Morality cannot exist in a vacuum. It has to recognize reality. The reality of war is a terrible one, one in which innocents often die, but there it is. If morality dictates that war cannot be prosecuted so long as it may result in civilian deaths then morality has been divorced from reality and has become a suicide pact, at least for those moral nations fighting people with no morality at all.
There is a difference between your reality and one that the rest of the world sees...your reality is blinded by your affiliation. You're saying those poor civilians who cant even get out or get relief b/c of IDF bombing all infrastracture should die b/c hezbollah might not have morals...I think your just opening your morals to be questioned...the IDF is by far not the most moral organization..just watch "Death in Gaza"..l
Britain and Israel face off on filmmaker's death
By Sarah Lyall The New York Times
Published: June 25, 2006
LONDON Three years ago, in an incident that resonates now with the recent killing of seven members of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach, a documentary filmmaker was shot and killed in Gaza.
Then, as now, the victims' families blamed the Israeli military, which denied responsibility. A major difference is that the filmmaker, James Miller, was a British citizen, and after some prodding from his family, his government has taken up his cause.
At first, about the only thing not in dispute in the Miller case was that he was dead, shot on May 2, 2003, in an area of the Gaza Strip thick with Israeli soldiers. The Israelis said he was a casualty of war. His colleagues said he had been killed in cold blood.
His family fought to know more.
A resolution of sorts came in April at a coroner's inquest here into the death of Miller, 34, an experienced filmmaker looking into the effects of violence on children for HBO. The jury's verdict was that he was murdered.
The killer was identified as the commander of an armored personnel carrier in the Israeli Army who had admitted firing his weapon that night, but no one in Israel has been charged, and many of the questions raised in the hours after the shooting have never been resolved.
Suspecting that answers might not be forthcoming, the Miller family sent a private investigator to the scene the day after the killing to do forensic tests - tests, the investigator said, that the Israelis never conducted. In the next few days the army bulldozed the site, destroying much of the remaining evidence, the investigator said.
The Israeli military's criminal investigation, including the basic task of confiscating and securing the soldiers' weapons for tests, did not begin until several weeks after the fact.
Lieutenant Colonel Jana Modzgvrishvily, military advocate for the Israeli Army's southern command, said in an interview that after Miller's death, the army immediately began a standard field investigation, followed by a full military criminal investigation.
She said nine soldiers in the two armored personnel carriers near the scene were repeatedly interviewed and subjected to polygraph tests. She confirmed that the weapons had not been secured for three weeks but said they had been subjected to extensive forensic tests.
It is not just the Miller family who denies that the Israeli inquiry was thorough and comprehensive. So, too, does the coroner at the London inquest, who urged the British government to begin an international prosecution against the commander of the personnel carrier under the Geneva Conventions. So does the British government.
Accounts of what happened diverged almost from the moment Miller was shot.
It was late at night in the ruined town of Rafah, at the southern end of the Gaza Strip, and Miller was concluding his third visit for the film.
He specialized in documentaries about the downtrodden and the oppressed; his past work included "Beneath the Veil" (2001), about the war in Afghanistan, which won Emmy and Peabody awards; "Children of the Secret State" (2000), about famine in North Korea; and "Armenia: The Betrayed" (2002), about the massacres of Armenians in 1915.
Miller and his colleagues had spent the evening at a Palestinian house, filming Israeli bulldozers knocking down Palestinian buildings.
Two Israeli armored personnel carriers were in the area, investigating reports that a Palestinian tunnel under the Egyptian border was being used to smuggle weapons into Gaza.
The vehicles were fired on during the day, and the soldiers responded in kind. By 11 p.m. or so, things were quiet. The filmmakers decided to call it a night.
Wearing flak jackets and hats marked "TV," waving a white cloth in the air that they illuminated with a flashlight and shouting that they were British journalists seeking to leave the area safely, Miller and two colleagues, Saira Shah and Abdul Rahman Abdullah, slowly walked toward one of the armored personnel carriers. But suddenly, according to Shah and Abdullah, a shot rang out close by.
A warning, they said they thought. They dropped to the ground.
Thirteen seconds passed. Then there was a second shot. It hit Miller.
He lost consciousness almost immediately and was pronounced dead at an Israeli base. His wife, Sophy, at home with their children, then 3 and 1, and expecting her husband home the next day, woke up to a phone call from a distraught Shah.
Soon it was all over the news. But while Miller's colleagues said he had been shot in the front of the neck from the direction of one of the Israeli vehicles, the Israelis initially gave a different account.
Miller walked into an exchange of gunfire, they said, and was hit in the back by a Palestinian bullet.
The next day, the Miller family dispatched Chris Cobb-Smith, a security expert and British Army veteran, to Gaza to investigate.
"The emphasis had to be on us to do the proper investigations, because it was obvious that the IDF was not going to conduct their investigation with any impartiality," said Cobb-Smith. The initials stand for the Israeli military's official name, the Israeli Defense Forces.
His examination of footprints, tank tracks and traces of blood and bullet holes, among other things, led him to conclude that the shot that had killed Miller had come from an Israeli vehicle.
He said no one from the Israeli Army had interviewed him about his findings. One of the most important pieces of evidence was a grainy video taken by an Associated Press Television News cameraman from the balcony of the building that Miller had just left. Seven intermittent shots can be clearly heard on the audio, 13 seconds apart, then 12, then 5, then 15, then 5, then 12.
"These shots were not fired by a soldier in response to incoming fire," Cobb-Smith said. "They were slow and calculated and deliberate." He added, "I have no doubt that it was cold-blooded murder."
Interviewed at home in rural Braunton, Devon, Sophy Miller said her husband had worked in hostile environments for 14 years and was known for his extreme caution. She says she has fought so hard not just for her husband, but because she is disturbed at what she sees as the lack of accountability in the Israeli Army in this and other cases. The Israelis now agree that Miller was indeed shot in the neck, from the front. But they say there is no evidence that M-16 bullet fragments recovered from his body match the guns of any Israeli soldiers in the area.
The army's 94-page report shows that the investigation focused almost immediately on the commander of one of the Israeli personnel carriers, the only one who fired his weapon around the time Miller died.
But although the commander, identified in the report as First Lieutenant H., gave conflicting accounts in six separate interviews of when and why he had fired, he was adamant - as was every other soldier - that they could neither see nor hear the Britons approaching.
Miller's colleagues disputed that, saying the soldiers knew they had been filming from the balcony and had taunted them from their vehicles. The evening was clear, they said; the soldiers had night-vision equipment.
The military's judge advocate general recommended that the commander, who has since been identified by the Miller family as First Lieutenant Hib al- Heib, be disciplined for improperly using his weapon. But the recommendation was rejected.
