Your title is a dead on description of the tools of apologists, and your example of how an apologist would defend Hezbollah by attacking Israel is just brilliant.

Dave

dave--it's pretty obvious that no side is any better than the other in this fight. if you think there are good guys and bad guys over there, then you need to wake up.

This article should put the subject to rest.

But of course, it won't.

Heathlander, your lawyerly smug faux-morality and utterly unearned contempt for Israel are less than impressive. Your dishonesty in pretending that this was just over two soldiers fails to impress as well. Your arguments are but childish pedantry, and the lack of worth in your arguments should be obvious even to a child, actually. But it does not seem obvious to you (obviously), so let me briefly break down the main obvious point.

If a supposed statement of "morality" is to have any legitimacy, it must be consistent with the valuation and furtherance of life. That's the point of morality - figuring out rules to live by. How can I keep myself and my closest people alive and thriving? If you're doing ok there, you can hope to expand to bettering your country and all of mankind.

But if you've got enemies firing at you, killing your people, dedicating their entire miserable lives to killing you no matter how much you try to make nice, then it is absolutely and unequivocally a moral imperative that you kill them first. Letting sumbitches kill your people is immoral. That's about as immoral as you can possibly get.

But any idiot evildoer can surround themselves with innocent children- that's a no-brainer. If you say that it is immoral to go after the people who are killing you because they're using human shields, then you've granted a moral checkmate against being allowed to defend yourself. That goes against the most basic and inarguable first premise of moral value- not getting killed. It is therefore objectively wrong.

Israelis are real sorry anytime they kill someone in the crossfire like this, but they shouldn't be. Every innocent death in Lebanon is the fault of Hezbollah and their minions- and the third or so of Lebanese that actually voted for them.

Morality means accountability. A lot of people in Lebanon support and a lot more simply tolerate Hezbollah. People in both categories have everything coming to them that they're getting- and a lot more that the Jews are too nice to do. It's damned unfortunate that some minority there are innocent but being punished for other people's sins. But it's the sins of their own people, not the Jews.

At least 162 Palestinians have been killed in an offensive by Israel in Gaza trying to recover one soldier instead of negotiating for his release.

More than half the dead are civilians.

What the hell, when you have 60-ton tanks, Apache helicopters, F-16 bombers with 500lb bombs and laser-guided missiles, you have to use them.

What good are these American-supplied weapons if they can't be used to kill woman and children?

In your defense Dean, at least you're not pretending to be logical or thoughtful like Heathlander does with the empty random sophistic invocation of terms associated with reason, as if merely uttering terms associated with logical discourse constituted engaging in it.

Therefore, in order to be a beacon of thoughtfulness like Heathlander, let just add ipso facto, quad erat demonstratum, and caveat emptor.

Heathlander, by the way, when people on all sides are conspiring to kill you and you respond with less than absolutely everything in the arsenal, that constitues "restraint." So YES, anything the Israelis throw at their mortal enemies short of nuclear weapons is in fact using restraint.

It's difficult responding to babble.

Fucking brilliant, Heathlander. May I put it on my blog with the link to yours? Fine piece of writing, dude. Compellingly argued.

Al #4 - I'm glad for you that you found a first principle in which to believe and on which to build your normative logic

...but it neither necessary nor universal - does 'kill first or be killed' reflect all the possibilities when confronting mortal force - ?

troll

Dave: I wasn't trying to defend Hizbullah. As I have made clear time and time again; Hizbullah are group of terrorists. The missiles they fire on towns such as Haifa are completely indiscriminate, and so using them is both illegal and immoral. Now how about you focus on what the article was, you know, about? Or was your purpose in commenting to illustrate perfectly for us Fallacy No.6, by pointing to Hizbullah to avoid having to talk about Israel?

Al: I am not smug, my morality is not "faux" and I have no "contempt" for Israel. Now, if you wouldnt mind, how about actually addressing the things I wrote, instead of the imaginary person you believe to have written them?

"Your dishonesty in pretending that this was just over two soldiers fails to impress as well"

In actual fact, it wasn't over two soldiers. The two soldiers were just an excuse Israel needed to enact an offensive it had planned over a year ago. I'm taking the official Israeli reason - that this is over the two soldiers - to be charitable and also in order to not mix up arguments.

