Israel's war crimes and Obama on nukes- 3 items

Interesting article about Israeli war crimes in the winter attack on Gaza. I wonder if they are any closer this time to bringing charges or consequences. The level of outrage seems higher and the proof seems to be mounting. I guess it remains to be seen if justice will be done...

Anyway, it's pretty concise if you missed the coverage of the attacks, so do read.

Israel on Trial
By GEORGE BISHARAT
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/opinion/04bisharat.html

"While Israel disputes some of the soldiers’ accounts, the evidence suggests that Israel committed the following six offenses..."

***
Someone on a forum I like to frequent- when things don’t get too, too conservative, that is- had mentioned that Israel isn’t a signatory to the white phosphorus convention (so that means white phosphorus isn’t dangerous, they are allowed to use it in civilian areas, etc???) when I brought that up.

It’s true that the US and Israel are not signatories to the 3rd protocol on conventional weapons, but the fact that both countries deny it’s use at first, then admit to using it (but of course it was used according to international law if at all... :roll: ) upon being confronted with damaging evidence suggests they know they shouldn't be using it or know they abused it (or they have no problems with it whatever (???), but don't want to admit to using it because all other countries think otherwise).

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1231663993052&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

Israel’s military manuals have restrictions on its use and the fact that both countries deny using it (at first) tells us that not being a signatory means they don’t want to be in violation of international law for using something that very obviously needs restrictions and oversight and they "feel guilty" (if a state can- you get my meaning, though- they lied, then admitted to using it).

(Here are alternate sources with the same info if you have a problem with Arab sources:)
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-armys-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-clear-undeniable-20090119
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/gaza-white-phosphorus
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15375119/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/777549.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm

***

Here is one of France 24's headlines in my inbox:

Obama: 'Yes we can' have a world without nuclear weapons
"The United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons," US President Barack Obama said in a speech delivered in Prague before a crowd of tens of thousands.

Interesting. A worthy goal. I'm all for non-proliferation. However, if the US (and Israel) won't disarm, this is unrealistic. I understand us wanting to keep some around in case of emergency, for threatening rogue states, etc, but be honest and stop the non-prolifertaion garbage. The US won’t get rid of it’s stockpile. We know that. Israel won’t either- in fact, they won’t even acknowledge they have them. I don't remember if they are still holding on to the Dimona is a textile factory lie or if Vanunu caused them to abandon that nonsense. The US won’t pressure Israel to do anything it doesn’t want to- after all they have a democracy and need to do what’s best for them. Who cares if they disregard international laws that we force other nations to comply with and have a horrible human rights record. Who cares if they have a card carrying terrorist openly advocating ethnic cleansing in government? We don't. Who cares if we share intel with them, but they withhold vital lifesaving intel from US? Who cares if they bomb us (USS Liberty) and get us to cover it up? They are a democracy. Sort of. If you like South Africa-style apartheid democracies. And I guess we love them!

Context and the Conflict

When people here talk about Israel's actions, it's always in (a) "context", always a response, always self-defense from an existential threat (??), the victims are named and sympathy expressed openly, their "struggle" is likened to the hypothetical (and unrelated) situation of Mexico or Canada lobbing rockets over our border (ridiculous in part because we aren't occupying them, bulldozing their homes, colonizing their land illegally through settlements, raiding, assassinating political leaders, arresting 100s of their people a day, bombing their apartments, schools, power stations). The disproportionate response is justified by the fact the Hamas "uses civilians as human shields" (an unsubstantiated claim in the Lebanon invasion a few years ago) and the argument that one rocket for one rocket won't end the attacks. When we talk proportion, one rocket for one rocket is not what we're talking about (aside from the fact that context is again abandoned, the occupation and its crimes ignored)- what I mean when I say that is force should be proportionate to the threat. Dropping a bomb from an F-16 on an apartment block to "target" one suspect you think is in there is disproportionate and shows a disregard for human life and international law. When casualties are as lopsided in this recent conflict as they are in the greater conflict, you have to conclude the threat was never as great as was stated and deaths could have been prevented and achieved the same goal. Unless of course the goal is to terrorize the civilians, cause further "land vacancies" by death and evacuation, rather than stop rocket attacks.

When people talk about Palestinian rocket attacks, it is without any context whatsoever as though Israel generously "pulled out of Gaza and gets rockets in return". Palestinian resistance to occupation and struggle for independence and self-determination is never mentioned, though the denial of these things is a root cause of violence. Israel's infamous pull out was stated to be "political formaldehyde" by a top official, yet it has been often cited recently as a concession for peace they should be grateful for. The pull out is cited, yet Israel still controls airspace, borders, and sea which is essentially the definition of occupation. Really, they just wanted to dump the obligations involved in Occupation, which it never lived up to anyway.

People ask all the time now, would we tolerate rockets being fired on us, but NEVER ask, would we tolerate even one element of the brutal, and at times illegal, occupation??? I mean, for example, what if someone set up a trailer in your backyard, burned your house down (with or without your family inside) and moved their family in? You and some friends retaliate, your neighborhood gets flattened, and the blame is on you because after all, you started it. Never mind that you threw a rock and tanks "responded". Proportionality doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. Palestinians don't matter. The only thing that matters are Israeli demands. After all, if you voice concern over Israel's actions, you might lose an election-- and that would be the real tragedy.


Why Do So Few Speak Up For Gaza?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/why-do-so-few-speak-up-fo_b_155814.html


Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust
By Richard Falk