Beardedbruce: from your post I gather that you accept that the Israelis don't really apply any legal pressure to stop assassinations and extra-judicial killings of Palestinian citizens, but you feel the Palestinians are worse because they celebrate. Perhaps the Palestinians do celebrate when Israeli civilians are killed, and I certainly don't approve of this, it is heartbreaking to see any civilians killed (and sometimes soldiers, too, though Jesus did say 'those who live by the sword will die by the sword"). But it seems difficult to decide which is worse objectively - people honestly showing their feelings, however dreadful those feelings are, or a state and people who pretend they are dignified and civilised but find a raft of rhetoric and legal-mumbo jumbo to try and hide their murderous nature from the world. Myself, I reckon one is as bad as the other at least, though the latter is also dishonest.
You will probably be interested in this article (from

Israel's High Court of Justice affirmed today (14 December 2006) the
> legality of the extrajudicial executions of Palestinian activists
> suspected of being "unlawful combatants."
>
> The taking of life based on suspicions against a person, represents a
> gross violation of fundamental principles of law and morality. It is a
> grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, and further, is defined as a war
> crime by the International Criminal Court. These legal-moral principles
> are applicable to every country, organization and person, whether or not
> they are an official party to these instruments.

For the rest of the article, cut / copy and paste this url into an address bar (I tried to make a link, but alas, no joy)



Teribus, I will only give a few short responses here (I can hear the sighs of relief!) as time is pressing.

Regarding Hizbullah locating their military around civilians: As I have pointed out on another thread already, Hizbullah did not arrive from outer space into a previously untroubled Eden whose citizens liked nothing better than to lead simple, untroubled lives until Hizbullah arrived to upset them. Hizbullah originated back in the 1970s as a response to Israeli bombing raids into Lebanon. It draws its support from Lebanon's southern Shia Muslim population. As such, those citizens among whom it has (and with whose consent it has) its military bases, are the families, friends, cousins, neighbours etc., etc., of the Hizbullah fighters, apart from the obvious few who hail from outside Lebanon. Thus when you speak of "It is a deliberate tactic employed to ensure maximum outrage at "civilian" casualties should anyone have the temerity to strike back at them. Basically they hide behind the people they purport to defend" you should bear in mind who these civilians actually are. I have had this fact confirmed to me also by Dr.Ibrahim Mousawi, a director of Al-Manar TV (Hizbullah's TV station) who I had the opportunity to speak to at some length at a conference last Autumn. He added that many of these people were evacutaed by Hizbullah before Israeli airstrikes where possible (naturally, they would try and save their families) and found them accomodation in quieter areas. Currently they are paying many of the displaced people's rents while rebuiliding as much of Southern Lebanon as they can.
If Hizbullah had penetrated deep into Israel (as opposed to vice versa) then the Israeli army would be fighting from among its own civilian population, as Hizbullah were obliged to do last summer. Would we then say with the same nonchalance that the Israeli army hides behind its civilian population? In addition, the distinction between civilian and military in Israel is more blurred than in most countries (except perhaps Switrzerland, where they operate a similar system) as ALL Israeli adults, men and women, are expected to do a number of years military training and operations, and are then on reserve for much of the remainder of their adult life (except, as I mentioned previosuly, Palestinian Israelis, who are barred from military service).

Regarding Ehud Olmert, that was an aside, but evidently his own governement back home thought his remarks sufficently close to the bone to be incensed with his carelessness.

