good old fashioned Jew-hating doesn't hurt either.
Yeah RON, heard, as in eating at Del Taco last June and overhearing the news on the television.
Your condescending tone is not welcome here, hommie. While I may not know as much as you, what I do know entitles me to an opinion.
One Israeli suggestion for Friday's blast has been that it was caused by a mine laid by Hamas militants, but this was dismissed by a bomb damage expert who visited the scene.
Mark Garlasco, working for the US-based Human Rights Watch group, said victims' injuries were not consistent with explosives blowing up in the sand beneath them.
"My assessment [is] that it's likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza."
Do the knowledge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5079464.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5066768.stm
Oh, you mean the overtly, unabashedly ant-semitic, anti-Israeli Human Rights Watch?
Okay. That settles everything then.
And militarily? I would say having over 100 nuclear weapons makes you a super power, no?
Man wtf are you all talking about? Does the world hate The Jews and I just don't know about it?
Please back up your statements with some facts, Paul.
Yes.
Facts? I'll let you be the judge.
Although, at your request, here are some informed "opinions" on Human Rights Watch that a simple google search came up with (this one from Wikipedia).
Since we're talking about an "opinion" in the first place (one held by HRW in regards to what ultimately happened to a Palestinian family on a beach), I'd say one good opinion deserves another...
Human Rights Watch has been criticized by various human rights activists, non-governmental organizations, politicians, and media as having an anti-Semitic or anti-Israel bias. This includes the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, the Anti-Defamation League, Honest Reporting, NGO Monitor, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Abraham Cooper, Anne Bayefsky, Gerald Steinberg, Isi Leibler, Shimon Peres, Elihai Braun, and Ana Palacio.
The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America ran an article on their website in 2005 titled ???What is Human Rights Watch's Agenda???? In this article CAMERA stated that Human Rights Watch is ???A self-appointed arbiter of human rights abuses around the world??? and that, ???This would be a noble and worthy mission if it were carried out objectively, without regard to political or ideological agenda. Regrettably, this is not the case.???[4] CAMERA has also stated, ???AI and another "voice of international appeasement" ??? Human Rights Watch ??? have consistently directed their righteous ire at Israel, sparing the real human rights abusers.???[5]
In a 2006 communiqu?? Honest Reporting wrote, ???Human Rights Watch, along with many other organizations which claim to focus solely on human rights without a political agenda, have hardly proven themselves to be an "unbiased" source.??? Furthermore, the communiqu?? asserted, ???HRW is not held accountable to anybody but its own staff??? and, ???The organization's bias against Israel is hardly new.???[6]
The Anti-Defamation League, in response to coverage of the Jenin Massacre, stated that Human Rights Watch was among the groups that, ???Pre-judged Israel's behavior.??? The Anti-Defamation League also wrote, ???Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged Israel with violations of international law and war crimes. Neither discussed the international law violations involved in arming a refugee camp, or demanded the United Nations be held in any way accountable for its lack of oversight in the camp. While Human Rights Watch acknowledged in a May 3 report that there was no evidence of a massacre and that Palestinian gunmen had contributed to endangering Palestinian civilians, they continued to emphasize that there was prima facie evidence Israel committed war crimes.???[7]
The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council concluded an anti-Israel bias in the 2002 article titled, ???Israel???s critics and their war with the truth.??? Regarding an apparent double standard, this article questioned, ???It is hard to explain why victims of slavery and slaughter are virtually ignored by American progressives. How can it be that there is no storm of indignation at Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, which, though they rushed to Jenin to investigate false reports of Jews massacring Arabs, care so much less about Arab-occupied Juba, South Sudan's black capital? How can it be that they have not raised the roof about Khartoum's black slaves????[8]
An NGO Monitor Summary in 2006 commented, ???While NGO Monitor's analysis shows a significant reduction in Human Rights Watch's disproportionate focus on Israel in 2005, compared with 2004, clear evidence of systematic political bias remains.??? NGO Monitor added, ???Many HRW publications continue to reflect what can be described as gratuitous political attacks against Israel, often based on unverified media reports, and reflecting a hostile political agenda. Similarly, as found in NGO Monitor's 2004 report, HRW's use of language to condemn Israel is highly politicized, especially when compared to reports on other countries in the Middle East, such as Iran, Egypt, Syria, and Libya, and continues to deny Israel the right to self-defense under international law.???[9] A quantitative study carried out by NGO Monitor asserted an anti-Israel bias as well.[10]