The London inquest, held as is the custom in Britain when a citizen dies in violent circumstances abroad, took place this spring. The coroner, Dr. Andrew Reid, criticized Israel for not participating and joined Miller's family in calling for the British government to consider an international prosecution of the Israeli soldier. The Millers have filed a civil lawsuit in Israel.
Anne Waddington, James Miller's older sister, said that while the jury's conclusion was reassuring, it was not enough.
"We've struggled for three years to put the pieces of this tragic jigsaw together," she said in an interview. "We have all pursued justice all of our lives, and James was the biggest and best of all in doing that. For the circumstances of his death to be treated with such disdain by the Israelis is something we cannot forgive."
After Miller died, his colleagues finished the film, ending it with his killing. Its title was "Death in Gaza," and it won a host of awards, including three Emmys.
Israel was perfectly innocent before two of it's soldiers were kidnapped. They were only continuing to occupy the Shebaa farms area of Lebanon and hold thousands of Lebanese prisoners in their jails. They were also continuing the illegal and brutal military occupation of the West bank and Gaza. But nevermind all that. Two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and so they are now perfectly justified in killing over 900 Lebanese civilians, half of them children.
This is not much different to how a lot of people viewed the events of 9/11. I.e, the U.S was perfectly innocent before 9/11. After 9/11 it was justified in premptively attacking any country it felt like attacking.
This is a very convenient viewpoint to have. It means that one can ignore history and go through life being a bigoted idiot, selecting whichever facts one chooses to support ones political agenda, and without any reference to the bigger picture. I wish I could exist in such a limited bubble of conservative convenience.
It is amazing how much you can get wrong in one paragraph. To begin with the Shebaa Farms does not belong to Lebanon. The area belonged to Syria before Israel conquered it. It has never been a part of Lebanon. The UN has confirmed this. Hezbollah claimed after Israel pulled out of all of Lebanon in 2000 that the Shebaa Farms was Lebanese territory so that they (Hezbollah) could still have a reason for launching attacks on Israel. Check what the UN says on the issue. Israel was holding three Lebanese prisoners before the current violence erupted. This has been stated repeatedly by Shiraz. Each of these prisoners was given a fair trial and found guilty of being involved in criminal acts. These are not political prisoners. (This leaves aside the fact that attacking civilians is not a legitimate means of freeing prisoners to begin with. What, do you think this is ok because they're terrorists and that's what they do?) The occupation of the West Bank is an Israeli-Palestinian issue. It has nothing to do with the Lebanese. According to your logic, any country, or group of people, are legitimate in attacking another country that they percieve to be harming a third party. I assume that you therefore support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam was brutally repressing his own people. You also say that Israel was occupying Gaza. This is simply not true. Israel ended its occupation of Gaza over a year ago. Finally Israel has killed just over 500 Lebanese civilians, not 900, and I have no idea where you have heard that half of these have been children. (That leaves aside the fact that civilian deaths in war are a sad fact, but not illegitimate by definition). I'll leave aside 9/11 for the most part, but the implication that America somehow deserved what happened on 9/11, or brought that tragedy down upon themselves, is a disgusting and inhumane and wrong assertion. 19 men did not have to kill 3000 innocent Americans. They had a choice in there actions. The fact that you deny any sort of moral subjectivity to terrorist is disgusting. They are never responsible for the horrors they cause. It is always the victims that brought the terrorism on themselves. Sick!
Yeah, those IDF internal investigations really are worth the paper they're written on.
Let see if the UK starts bombing Israeli infrastructure because of this murder.
One can but hope.
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
Israel was perfectly innocent before two of it's soldiers were kidnapped. They were only continuing to occupy the Shebaa farms area of Lebanon and hold thousands of Lebanese prisoners in their jails. They were also continuing the illegal and brutal military occupation of the West bank and Gaza. But nevermind all that. Two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and so they are now perfectly justified in killing over 900 Lebanese civilians, half of them children.
This is not much different to how a lot of people viewed the events of 9/11. I.e, the U.S was perfectly innocent before 9/11. After 9/11 it was justified in premptively attacking any country it felt like attacking.
This is a very convenient viewpoint to have. It means that one can ignore history and go through life being a bigoted idiot, selecting whichever facts one chooses to support ones political agenda, and without any reference to the bigger picture. I wish I could exist in such a limited bubble of conservative convenience.
Shebaa farms belongs to Syria, we have only 3-4 Lebanese prisoners who were sent to prison after a fair trial, Hizbullah fired towards 2 northern Israeli villages, crossed to Israeli border, kill and kidnapped army reserved soliders before Israel had reacted, Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with Lebanon, But nevermind all that FACTS , lets just keep on using false argumentations to support your narrow point of view. So how is it going in your convenient bubble?
Shebaa farms belongs to Syria, we have only 4 Lebanese prisoners who were sent to prison after a fair trial, Hizbullah fired towards 2 northern Israeli villages, crossed to Israeli border, kill and kidnapped army reserved soliders before Israel had reacted, Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with Lebanon, But nevermind all that FACTS , lets just keep on using false argumentations to support your narrow point of view. So how is it going in your convenient bubble?
Haha. What FACTS are these? The ones reported by the IDF, by and chance?
Head, sand, blood on your hands. There's a sentence in there somewhere...
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
There is a difference between your reality and one that the rest of the world sees...your reality is blinded by your affiliation. You're saying those poor civilians who cant even get out or get relief b/c of IDF bombing all infrastracture should die b/c hezbollah might not have morals...I think your just opening your morals to be questioned...the IDF is by far not the most moral organization..just watch "Death in Gaza"
I am not saying that these civilians SHOULD die. I am saying that Israel is fighting a legitimate military campaign against an enemy that attacked them first without provocation, and then intentionally adopted the strategic position of hiding amongst a civilian population in the hopes that civilians would be killed by Israel. Make no mistake that Hezbollah gains from civilian deaths and that it is there policy to put civilians in harms way for exactly this reason. Israel does not want to kill civilians. It is morally wrong and it is strategically wrong. Israel, despite what you might think, and despite the actions of isolated soldiers in the past, attempts to use its military in as moral a fashion as they can. (I'm sure you won't believe that but it's true so far as I can tell in the majority of cases. I am not defending all of Israel's history. I oppose the occupation of Palestinian territories, but I believe that since Israel made a serious attempt at ending the occupation in 2000 the onus is now on the Palestinians to prove to a terrorized Israeli public that ending what is left of the occupation will not result in yet another wave of terror in Israel.) Furthermore, Israel is not stupid. We realize here that civilian deaths hurt our ability to carry out our military operations because they cause the international community to put pressure on us to conclude our operations. From a military perspective civilian deaths are a strategic liability, yet another reason why the IDF does its best to avoid them. Unfortunately they are to a certain extent unavoidable unless Israel was to forego entirely any sort of military response to Hezbollah's initial and continuing attacks on Israeli civilians.
