Leave a comment

Comments 23

mikepictor March 23 2009, 18:38:05 UTC
"Israel should be taking the moral high ground"

and what? Hamas shouldn't? Are you holding Israel to a different standard? Is it somehow more dissapointing that they do this?

Reply

tashiro March 23 2009, 18:43:33 UTC
If someone throws a brick through your window, do you throw one through theirs? No. I'd rather Israel not sink to that level. If they want to keep sympathy with the world, they've got to try to follow the straight and narrow. Infanticide, child hostages, and trapping civilians to shell? Not cool.

Reply

116degrees March 23 2009, 19:05:35 UTC
israel has never taken the high ground nor do they care about international sympathy. They are in the promised land. They are the pain in the ass little brother of the US and canada. they will be a brat as long as the US and Canada continue to support them.

Reply

brother_dour March 24 2009, 02:21:10 UTC
Israel has the big brass ones the U.S. -used- to have...

Reply


merimask March 23 2009, 19:06:25 UTC
That's just horrible. This is the same reason we should NOT be using torture as an interrogation method; it prevents you from taking the moral high-ground and weakens your ideological position. Shameful.

Reply


cutelildrow March 24 2009, 01:07:01 UTC
I'm highly doubtful that even a fraction the atrocities claimed occurred there. The UN interviewed who? The Palestinians? Where did they get their news from? HAMAS? The claim that the IDF hoarded civilians into a building then shelled it was bandied around during the time that the IDF was already in there ( ... )

Reply

marinredwolf March 24 2009, 14:53:00 UTC
Disclaimer: I'll have to admit right off, I try not to think too much about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I also tend to take any reports of war-related abuses with a grain of salt and consider the sources. Were I fully-informed (which is hard to do from where I sit, as any information is several people removed from the source), my views might be different.

That said and contrary to some of the statements here, I've heard enough about HAMAS through the media to classify them by default in my mind as "more-or-less terrorists who don't hold to any moral 'high ground' when it comes to harming civilians." So if I were to express any surprise or shock at the behavior of the IDF rather tham HAMAS, it would only be because I already expect HAMAS to use underhanded tactics unworthy of respect or sympathy. I won't argue this point of view to be particularly good or fair, but there it is regardless.

Reply

cutelildrow March 24 2009, 16:36:47 UTC
Even if you already expect Hamas to be the backstabbing assholes that they are, my main source of annoyance is how the UN has been conducting their 'investigations' into alleged Israeli atrocities - the wording alone, from even just a quick skim, has the UN 'investigator' (sorry, dhimmi) speaking as if she is convinced of the guilt of Israel - yet is willing to give Hamas the benefit of the doubt (take note of how she says 'alleged'). Similarly the media has been more than happy to leap on any allegation of wrongdoing by the IDF and crucify the Jews as if they're the ones actively being terrorists, instead of fighting back ( ... )

Reply

tashiro March 24 2009, 17:21:48 UTC
A brief devil's advocate here.
We can presume Hamas is performing atrocities, and it is even mentioned in the news article that they have done so. This is to be 'expected', and isn't particularly news-worthy insomuch as it has already been reported before.

If you're in the region, and there's evidence that Israel has performed atrocities as well, should this be reported? Even if people will accuse you of bias, shouldn't this be put into the news? Or, presuming that people will simply accuse you of bias and siding with Palestine, would it be better to say nothing?

Reply


marinredwolf March 24 2009, 20:01:22 UTC
Upon following the link back to the AP story, here's what I see ( ... )

Reply

cutelildrow March 25 2009, 01:40:05 UTC
There is a difference in allegations, and accusations.

Israeli soldiers used an 11-year-old Palestinian boy as a human shield during the war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, UN human rights experts said Monday. states as if it is irrefutable fact.

It was included in a 43-page report published Monday, and was just one of many verified human rights atrocities during the three-week war between Israel and Hamas that ended Jan. 18, she said.

Ms. Coomaraswamy accused Israeli soldiers of shooting Palestinian children, bulldozing a home with a woman and child still inside, and shelling a building they had ordered civilians into a day earlier.

On whose verification? What were their sources for the 'crimes'? Their evidence? Accuse is a much harder term than alleged.

Ms. Coomaraswamy said there also have been allegations that Hamas used human shields or fired from heavily populated areas, and that UN officials are investigating.The phrasing, the attitude and the approach is why I say that the report itself is biased ( ... )

Reply

marinredwolf March 25 2009, 04:26:16 UTC
So-and-so "said." Yeah, I won't argue that the report itself sounds biased (or, for all I know, only dealt with IDF action). It sounds to me that the article is reasonable reporting of a UN report that seems very anti-IDF. And the IDF will look into it. If they're really as verified as presented, they can deal with it. If not... well, I would hope to see a story questioning the people who put the report together, at the least.

Reply

cutelildrow March 25 2009, 08:18:09 UTC
Well, yeah, weirdly the news article is surprisingly neutral. The UN report on the other hand... is unsurprisingly anti-IDF.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up