"But any idiot evildoer can surround themselves with innocent children- that's a no-brainer. If you say that it is immoral to go after the people who are killing you because they're using human shields, then you've granted a moral checkmate against being allowed to defend yourself."

'fraid not, Al. If I was like you or Dave, I would now be providing a link to the BTselem report about IDF soldiers using Palestinians as human shields, in an attempt to avoid having to talk about the issue you raised. But I'm not, so I won't.

Firstly, I would recommend you read Human Rights Watch's 50-page report they released yesterday

Here's what it had to say about the 'hiding behind civilians' argument: "Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hizbullah in Lebanon...[We condemn Israel's] disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians...Our research shows that Israel's claim that Hizbullah fighters are hiding among civilians does not explain, let alone justify, Israel's indiscriminate warfare... Hizbullah fighters must not hide behind civilians - that's an absolute - but the image that Israel has promoted of such shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong".

The truth is that if you flatten block after block of residential buildings, you've got to expect resident civilians to die. Same goes for a Church, a pharmaceutical factory, a power station, and all the other civilian targets that have been hit.

"Israelis are real sorry anytime they kill someone in the crossfire like this, but they shouldn't be."

Israel is sorry enough to occasionally apologise for it, but not sorry enough to sotp doing it.

"Every innocent death in Lebanon is the fault of Hezbollah and their minions- and the third or so of Lebanese that actually voted for them"

Oh, I see - so now you're advocating collective punishment. So persumably if I, disagreeing with the criminal war on Iraq, went on a killing spree and murdered everyone on my street, that would be OK because it was the people of Britain that voted Blair into power? I guess it's the same with Israel - if I am Nasrallah, it's completely legitimate to kill Israeli civilians because, as a democracy, they are responsible for what Olmert/Halutz/Peretz do.

Of course this is complete crap. There is a clear distinction between combatants and civilians, even in law. It doesn't matter who they voted for, it doesn't matter who they support or what they think inside their heads - civilians, i.e. people who do not take up arms are civilian and protected.

It seems that your main point against me is that I know how to use words to construct an article. That must mean that, like, I'm trying to pretend I'm a lawyer, secretly imposing my "faux" morality on everyone.

I'll say again: In future, how about addressing the things I have written, and not arguing against phantoms of your imagination. That really would be a much more useful contribution to a debate.

Adam: Sure, go ahead.

I never heard a peep out of you either in your websdite or your articles here when Arabs killed Jews. Either admit that you don't give a damn when your fellow Jews die - your articles indicate that you don't - or admit at long last thast you want to see the destruction of Israel - because the pigs you apologize for and defend want just that. And HizbAllah and Hamas don't make any bones about that FACT, no matter what you think.

Damned peaceniks like you blather on and on from your safety from overseas. Go to Haifa and then open your trap! Better yet, wait till the missiles fall on Tel Aviv and explain to us all from your favorit internet café there why HizbAllah are a pack of reasonable saints who asses should be kissed.

But do me a favor, however you choose to make your arguments - put yourself in the same harm's way the rest of us are in. Don't you dare wag your finger from overseas moralizing at us - you havenh't got the fuckin' right to!!!!

Ruvy - with all due respect for your circumstances...that's horse shit

'peacenics' will continue to seek alternatives to aggression whether it offends you or not

try forcing your government to bomb the people with food education and economic ties - if their Arab brother won't do so then their Jewish cousins can

give them land - and lots of it as the international community intended in '47

form two states

stop Israel's expansion through conquest

where are your (expletive deleted) religious leaders who should be in the forefront of civilizing this conflict - ?

feh

troll

Troll,

The author's opinions do not offend me at all. I think he is an idiot, but that is neither here nor there. I don't get annoyed at you - you're a principled pacifist.

But you are not an Israeli ex-pat waging a virtual propaganda war against his birth land from overseas. And that does offend me. That is treason.