I am not saying that these civilians SHOULD die. I am saying that Israel is fighting a legitimate military campaign against an enemy that attacked them first without provocation, and then intentionally adopted the strategic position of hiding amongst a civilian population in the hopes that civilians would be killed by Israel. Make no mistake that Hezbollah gains from civilian deaths and that it is there policy to put civilians in harms way for exactly this reason. Israel does not want to kill civilians. It is morally wrong and it is strategically wrong. Israel, despite what you might think, and despite the actions of isolated soldiers in the past, attempts to use its military in as moral a fashion as they can. (I'm sure you won't believe that but it's true so far as I can tell in the majority of cases. I am not defending all of Israel's history. I oppose the occupation of Palestinian territories, but I believe that since Israel made a serious attempt at ending the occupation in 2000 the onus is now on the Palestinians to prove to a terrorized Israeli public that ending what is left of the occupation will not result in yet another wave of terror in Israel.) Furthermore, Israel is not stupid. We realize here that civilian deaths hurt our ability to carry out our military operations because they cause the international community to put pressure on us to conclude our operations. From a military perspective civilian deaths are a strategic liability, yet another reason why the IDF does its best to avoid them. Unfortunately they are to a certain extent unavoidable unless Israel was to forego entirely any sort of military response to Hezbollah's initial and continuing attacks on Israeli civilians.
Two frickin soldiers and all this death come on man....?!?!?! I'll keep saying it cant play the victim anymore...not after all this death.
Haha. What FACTS are these? The ones reported by the IDF, by and chance?
Head, sand, blood on your hands. There's a sentence in there somewhere...
You can believe what you want. However these are facts reported not only by the IDF, but by every reputable news agency in the world. AND, to speak about the IDF for a moment, you cannot simply say that what they report is false. I know many people in the IDF at various levels, and they are good and decent people who serve because they want to defend their country. I am amazed that people can hold such an anachronistic view of the IDF as this legion of cold-blooded killers goose stepping their way across the Middle East. The reality is far different. It is a true people's army made up of soldiers who are little more than children, and reservists who are husbands and fathers.
Is Israel's strategy (in its view, attacking Lebanon for reprisal of Hezbollah's kidnappings of 2 soldiers) effective? After 3 weeks of bombing, 10 times over the number of casualties in Lebanon, displacement of civilians, is Israel feeling more secure? Is it achieving its objectives? How long will it take?
I briefly caught Netanyahu on British TV the other morning talking of this conflict as "World War III", and I quote his words, uttered casually, as if it was normal to talk about World War III. That sent chills down my spine... No lessons learnt from Iraq? The regional implications of this conflict are scary.
Not to mention, so many kids growing up hating Israel....
I really struggle to see what the benefits are for Israel - the strategy of attacking Lebanon to get rid of Hizbullah. I think it's counterproductive, from an Israeli point of view, not to mention appalling from the Lebanese.
What do you guys think?
Laura
PS Sorry for slightly derailing the conversation off topic!
Two frickin soldiers and all this death come on man....?!?!?! I'll keep saying it cant play the victim anymore...not after all this death.
It isn't only about the two kidnapped soldiers. It is also about the rain of rockets hitting Israel's north, and more importantly the fact that Israel is really fighting Iran. Hezbollah is simply their proxy. Iran had thought that they could use Hezbollah as a deterent against Israel. Israel is fighting to destroy that Iranian deterant and to show Iran that Israel will use force if necessary to defend itself. With Iran on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, and their leader speaking about wiping Israel off the map, this is an urgent and existential need.
Two frickin soldiers and all this death come on man....?!?!?! I'll keep saying it cant play the victim anymore...not after all this death.
Israeli & Lebanese civilians are the victims of Hizbullah - you can't blame just one side only because I'm not dead yet out of Hizbullah's missiles. The only thing which makes our casualties number "lower" is the fact we have shelters & that 50% of us northern Israeli civilians just ran away. If Hizbullah hadn't started this shit FOR NO REASON, both Lebanon & Northern Israel would have continued to blossom.
Is Israel's strategy (in its view, attacking Lebanon for reprisal of Hezbollah's kidnappings of 2 soldiers) effective? After 3 weeks of bombing, 10 times over the number of casualties in Lebanon, displacement of civilians, is Israel feeling more secure? Is it achieving its objectives? How long will it take?
I briefly caught Netanyahu on British TV the other morning talking of this conflict as "World War III", and I quote his words, uttered casually, as if it was normal to talk about World War III. That sent chills down my spine... No lessons learnt from Iraq? The regional implications of this conflict are scary.
Not to mention, so many kids growing up hating Israel....
I really struggle to see what the benefits are for Israel - the strategy of attacking Lebanon to get rid of Hizbullah. I think it's counterproductive, from an Israeli point of view, not to mention appalling from the Lebanese.
What do you guys think?
Laura
PS Sorry for slightly derailing the conversation off topic!
With regard to Netanyahu, Israelis have lived with war for as long as there has been a state. They are just casual about these things because they are used to them. It doesn't mean that we don't take such things deadly seriously, or that they don't scare us also.
I do think that Israel is making gains. They have seriously degraded Hezbollah, though they have not destroyed them utterly. This is good for Israel in that obviously it means that Hezbollah will be less able to further attack Israel, and that a weakened Hezbollah will be more easily dealt with (I hope) by those that should have dealt with them in the first place, and that is the Lebanese themselves. Israel has also sent a message to the real, and far more dangerous, of its enemies, which is Iran. They have shown them that Israel can absorb the worst that Hezbollah can throw at them, and that Israel will use terrible force to defend itself. Israel's actions have not been perfect, nor have they resulted in great gains, but I see few ways in which they could have acted differently.
You can believe what you want. However these are facts reported not only by the IDF, but by every reputable news agency in the world. AND, to speak about the IDF for a moment, you cannot simply say that what they report is false. I know many people in the IDF at various levels, and they are good and decent people who serve because they want to defend their country. I am amazed that people can hold such an anachronistic view of the IDF as this legion of cold-blooded killers goose stepping their way across the Middle East. The reality is far different. It is a true people's army made up of soldiers who are little more than children, and reservists who are husbands and fathers.
Defending a country is siting your border and repelling any attacks.
It is not bulldozing Palestinian houses, it is not carpet bombing a soveriegn nation, it is not economically blockading a nation and preventing aid supplies reaching the needy, it is not creating a refugee crisis by displacing nearly a million civilians.
