Doc's Talk

Monday, November 27, 2006

Flawed Conclusions by the United Nations-Again!
GS Don Morris, Ph.d.

Upon awaking the day after Thanksgiving, a day of reflection and peaceful gratitude for all we have, I was once again jolted back to reality here in Israel. As is my custom, I turned on my computer and started reading the local and international newspapers on line. The following headline reminded me, again, why I believe that the United Nations has lost its moral compass together with its ability to address the Middle East with any degree of ethical behavior. The headline read, “Israel may be more to blame than Hizbullah”, and I was informed that we, Israel, were the dastardly breakers of all that is humanely deceit and should receive the blame over a terrorist group called Hizzbollah1. The UN High Commissioner, for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, told me this and if I did not know the truth or the facts I certainly must believe the Commissioner for Human Rights2.

Allow me to suggest that a person who holds such a position must understand the responsibility associated with drawing conclusions after complete facts are known and analyzed. Furthermore, this person must consider the entire context in which specific actions were conducted.

Juxtaposed against the preceding headline was another one I remember: “IDF set for massive assault on Lebanon-eight soldiers killed, two kidnapped in Hizzbollah attack on northern border”, July 13,2006, Jerusalem Post. The facts shall set you free, unless you are associated with the United Nations. Israel was attacked by an international terrorist group-it was an unprovoked attacked-we immediately lost eight young people and to this day our kidnapped soldiers have not only never been heard of since this day, there is no public conversation of their return. Concomitant with these acts, Hizzbollah began firing dozens of missiles into Israel proper aimed precisely at non-military targets. They aimed their rockets of death at our northern civilian population. Most other countries would consider this cumulative behavior as an act of war. Israel did what any other nation would do-we decided to return fire and action-we went after our men. We did this to also protect one million of our citizens who were now directly in harm’s way.

To deny any of this is to distort, misrepresent and lie to the world community. A war had begun and it lasted for over one month. Within this framework of understanding battles ensued and with any war there was collateral damage. It is at this point that one can begin to discuss the operational and therefore intentional behavior of both sides in this war. Hizzbollah used the Lebanese population as human shields. Not only did it store munitions, rockets, missiles and terrorists within civilian neighborhoods, it continued the “blending process” by dressing as the local population. It used civilian homes as missile launch sites. It held at gunpoint Lebanese who tried to leave their own neighborhoods in order to find safe havens away from the Hizzbollah enemy of Israel. It even shot some citizens of Lebanon for trying to escape. Need I state the obvious? Not only are all of these actions intentional, they are illegal by any Western legal authority, including the Geneva Convention.
Israel has the most stringent “rules of engagement” of any Western military operating today. It is against these rules, it is illegal by Israeli law and it is against all Judaic practices and principles to intentionally target civilians. Yes, in war either by technical error, tactical mistake or by simply plain old bad luck civilians are killed. Does any one remember the number of British civilians killed on a daily basis during WWII?

So we arrive at the apex of this piece. Hizzbollah, international identified terrorist group, attacks without provocation the only democracy in the Middle East. Its operational standards and rules of engagement are to murder or maim as many civilians as possible, use human shields and blend in with the local population. It is no wonder that the media erroneously reported, day after day, that “innocent Lebanese civilians” were killed-you see, they counted Hizzbollah terrorists as civilians.

I am not the only one who understands and knows all of this. It is therefore shameful for a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour to arrive at the conclusion that Israel is more to blame than Hizzbollah in the summer war. Try to follow her logic-this from an educated and highly decorated civilian now serving the United Nations.

She begins by responding to this question: “if there was a distinction under human rights law between missile attacks aimed at killing civilians and military strikes in which civilians are unintentionally killed, Arbour said the two could not be equated. Note she acknowledges that they cannot be equated.

Her explanation defies logic: "In one case you could have, for instance, a very objectionable intent - the intent to harm civilians, which is very bad - but effectively not a lot of harm is actually achieved," she said. "But how can you compare that with a case where you may not have an intent but you have recklessness [in which] civilian casualties are foreseeable?”1 I suggest she makes an incorrect assumption regarding her argument. She assumes that Israel killed recklessly civilians and these deaths were foreseen. Huh? She offers no data to substantiate this inflammatory statement. She only uses rhetoric provided her by Hizzbollah operatives. I have already indicated the IDF’s code of operational behavior, something she fails to even present or discuss. She also conveniently ignores the blending of Hizzbollah terrorists within the civilian population so when the IDF did strike targets these individuals were the ones hit.

Do you believe that Ms. Arbour sat in the war room with Israeli planners and leaders? Of course she did not have this access; she did not have any idea what was in the minds of IDF soldiers. The only information she could have possibly had was the Israeli and Hizzbollah operational directives previously mentioned. Therefore, to come to the following conclusion is disingenuous "When you kill civilians virtually each time [in a military attack], at some point you have to ask yourself, 'Wasn't that foreseeable that so many would be killed?" she said. "That is where I think you start having to engage in the possibility that it is somewhat culpable."1 There she goes again, misrepresenting reality during the war. Notice no data substantiating “killing virtually each time-how did she arrive at this? Perhaps the handlers in Lebanon failed to indicate that the “blended” Hizzbollah were counted as civilians thus enabling Ms. Arbour and the world opinion makers to also believe this nonsense.

She returns to the intention part of her argument with Israel. She states, "there is very little distinction between recklessness and intent," she said. "It is a small distinction as to whether you desire the result, or you foresee it as virtually certain and you do not care. In terms of culpability there is not a lot of difference between recklessness and intent."1
By denying the stated intentions of both Hizzbollah and the IDF, she arrives at unfounded conclusions. Without producing any evidence she rushes to the conclusion that Israel is guilty of crimes more so than is Hizzbollah-incredible, simply incredible that such a person can offer this with a serious demeanor. It is despicable behavior and unfortunately demonstrative again of the bias and apparently the contempt the United Nations has for Israel. It is this kind of prejudiced argument, reported around the world that enables her and others to remain part of the Middle East problem. Israelis, individuals living in the disputed territories deserve better from those meant to help protect them!

End Notes

1. HILARY LEILA KRIEGER and TOVAH LAZAROFF, “Louise Arbour: Israel may be more to blame than Hizbullah”, Jerusalem Post, November 24, 2006

2.Commission on Human Rights, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chr.htm

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.