Regarding UN resolution 1441, you will recall that Hans Blix stated that Iraq was complying, grudgingly, but doing so. He said he and his team needed more time to finish the job, in accordance with the remit of resolution 1441. The US decided they weren't going to wait and just went ahead with the invasion anyway, so in the end, resolution 1441 was redundant and might as well not have been bothered with. Hans Blix expressed his frustration and sense of being undermined at the time quite publicly. In the end, no WMD were ever found, apart from a few rocket heads that might once have contained some nerve gas, but were long since rusted. The fact remains that 9/11 was the perfect opportunity for certain elements within the White House (no prizes for guessing who) to puruse an agenda they'd been planning for quite some time (as reveals). Then there was that dossier, based on an out-of-date Phd paper, 'sexed up' to make Iraq look like the biggest new threat on the planet. Sorry, but it was a sack of lies from the beginning. Saddam was quite antagonistic to Al-Qaeda. He was no Islamic fundamentalist, but a good-old-fashioned-Mesopotamian-tyrant. Now Iraq is wide open to Al-Qaeda, and the threat level has gone way up.

As regards the list of 'known sponsors of international terrorism' there is at least one glaring omission: the USA itself. But it doesn't define its own operations as terrorism so it doesn't appear on its own list.

Regarding Human rights in the Middle East. I have already pointed to Saudi Arabia as a country witha poor rights record, but you could add Egypt (also a US ally and a place to where many have been flown by the USA so they can be torture without upsetting the US public) and a number of other countries. I would also add Iran, though surprisingly, not the worst. Iran has been presented as an intolerant, anti-semitic country in the western media. But Iran's Jewish member of parliament had this to say about it:

"Mr Motamed represents Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community, the largest such group in the Middle East outside Israel. Since 1906 Iran's constitution has guaranteed the Jewish community one seat in the Majlis. The Armenian, Assyrian and Zoroastrian minorities together hold a further four seats.

Although he took on Mr Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, Mr Motamed supports the president on other issues, including the standoff with the US, Europe and Israel over the country's nuclear programme. "I am an Iranian first and a Jew second," he said.

He acknowledged there were problems with being a Jew in Iran, as there were for the country's other minorities. But he said that Iran was relatively tolerant. "There is no pressure on the synagogues, no problems of desecration. I think the problem in Europe is worse than here. There is a lot of anti-semitism in other countries."
(Source: Guardian newspaper (UK), Wednesday June 8th 2006).

In case you think I don't pursue Human Rights in other middle eastern countries apart from Israel, you couldn't be more wrong. Currently I am lobbying the Iranian government to free a wrongly jailed trade union leader, an act which I consider a gross breach of human rights. If you wish to help out, you can do so at:

a href="http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=167">Petition to free jailed

It just so happens that Israel is one of the worse offenders in the region when it comes to ceratin categories of people (e.g Palestinians). Here is a letter that appeared in a newspaper in Ireland by a Jewish member of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign explaining why he had joined that campaign:

8 July 2006
Unfounded allegations were levelled against Ireland Palestine group
IT WAS with indignation and great concern that I read Dr Steven King's column (Irish Examiner, July 5) baseless accusations against the Ireland
Palestine Solidarity Campaign (ISPC), which in turn gives reason for great concern
over your newspaper's decision to publish the column.
I am a Jew who was born and raised in Israel and who served in its
military forces, just like Corporal Shalit for whose wellbeing we all pray.
It is my convictions as a Jew and as a human being that led me to join
the IPSC over a year ago.
Through IPSC activities, I have met Israelis who are constantly active
in trying to get the Israeli government to change its policies towards
Palestinians in Israel and towards the Palestinian Authority itself. Most notably, one of the bravest and most outspoken of these people isDr Pappe of Haifa University whom I met when he attended one of the IPSC's functions as a guest speaker. I fail to see how any of this might lead anyone to believe the IPSCharbours any anti-semitic sentiment. Dr King's unfounded and outrageous allegations against the IPSC are matched only by his patent ignorance regarding the state of Israel and its affairs. Having spent more than 25 years living there, I cannot imagine what would lead him to make his claim regarding Israel's "open-mindedness". A simple example to contradict this would be Israel's 'Law of Return' which grants automatic citizenship to Jews wishing to settle there, but does not make such allowance for Palestinians (Muslim and Christian) whose families hold keys to homes in that land. Racism is a dangerous card to play, particularly in relation to anti-semitism in Europe. Playing this card is tantamount to playing with matches in a highly flammable environment. Dr King would be wise to consider this before making further accusations.
Jonathan Sugarman
Dublin

I could paste far more material, but I am trying to keep this post short. The organisation to which Jonathan Sugarman refers can be found at:
Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign

You say you admire my candour in stating that Syria meddles in lebanon, and I thank you. Can you now show the same candour by stating Israel has a rotten record on human rights, especially in relation to Palestinians?