That to me, is goose stepping all over the middle east. As will be the Sinai and the transjordan area in the coming months.
And yes, i really do know that people in armies are good people, are people like you and me, are young men sent of and ordered to do another's killing.
All reports that come from the IDF do not come from these people, they come from the bastards at the top of the tree, those who do the bidding of the bigger bastards in government. All military driven nations are the same.
Pawns in chess, somebody once said.
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
Israeli & Lebanese civilians are the victims of Hizbullah - you can't blame just one side only because I'm not dead yet out of Hizbullah's missiles. The only thing which makes our casualties number "lower" is the fact we have shelters & that 50% of us northern Israeli civilians just ran away. If Hizbullah hadn't started this shit FOR NO REASON, both Lebanon & Northern Israel would have continued to blossom.
The only reason casualties are lower is because of shelters? Get the f*ck out of here!
The only reason is that the US doesn't provide $4billion a year to Hezbollah, half of which has to be spent on military hardware from the country in the world who has developed the most lethal killing apparatus known to man!!
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
Is Israel's strategy (in its view, attacking Lebanon for reprisal of Hezbollah's kidnappings of 2 soldiers) effective? After 3 weeks of bombing, 10 times over the number of casualties in Lebanon, displacement of civilians, is Israel feeling more secure? Is it achieving its objectives? How long will it take?
I briefly caught Netanyahu on British TV the other morning talking of this conflict as "World War III", and I quote his words, uttered casually, as if it was normal to talk about World War III. That sent chills down my spine... No lessons learnt from Iraq? The regional implications of this conflict are scary.
Not to mention, so many kids growing up hating Israel....
I really struggle to see what the benefits are for Israel - the strategy of attacking Lebanon to get rid of Hizbullah. I think it's counterproductive, from an Israeli point of view, not to mention appalling from the Lebanese.
What do you guys think?
Laura
PS Sorry for slightly derailing the conversation off topic!
Hi Laura,
We had to react because Hizbullah had fired at 2 Israeli villages, crossed the Israeli border, kill & kidnapped soliders. I think our response was over-reacted, however it is too late and quite pointless to stop now without someone would assure me (an Israeli civilian) or ruud (a lebanese civilian) Hizbullah are under the control of Lebanon & some Int armed force, instaed of the opposite (which is the current situation). Please understand, Hizbullah is a terror organization who has been told to get rid of its arsenal back in 2000 (after Israel moved out of Lebanon). If they continue to have weapons & take over the Lebanese state by force, I can assure you the same conflict will erupt in about 3 years from now. Someone needs to stop them somehow, for the sake of Lebanon & Israel. Eventually, none of the countries across the world has helped Lebanon to get control on Hizbullah since 2000, Lebanon couldn't do it itself and now all of us here have the summer from hell.
The only reason casualties are lower is because of shelters? Get the f*ck out of here!
The only reason is that the US doesn't provide $4billion a year to Hezbollah, half of which has to be spent on military hardware from the country in the world who has developed the most lethal killing apparatus known to man!!
I chose to stay in the shelter, 50% chose to run away, almoat all of Israeli casualties (jews & arabs) were outside/un-protected place when the missile hit them. But sure, keep on assuming things while I'm living the reality from hell.
We had to react because Hizbullah had fired at 2 Israeli villages, crossed the Israeli border, kill & kidnapped soliders. .
WRONG
Hizbullah’s attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon By Anders Strindberg
Opinion from the August 01, 2006 edition
NEW YORK – As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. “Israel” is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.
Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of “Israel’s” silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, “Israel” has violated the United Nations-monitored “blue line” on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah’s military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into “Israel” only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah’s leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.
In the process of its violations, “Israel” has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. “Israel” has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon’s Shibaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?
Hizbullah’s capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of “Israel” and its allies, Hizbullah – easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East – unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.
Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, “Israel” has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be “manufactured” by the enemies of “Israel”; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which “Israel” was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.
Once the Arabs had rejected the UN’s right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of “Israel” in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet “Israel” continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.
For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. “”Israel” must remain a Jewish state,” is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that “Israel” is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.
Is it not understandable that “Israel’s” ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that “Israel” acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize “Israel’s” right to exist at the Palestinians’ expense.
Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians’ rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.
By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure?
When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid – some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism – we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.
The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is “practical” and “realistic.” Yet reality is that “Israel” is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.
A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in “Israel’s” foundational and persistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to “wipe out Jews,” as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.
These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone – anyone – to stand up for Arab rights. “Israel” cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If “Israel”, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If “Israel” cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.
Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications.
Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
I do think that Israel is making gains. They have seriously degraded Hezbollah, though they have not destroyed them utterly. This is good for Israel in that obviously it means that Hezbollah will be less able to further attack Israel, and that a weakened Hezbollah will be more easily dealt with (I hope) by those that should have dealt with them in the first place, and that is the Lebanese themselves. Israel has also sent a message to the real, and far more dangerous, of its enemies, which is Iran. They have shown them that Israel can absorb the worst that Hezbollah can throw at them, and that Israel will use terrible force to defend itself. Israel's actions have not been perfect, nor have they resulted in great gains, but I see few ways in which they could have acted differently.
I think my point is that after 3 weeks Israel is still fighting Hizbullah, despite the devastation of Lebanon's infrastructure and immense loss of civilian life. It is not a short war and it looks like it will continue. So I think Israel's miscalculated here. I also actually think that Hizbullah has raised its profile in the Middle East and will find more supporters than it had before this latest conflict started.
If you look at terrorist movements throughout history, just violence is not the means to defeat them.
Defending a country is siting your border and repelling any attacks.
It is not bulldozing Palestinian houses, it is not carpet bombing a soveriegn nation, it is not economically blockading a nation and preventing aid supplies reaching the needy, it is not creating a refugee crisis by displacing nearly a million civilians.
That to me, is goose stepping all over the middle east. As will be the Sinai and the transjordan area in the coming months.
And yes, i really do know that people in armies are good people, are people like you and me, are young men sent of and ordered to do another's killing.
All reports that come from the IDF do not come from these people, they come from the bastards at the top of the tree, those who do the bidding of the bigger bastards in government. All military driven nations are the same.
none-biased info with references from all across the world. If you really would like to try and see the whole picture - check it out. If you only want to prove your narrow point of view=the whole picture without even bother to litsen to what the "other side" has to say, than there is no point for any of us have a discussion with you.
Ok. You. Win. Ya got me. That makes me wrong. Wiki knows ALL!!!!
Give me a f*cking break.