Anne Bayefsky concluded that there was an anti-Semitic agenda at Human Rights Watch based on her observations at the 2001 World Conference against Racism. Bayefsky wrote, ???When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do ?? notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth's umbrage at criticism.??? As a participant at the World Conference against Racism, Anne Bayefsky also commented on how she was excluded from the meeting due to her participation with The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, ???As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend.???[11]
Abraham Cooper, another participant at the 2001 World Conference against Racism, reiterated Anne Bayefsky???s conclusions when he wrote, ???Contrary to the May 27 letter by the executive directors of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International U.S.A., Anne Bayefsky (Ending Bias in the Human Rights System, Op-Ed, May 22) was correct to criticize those two groups for their roles at the United Nations conference against racism in Durban, South Africa, last year.??? Cooper added regarding the forum document, ???The concerns of one group of victims -- the Jewish people -- were left off that document, with the silent acquiescence of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.??? Abraham Cooper also recounted, ???Like many other Jewish delegates at the conference, I was subjected to physical intimidation and threats.???[12]
Gerald Steinberg is one of the more vociferous critics of Human Rights Watch. In a 2006 National Review article titled ???Human-Rights Schizophrenia??? Steinberg wrote, ???During the height of the terror attacks against Israel, HRW focused one-third of its entire Middle East effort on condemnations directed at Israel. This went far beyond legitimate criticism, and suggested an obsession.??? Steinberg asserted further, ???The most infuriating instance of HRW???s bias came in 2004, when Roth went to the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to promote ???Razing Rafah,??? a one sided denunciation of Israeli policy. Its contents were based primarily on unsubstantiated reports of Palestinians, selected journalists, and so-called experts on tunneling.??? He concluded with, ???So either it is I, along with other critics of HRW, who blindly oppose legitimate criticism of Israel (it might be dismissed as part of a neoconservative ideology), or it is Roth and HRW who apply different and unique criteria that single out Israel unfairly. The evidence shows that it is the latter.??? [13]
Isi Leibler, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, stated that Human Rights Watch is among the groups that, ???Have long track records of bias and employing double standards in relation to Israel.???[14]
Elihai Braun wrote an entry for the Jewish Virtual Library regarding the 2001 World Conference against Racism. While not explicitly criticizing Human Rights Watch, Braun claimed that it was among the groups that endorsed a resolution containing anti-Jewish terms. Braun wrote, ???Major human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Lawyers for Human Rights, and Physicians for Human Rights also expressed criticism of the anti-Jewish language of the NGO resolution, but raised their concerns two days after the conclusion of the NGO conference. Overall, they endorsed the resolution.???[15]In an address to the Anti-Defamation League, a former Foreign Minister of Spain, Ana Palacio, asserted that Human Rights Watch ignored anti-Semitism as an issue of importance over other human rights issues, such as gay or refugee rights. In this address she stated, ???Disinterested NGOs like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International pay little attention to anti-Semitism.???
So much for getting to the bottom of that, eh?
I'm done here. I don't want the fact that I'm questioning anything to come off even remotely the wrong way.
Everyone is to blame.
Question all you want.
I just think it speaks volumes when you profess shock and bewilderment that (gasp) anti-semitism exisits and thrives around the world.
Again, I ask... where was all this condemnation that I'm seeing here now during the past 365+ days when Hamas and Hezbollah were constantly firing missiles into Israel?
From what I've heard Hezbollah has actually adopted pretty well to parliamentary politics within Lebanon. I just heard a BBC report this morning about how they made an alliance with an up and coming Christian who might eventually become head of the country for example. What I was trying to say that here is an Islamist group that seems to be adapting to democracy on the one hand within the country, but is still holding on to all its weapons and being aggressive without, i.e. to Israel, which is why I said they are a pretty good example of the pros & cons of democratizing the Middle East.
As for the continued military campaign in Lebanon, I have no idea how it will turn out, I just hope it doesn't escalate. I keep on thinking of the last time Israel went in. They might have forced the PLO out of Lebanon, but they didn't destroy them and they created Hezbollah as a violent reaction as a consequence. Going against a government and a country like Syria is one ting, going against a non-state actor like Hezbollah is entirely different.