Regarding the 1948 war and the Palestinian refugees. It has often been said (on this forum as well) that the Arab nations decided to invade Israel the day after it was formed under UN mandate in 1948. They advised the Palestinians to flee on the basis that they'd come back once the Jews had been 'pushed into the sea' to use an oft-quoted phrase. It paints a picture of conniving, greedy and treacherous Palestinians, willing to see their Jewish neighbours sacrificed so they could get their lands and possessions. I think if you reflect on it, you might form a different opinion as to why some Palestinians left (some didn't, and many were expelled by Jews). You get a warning that several armies are about to invade. There will be trouble and slaughter. Would you hang around? Personally I would run for the hills, if I had hills to run to. Whether or not you like your Jewish neighbours will be immaterial if soldiers from both sides are concentrated in your town shooting anyone they think is a threat. On the same topic, here is an interesting letter from the Irish Independent:

Arabs had neither five nor six 'armies'
Irish Independent    15th Aug 2006

CONOR Cruise O'Brien (Irish Independent, August 12) repeats his fantastic story on the birth of Isreal. This time he alleges that Israel was "invaded by six Arab armies". Approximately one month ago the same claim was made in this column with just five armies. Next time will it be seven?
The truth of the matter is very different. The war between Israel and the Arabs did not begin with the founding of the state of Israel. A civil war between the Israeli forces (Irgun, Hagannah, Stern gang etc) and the local Arabs had been underway for eight months already.
This war was going Israel's way without any effective Arab resistance. By the time of the formal founding date Israel had already expanded her territory outside of the original areas granted to it by the UN. The neighbouring Arab countries were swollen with masses of refugees who had fled from the fighting or had been forced out in the brutal ethnic cleansing which accompanied the Israeli aggression.
It was in response to this that the neighbouring Arab countries were forced to send forces to contain Israel's expansion.
The term of "five (or six) Arab armies" sounds impressive indeed. The reality was very different. These were not well equipped, experienced, battle hardened warriors as you imply. They were exactly the opposite. Lebanon sent an "army" of all of 1,000 men. The Iraqis withdrew without firing a shot in anger and abandoned the field.
The truth is that the Arab countries adjoining Israel wanted to avoid a war they felt they would not win and they were correct.
There was no unified command, no co-ordination or even communication. They didn't even have the means to effectively resupply their forces. The Jordanians wanted the West Bank and the Holy City and were more worried that the Egyptians might grab it first than in helping their Arab brothers.
The only real set piece battle between Arab and Israeli forces took place when the Israelis failed to take Jerusalem which was defended by the British trained Arab legion.
Not one "invading" Arab soldier set one foot once inside the Israeli zones earmarked by the UN. In fact, by the end of the war the Israelis had an army in the field of approxiamtely 95,000 men. The Arabs had about half that number.

Seamus O'Ceallaigh,
Hamriyah, Dubai,


Two final points - I gather that it was the Israelis who rejected the last Roadmap to Peace, which had been endorsed by the Pan Arab League, consigning the region to further bloodshed.
I haven't had time to check it out for myself, but I accept anyway your statement that Iraq's new government is now recognised by the UN. But I don't think it invalidates my point, as I also mentioned South Africa, and Chile under Pinochet, both of which are radically different and better countries now than before. Plus, the invasion of Iraq was still illegal under international law.

Well, I'd better leave it at that for the moment, as I promised a short post, and well....!