And I see that shelter of yours has internet connection...
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
I think my point is that after 3 weeks Israel is still fighting Hizbullah, despite the devastation of Lebanon's infrastructure and immense loss of civilian life. It is not a short war and it looks like it will continue. So I think Israel's miscalculated here. I also actually think that Hizbullah has raised its profile in the Middle East and will find more supporters than it had before this latest conflict started.
If you look at terrorist movements throughout history, just violence is not the means to defeat them.
Again, I think now we can both agree on what you've just said, however it is too late to stop and one can't do it before Lebanon & the UN army will take control over a weakened Hizbullah. If we stop now and everyone will keep ignoring Hizbullah, the same story will repeate itself very soon. I can also tell you I can not trust Hizbullah for stop shooting at me, after they shot missiles at Kiryat Shmona & depper into Israeli areas DURING the 2-days cease-fire we had with them.
We had to react because Hizbullah had fired at 2 Israeli villages, crossed the Israeli border, kill & kidnapped soliders. I think our response was over-reacted, however it is too late and quite pointless to stop now without someone would assure me (an Israeli civilian) or ruud (a lebanese civilian) Hizbullah are under the control of Lebanon & some Int armed force, instaed of the opposite (which is the current situation). Please understand, Hizbullah is a terror organization who has been told to get rid of its arsenal back in 2000 (after Israel moved out of Lebanon). If they continue to have weapons & take over the Lebanese state by force, I can assure you the same conflict will erupt in about 3 years from now. Someone needs to stop them somehow, for the sake of Lebanon & Israel. Eventually, none of the countries across the world has helped Lebanon to get control on Hizbullah since 2000, Lebanon couldn't do it itself and now all of us here have the summer from hell.
Hello Shiraz,
My argument is that Israel should have adopted a different strategy to deal with Hizbullah, as this is proving not effective, even without considering the human costs.
Also, with regard to the chronology of this latest conflict, there is dispute according to whose accounts you read.
But considering how things stand at the moment, I believe that dealing with the Hizbullah problem has been made much worse.
Ok. You. Win. Ya got me. That makes me wrong. Wiki knows ALL!!!!
Give me a f*cking break.
And I see that shelter of yours has internet connection...
"references from all across the world". I see you missed that part. And yes, we have Internet in Israel, I'm using a cable modem. Should I apologize for that too or only for the fact me & my friends are not dead yet?
My argument is that Israel should have adopted a different strategy to deal with Hizbullah, as this is proving not effective, even without considering the human costs.
Also, with regard to the chronology of this latest conflict, there is dispute according to whose accounts you read.
But considering how things stand at the moment, I believe that dealing with the Hizbullah problem has been made much worse.
I've alreay replied you in another post, but I gotta say something regarding this one - There is no argument about the chronology of this latest conflict, even the arab media and Hizbullah itself (via their TV network - Al Manar) are claiming the same thing Israel is.
Again, I think now we can both agree on what you've just said, however it is too late to stop and one can't do it before Lebanon & the UN army will take control over a weakened Hizbullah. If we stop now and everyone will keep ignoring Hizbullah, the same story will repeate itself very soon. I can also tell you I can not trust Hizbullah for stop shooting at me, after they shot missiles at Kiryat Shmona & depper into Israeli areas DURING the 2-days cease-fire we had with them.
What are you suggesting we'll do now?
I think there should be an immediate ceasefire, before things get out of control. Israel's image has definitely worsened in the Western world with this latest action, IMO.
The Palestinian issue must be tackled once and for all. Arafat is no longer on the scene. So, a deal must be reached, otherwise further conflicts will always be possible.
With regard to Hizbullah, more support for the Lebanese government from the Western powers (especially the US).
Also, any talks about Hizbullah include Iran and Syria. You cannot exclude them as it happened in the Rome meeting soon after this war started.
Defending a country is siting your border and repelling any attacks.
It is not bulldozing Palestinian houses, it is not carpet bombing a soveriegn nation, it is not economically blockading a nation and preventing aid supplies reaching the needy, it is not creating a refugee crisis by displacing nearly a million civilians.
That to me, is goose stepping all over the middle east. As will be the Sinai and the transjordan area in the coming months.
And yes, i really do know that people in armies are good people, are people like you and me, are young men sent of and ordered to do another's killing.
All reports that come from the IDF do not come from these people, they come from the bastards at the top of the tree, those who do the bidding of the bigger bastards in government. All military driven nations are the same.
Pawns in chess, somebody once said.
I have nothing to say but that your wrong and I'm simply fed up of repeating the same things over and over again. It never does any good. You're wedded to your illusions and nothing I can say will change your mind.
I've alreay replied you in another post, but I gotta say something regarding this one - There is no argument about the chronology of this latest conflict, even the arab media and Hizbullah itself (via their TV network - Al Manar) are claiming the same thing Israel is.
This is an op-ed piece from the Guardian, a UK broadsheet. Just to give you an example that the media is not all in agreement with regard to the chronology of events.
Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong
The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary
George Monbiot
Tuesday August 8, 2006
The Guardian
Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.
Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.
In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".
On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12.
There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it simply states that "the Islamic resistance captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine". Three other Israeli soldiers were killed by the militants. There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion. No one was hit.
But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.
On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".
A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.
Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.
So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?
I think there should be an immediate ceasefire, before things get out of control. Israel's image has definitely worsened in the Western world with this latest action, IMO.
The Palestinian issue must be tackled once and for all. Arafat is no longer on the scene. So, a deal must be reached, otherwise further conflicts will always be possible.
With regard to Hizbullah, more support for the Lebanese government from the Western powers (especially the US).
Also, any talks about Hizbullah include Iran and Syria. You cannot exclude them as it happened in the Rome meeting soon after this war started.
I agree with all of this, except like Shiraz I have to point out that there really isn't any question as to the fact that Hezbollah holds responsibility for starting the current conflict.
I agree with all of this, except like Shiraz I have to point out that there really isn't any question as to the fact that Hezbollah holds responsibility for starting the current conflict.
I still think it is a matter of perspectives and how far back you go with the chain of events.
Hopefully, the French will succeed in their diplomatic effort and this conflict will end.
Comments
There is a difference between your reality and one that the rest of the world sees...your reality is blinded by your affiliation. You're saying those poor civilians who cant even get out or get relief b/c of IDF bombing all infrastracture should die b/c hezbollah might not have morals...I think your just opening your morals to be questioned...the IDF is by far not the most moral organization..just watch "Death in Gaza"..l
Britain and Israel face off on filmmaker's death
By Sarah Lyall The New York Times
Published: June 25, 2006
LONDON Three years ago, in an incident that resonates now with the recent killing of seven members of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach, a documentary filmmaker was shot and killed in Gaza.
Then, as now, the victims' families blamed the Israeli military, which denied responsibility. A major difference is that the filmmaker, James Miller, was a British citizen, and after some prodding from his family, his government has taken up his cause.
At first, about the only thing not in dispute in the Miller case was that he was dead, shot on May 2, 2003, in an area of the Gaza Strip thick with Israeli soldiers. The Israelis said he was a casualty of war. His colleagues said he had been killed in cold blood.
His family fought to know more.
A resolution of sorts came in April at a coroner's inquest here into the death of Miller, 34, an experienced filmmaker looking into the effects of violence on children for HBO. The jury's verdict was that he was murdered.
The killer was identified as the commander of an armored personnel carrier in the Israeli Army who had admitted firing his weapon that night, but no one in Israel has been charged, and many of the questions raised in the hours after the shooting have never been resolved.
Suspecting that answers might not be forthcoming, the Miller family sent a private investigator to the scene the day after the killing to do forensic tests - tests, the investigator said, that the Israelis never conducted. In the next few days the army bulldozed the site, destroying much of the remaining evidence, the investigator said.
The Israeli military's criminal investigation, including the basic task of confiscating and securing the soldiers' weapons for tests, did not begin until several weeks after the fact.
Lieutenant Colonel Jana Modzgvrishvily, military advocate for the Israeli Army's southern command, said in an interview that after Miller's death, the army immediately began a standard field investigation, followed by a full military criminal investigation.
She said nine soldiers in the two armored personnel carriers near the scene were repeatedly interviewed and subjected to polygraph tests. She confirmed that the weapons had not been secured for three weeks but said they had been subjected to extensive forensic tests.
It is not just the Miller family who denies that the Israeli inquiry was thorough and comprehensive. So, too, does the coroner at the London inquest, who urged the British government to begin an international prosecution against the commander of the personnel carrier under the Geneva Conventions. So does the British government.
Accounts of what happened diverged almost from the moment Miller was shot.
It was late at night in the ruined town of Rafah, at the southern end of the Gaza Strip, and Miller was concluding his third visit for the film.
He specialized in documentaries about the downtrodden and the oppressed; his past work included "Beneath the Veil" (2001), about the war in Afghanistan, which won Emmy and Peabody awards; "Children of the Secret State" (2000), about famine in North Korea; and "Armenia: The Betrayed" (2002), about the massacres of Armenians in 1915.
Miller and his colleagues had spent the evening at a Palestinian house, filming Israeli bulldozers knocking down Palestinian buildings.
Two Israeli armored personnel carriers were in the area, investigating reports that a Palestinian tunnel under the Egyptian border was being used to smuggle weapons into Gaza.
The vehicles were fired on during the day, and the soldiers responded in kind. By 11 p.m. or so, things were quiet. The filmmakers decided to call it a night.
Wearing flak jackets and hats marked "TV," waving a white cloth in the air that they illuminated with a flashlight and shouting that they were British journalists seeking to leave the area safely, Miller and two colleagues, Saira Shah and Abdul Rahman Abdullah, slowly walked toward one of the armored personnel carriers. But suddenly, according to Shah and Abdullah, a shot rang out close by.
A warning, they said they thought. They dropped to the ground.
Thirteen seconds passed. Then there was a second shot. It hit Miller.
He lost consciousness almost immediately and was pronounced dead at an Israeli base. His wife, Sophy, at home with their children, then 3 and 1, and expecting her husband home the next day, woke up to a phone call from a distraught Shah.
Soon it was all over the news. But while Miller's colleagues said he had been shot in the front of the neck from the direction of one of the Israeli vehicles, the Israelis initially gave a different account.
Miller walked into an exchange of gunfire, they said, and was hit in the back by a Palestinian bullet.
The next day, the Miller family dispatched Chris Cobb-Smith, a security expert and British Army veteran, to Gaza to investigate.
"The emphasis had to be on us to do the proper investigations, because it was obvious that the IDF was not going to conduct their investigation with any impartiality," said Cobb-Smith. The initials stand for the Israeli military's official name, the Israeli Defense Forces.
His examination of footprints, tank tracks and traces of blood and bullet holes, among other things, led him to conclude that the shot that had killed Miller had come from an Israeli vehicle.
He said no one from the Israeli Army had interviewed him about his findings. One of the most important pieces of evidence was a grainy video taken by an Associated Press Television News cameraman from the balcony of the building that Miller had just left. Seven intermittent shots can be clearly heard on the audio, 13 seconds apart, then 12, then 5, then 15, then 5, then 12.
"These shots were not fired by a soldier in response to incoming fire," Cobb-Smith said. "They were slow and calculated and deliberate." He added, "I have no doubt that it was cold-blooded murder."
Interviewed at home in rural Braunton, Devon, Sophy Miller said her husband had worked in hostile environments for 14 years and was known for his extreme caution. She says she has fought so hard not just for her husband, but because she is disturbed at what she sees as the lack of accountability in the Israeli Army in this and other cases. The Israelis now agree that Miller was indeed shot in the neck, from the front. But they say there is no evidence that M-16 bullet fragments recovered from his body match the guns of any Israeli soldiers in the area.
The army's 94-page report shows that the investigation focused almost immediately on the commander of one of the Israeli personnel carriers, the only one who fired his weapon around the time Miller died.
But although the commander, identified in the report as First Lieutenant H., gave conflicting accounts in six separate interviews of when and why he had fired, he was adamant - as was every other soldier - that they could neither see nor hear the Britons approaching.
Miller's colleagues disputed that, saying the soldiers knew they had been filming from the balcony and had taunted them from their vehicles. The evening was clear, they said; the soldiers had night-vision equipment.
The military's judge advocate general recommended that the commander, who has since been identified by the Miller family as First Lieutenant Hib al- Heib, be disciplined for improperly using his weapon. But the recommendation was rejected.
The London inquest, held as is the custom in Britain when a citizen dies in violent circumstances abroad, took place this spring. The coroner, Dr. Andrew Reid, criticized Israel for not participating and joined Miller's family in calling for the British government to consider an international prosecution of the Israeli soldier. The Millers have filed a civil lawsuit in Israel.
Anne Waddington, James Miller's older sister, said that while the jury's conclusion was reassuring, it was not enough.
"We've struggled for three years to put the pieces of this tragic jigsaw together," she said in an interview. "We have all pursued justice all of our lives, and James was the biggest and best of all in doing that. For the circumstances of his death to be treated with such disdain by the Israelis is something we cannot forgive."
After Miller died, his colleagues finished the film, ending it with his killing. Its title was "Death in Gaza," and it won a host of awards, including three Emmys.
It is amazing how much you can get wrong in one paragraph. To begin with the Shebaa Farms does not belong to Lebanon. The area belonged to Syria before Israel conquered it. It has never been a part of Lebanon. The UN has confirmed this. Hezbollah claimed after Israel pulled out of all of Lebanon in 2000 that the Shebaa Farms was Lebanese territory so that they (Hezbollah) could still have a reason for launching attacks on Israel. Check what the UN says on the issue. Israel was holding three Lebanese prisoners before the current violence erupted. This has been stated repeatedly by Shiraz. Each of these prisoners was given a fair trial and found guilty of being involved in criminal acts. These are not political prisoners. (This leaves aside the fact that attacking civilians is not a legitimate means of freeing prisoners to begin with. What, do you think this is ok because they're terrorists and that's what they do?) The occupation of the West Bank is an Israeli-Palestinian issue. It has nothing to do with the Lebanese. According to your logic, any country, or group of people, are legitimate in attacking another country that they percieve to be harming a third party. I assume that you therefore support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam was brutally repressing his own people. You also say that Israel was occupying Gaza. This is simply not true. Israel ended its occupation of Gaza over a year ago. Finally Israel has killed just over 500 Lebanese civilians, not 900, and I have no idea where you have heard that half of these have been children. (That leaves aside the fact that civilian deaths in war are a sad fact, but not illegitimate by definition). I'll leave aside 9/11 for the most part, but the implication that America somehow deserved what happened on 9/11, or brought that tragedy down upon themselves, is a disgusting and inhumane and wrong assertion. 19 men did not have to kill 3000 innocent Americans. They had a choice in there actions. The fact that you deny any sort of moral subjectivity to terrorist is disgusting. They are never responsible for the horrors they cause. It is always the victims that brought the terrorism on themselves. Sick!
Let see if the UK starts bombing Israeli infrastructure because of this murder.
One can but hope.
Shebaa farms belongs to Syria, we have only 3-4 Lebanese prisoners who were sent to prison after a fair trial, Hizbullah fired towards 2 northern Israeli villages, crossed to Israeli border, kill and kidnapped army reserved soliders before Israel had reacted, Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with Lebanon, But nevermind all that FACTS , lets just keep on using false argumentations to support your narrow point of view. So how is it going in your convenient bubble?
Haha. What FACTS are these? The ones reported by the IDF, by and chance?
Head, sand, blood on your hands. There's a sentence in there somewhere...
I am not saying that these civilians SHOULD die. I am saying that Israel is fighting a legitimate military campaign against an enemy that attacked them first without provocation, and then intentionally adopted the strategic position of hiding amongst a civilian population in the hopes that civilians would be killed by Israel. Make no mistake that Hezbollah gains from civilian deaths and that it is there policy to put civilians in harms way for exactly this reason. Israel does not want to kill civilians. It is morally wrong and it is strategically wrong. Israel, despite what you might think, and despite the actions of isolated soldiers in the past, attempts to use its military in as moral a fashion as they can. (I'm sure you won't believe that but it's true so far as I can tell in the majority of cases. I am not defending all of Israel's history. I oppose the occupation of Palestinian territories, but I believe that since Israel made a serious attempt at ending the occupation in 2000 the onus is now on the Palestinians to prove to a terrorized Israeli public that ending what is left of the occupation will not result in yet another wave of terror in Israel.) Furthermore, Israel is not stupid. We realize here that civilian deaths hurt our ability to carry out our military operations because they cause the international community to put pressure on us to conclude our operations. From a military perspective civilian deaths are a strategic liability, yet another reason why the IDF does its best to avoid them. Unfortunately they are to a certain extent unavoidable unless Israel was to forego entirely any sort of military response to Hezbollah's initial and continuing attacks on Israeli civilians.
No, the ones who were reported by almost EVERYONE in the media, including the arab ones & Al Manar - Hizbullah TV.
Two frickin soldiers and all this death come on man....?!?!?! I'll keep saying it cant play the victim anymore...not after all this death.
You can believe what you want. However these are facts reported not only by the IDF, but by every reputable news agency in the world. AND, to speak about the IDF for a moment, you cannot simply say that what they report is false. I know many people in the IDF at various levels, and they are good and decent people who serve because they want to defend their country. I am amazed that people can hold such an anachronistic view of the IDF as this legion of cold-blooded killers goose stepping their way across the Middle East. The reality is far different. It is a true people's army made up of soldiers who are little more than children, and reservists who are husbands and fathers.
I briefly caught Netanyahu on British TV the other morning talking of this conflict as "World War III", and I quote his words, uttered casually, as if it was normal to talk about World War III. That sent chills down my spine... No lessons learnt from Iraq? The regional implications of this conflict are scary.
Not to mention, so many kids growing up hating Israel....
I really struggle to see what the benefits are for Israel - the strategy of attacking Lebanon to get rid of Hizbullah. I think it's counterproductive, from an Israeli point of view, not to mention appalling from the Lebanese.
What do you guys think?
Laura
PS Sorry for slightly derailing the conversation off topic!
It isn't only about the two kidnapped soldiers. It is also about the rain of rockets hitting Israel's north, and more importantly the fact that Israel is really fighting Iran. Hezbollah is simply their proxy. Iran had thought that they could use Hezbollah as a deterent against Israel. Israel is fighting to destroy that Iranian deterant and to show Iran that Israel will use force if necessary to defend itself. With Iran on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, and their leader speaking about wiping Israel off the map, this is an urgent and existential need.
Israeli & Lebanese civilians are the victims of Hizbullah - you can't blame just one side only because I'm not dead yet out of Hizbullah's missiles. The only thing which makes our casualties number "lower" is the fact we have shelters & that 50% of us northern Israeli civilians just ran away. If Hizbullah hadn't started this shit FOR NO REASON, both Lebanon & Northern Israel would have continued to blossom.
With regard to Netanyahu, Israelis have lived with war for as long as there has been a state. They are just casual about these things because they are used to them. It doesn't mean that we don't take such things deadly seriously, or that they don't scare us also.
I do think that Israel is making gains. They have seriously degraded Hezbollah, though they have not destroyed them utterly. This is good for Israel in that obviously it means that Hezbollah will be less able to further attack Israel, and that a weakened Hezbollah will be more easily dealt with (I hope) by those that should have dealt with them in the first place, and that is the Lebanese themselves. Israel has also sent a message to the real, and far more dangerous, of its enemies, which is Iran. They have shown them that Israel can absorb the worst that Hezbollah can throw at them, and that Israel will use terrible force to defend itself. Israel's actions have not been perfect, nor have they resulted in great gains, but I see few ways in which they could have acted differently.
Defending a country is siting your border and repelling any attacks.
It is not bulldozing Palestinian houses, it is not carpet bombing a soveriegn nation, it is not economically blockading a nation and preventing aid supplies reaching the needy, it is not creating a refugee crisis by displacing nearly a million civilians.
That to me, is goose stepping all over the middle east. As will be the Sinai and the transjordan area in the coming months.
And yes, i really do know that people in armies are good people, are people like you and me, are young men sent of and ordered to do another's killing.
All reports that come from the IDF do not come from these people, they come from the bastards at the top of the tree, those who do the bidding of the bigger bastards in government. All military driven nations are the same.
Pawns in chess, somebody once said.
The only reason casualties are lower is because of shelters? Get the f*ck out of here!
The only reason is that the US doesn't provide $4billion a year to Hezbollah, half of which has to be spent on military hardware from the country in the world who has developed the most lethal killing apparatus known to man!!
Hi Laura,
We had to react because Hizbullah had fired at 2 Israeli villages, crossed the Israeli border, kill & kidnapped soliders. I think our response was over-reacted, however it is too late and quite pointless to stop now without someone would assure me (an Israeli civilian) or ruud (a lebanese civilian) Hizbullah are under the control of Lebanon & some Int armed force, instaed of the opposite (which is the current situation). Please understand, Hizbullah is a terror organization who has been told to get rid of its arsenal back in 2000 (after Israel moved out of Lebanon). If they continue to have weapons & take over the Lebanese state by force, I can assure you the same conflict will erupt in about 3 years from now. Someone needs to stop them somehow, for the sake of Lebanon & Israel. Eventually, none of the countries across the world has helped Lebanon to get control on Hizbullah since 2000, Lebanon couldn't do it itself and now all of us here have the summer from hell.
I chose to stay in the shelter, 50% chose to run away, almoat all of Israeli casualties (jews & arabs) were outside/un-protected place when the missile hit them. But sure, keep on assuming things while I'm living the reality from hell.
WRONG
Hizbullah’s attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon By Anders Strindberg
Opinion from the August 01, 2006 edition
NEW YORK – As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. “Israel” is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.
Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of “Israel’s” silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, “Israel” has violated the United Nations-monitored “blue line” on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah’s military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into “Israel” only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah’s leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.
In the process of its violations, “Israel” has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. “Israel” has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon’s Shibaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?
Hizbullah’s capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of “Israel” and its allies, Hizbullah – easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East – unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.
Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, “Israel” has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be “manufactured” by the enemies of “Israel”; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which “Israel” was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.
Once the Arabs had rejected the UN’s right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of “Israel” in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet “Israel” continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.
For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. “”Israel” must remain a Jewish state,” is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that “Israel” is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.
Is it not understandable that “Israel’s” ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that “Israel” acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize “Israel’s” right to exist at the Palestinians’ expense.
Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians’ rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.
By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure?
When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid – some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism – we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.
The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is “practical” and “realistic.” Yet reality is that “Israel” is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.
A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in “Israel’s” foundational and persistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to “wipe out Jews,” as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.
These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone – anyone – to stand up for Arab rights. “Israel” cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If “Israel”, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If “Israel” cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.
Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html
Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications
I think my point is that after 3 weeks Israel is still fighting Hizbullah, despite the devastation of Lebanon's infrastructure and immense loss of civilian life. It is not a short war and it looks like it will continue. So I think Israel's miscalculated here. I also actually think that Hizbullah has raised its profile in the Middle East and will find more supporters than it had before this latest conflict started.
If you look at terrorist movements throughout history, just violence is not the means to defeat them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
none-biased info with references from all across the world. If you really would like to try and see the whole picture - check it out. If you only want to prove your narrow point of view=the whole picture without even bother to litsen to what the "other side" has to say, than there is no point for any of us have a discussion with you.
good day.
Ok. You. Win. Ya got me. That makes me wrong. Wiki knows ALL!!!!
Give me a f*cking break.
And I see that shelter of yours has internet connection...
Again, I think now we can both agree on what you've just said, however it is too late to stop and one can't do it before Lebanon & the UN army will take control over a weakened Hizbullah. If we stop now and everyone will keep ignoring Hizbullah, the same story will repeate itself very soon. I can also tell you I can not trust Hizbullah for stop shooting at me, after they shot missiles at Kiryat Shmona & depper into Israeli areas DURING the 2-days cease-fire we had with them.
What are you suggesting we'll do now?
Hello Shiraz,
My argument is that Israel should have adopted a different strategy to deal with Hizbullah, as this is proving not effective, even without considering the human costs.
Also, with regard to the chronology of this latest conflict, there is dispute according to whose accounts you read.
But considering how things stand at the moment, I believe that dealing with the Hizbullah problem has been made much worse.
"references from all across the world". I see you missed that part. And yes, we have Internet in Israel, I'm using a cable modem. Should I apologize for that too or only for the fact me & my friends are not dead yet?
~end of any discussions with you~
I've alreay replied you in another post, but I gotta say something regarding this one - There is no argument about the chronology of this latest conflict, even the arab media and Hizbullah itself (via their TV network - Al Manar) are claiming the same thing Israel is.
I think there should be an immediate ceasefire, before things get out of control. Israel's image has definitely worsened in the Western world with this latest action, IMO.
The Palestinian issue must be tackled once and for all. Arafat is no longer on the scene. So, a deal must be reached, otherwise further conflicts will always be possible.
With regard to Hizbullah, more support for the Lebanese government from the Western powers (especially the US).
Also, any talks about Hizbullah include Iran and Syria. You cannot exclude them as it happened in the Rome meeting soon after this war started.
I have nothing to say but that your wrong and I'm simply fed up of repeating the same things over and over again. It never does any good. You're wedded to your illusions and nothing I can say will change your mind.
This is an op-ed piece from the Guardian, a UK broadsheet. Just to give you an example that the media is not all in agreement with regard to the chronology of events.
Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong
The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary
George Monbiot
Tuesday August 8, 2006
The Guardian
Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.
Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.
In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".
On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12.
There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it simply states that "the Islamic resistance captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine". Three other Israeli soldiers were killed by the militants. There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion. No one was hit.
But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.
On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".
A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.
Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.
So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?
I agree with all of this, except like Shiraz I have to point out that there really isn't any question as to the fact that Hezbollah holds responsibility for starting the current conflict.
I still think it is a matter of perspectives and how far back you go with the chain of events.
Hopefully, the French will succeed in their diplomatic effort and this conflict will end.
Peace.
Laura
PS Thanks for the debate!