My religious leaders - the few of them with any balls, anyway - are trying to figure out how to deal with a government that wants to wage war on religious Jews while waging war on Arabs. It's a pretty little problem - go to my news article - the one I posted before I moved - and look at the last two comments that I posted there

This is a great article ..It is refreshing to hear both sides of a story..
I love this quote by Gandi..."AN EYE FOR AN EYE LEAVES THE WORLD BLIND"

Jamie, for me it always comes down to pragmatism. Hezbollah and the fundamentalist culture it is part of are a proven threat to America, to Europe and to innocent people all over the world. Israel is only a threat to people who threaten it. So if Israel wipes Hezbollah out everyone benefits, even if the cost in collateral damage is high. Plus they leave Lebanon alone after eliminating the threat. If Hezbollah wins all we get is more mindless violence and terror.

Dave

Ruvy: "I never heard a peep out of you either in your websdite or your articles here when Arabs killed Jews."

You've obviously been reading with your eyes as closed as your mind. I'll provide just a couple quotes from articles from my site (I won't give the links unless you request them):

- "Needless today, by firing rockets indiscriminately at civilian towns, Hizbullah are commiting despicable and illegal acts of terrorism."

- "Israel constantly brands Hamas and Hizbullah "terrorist" organisations. This branding is correct: both Hamas and Hizbullah carry out attacks on civilians with the intention of furthering their own political causes."

etc. etc.
In fact, in this very article I refer to Hizbullah as a "fundamentalist terror group". On my site, whenever Israeli civilians die from katyusha's, I mention it.

But it *is* correct to say that I focus more in Israeli crimes than on Hizbullah's crimes. This is because their is absolutely no equivalence between the scale of the crimes commited by Israel and those of Hizbullah - Lebanon is being destroyed, Israel is not. Add to that the fact that my country - the UK - together with the US are heavily complicit in Israel's actions, and the US in particular could stop them with a phonecall.

"Either admit that you don't give a damn when your fellow Jews die - your articles indicate that you don't - or admit at long last thast you want to see the destruction of Israel - because the pigs you apologize for and defend want just that."

Well, I won't respond to the first charge. I'll assume you just made it in anger. As to the second: I don't apologise for either Hizbullah or Hamas, as I have already stated. The difference between you and me is that I apply the standards of international law and basic morality to everyone, whereas you only apply it to your percieved enemies.

"Damned peaceniks like you blather on and on from your safety from overseas. Go to Haifa and then open your trap!"

Firstly, I am going to Haifa in a couple of weeks, and I'm only a 'peacenik' in the sense that I respect the law and abhor unnecessary violence. Secondly, I wasn't aware that in order to discuss matters of peace and war you had to first get yourself blown-up by a katyusha...

"Don't you dare wag your finger from overseas moralizing at us - you havenh't got the fuckin' right to!!!!"

I not only have the right to, I have the responsibility to. Everyone has an obligation to respect the law, Ruvy, and right now hundreds of thousands of people are suffering horribly as a direct result of Israeli violations of the law.

Dave: "for me it always comes down to pragmatism. Hezbollah and the fundamentalist culture it is part of are a proven threat to America, to Europe and to innocent people all over the world. Israel is only a threat to people who threaten it."

Well, firstly I would call respect for the law pragmatic. Society cannot function unless people respect the law, and the world will never be able to rid itself of violence and chaos where the weak are at the mercy of the powerful unless we have a system where everyone respects a universal code of law. Now, obviously we are a long way from that yet, but the first step is to condemn and wherever possible punish those who violate international law, like Israel is currently doing.

Secondly, you are right to say that Islamic fundamentalism is more of threat to America than Israel. I think from that you need to ask a second question: why, and how can we stop it? Well, the answer to that is long and complicated, but essentially it boils down to this:

Many people all over the world share legitimate grievances against the West. This makes them much more likely to support extremist terror groups like al-Qaeda, and is the reason why those said terror groups are not isolated within the communities and so easy to deal with.

Therefore, the response to terrorism should be two-fold: firstly, using police and other established methods we should go after the terrorists themselves and then prosecute them under criminal law. Secondly, and in parallel, we should seek to address the legitimate grievances that keep those terrorist groups alive. Incidentally, we should address those grievances with or without the threat of terrorism.

"So if Israel wipes Hezbollah out everyone benefits, even if the cost in collateral damage is high. Plus they leave Lebanon alone after eliminating the threat. If Hezbollah wins all we get is more mindless violence and terror."

I'm afraid you've contradicted yourself there: "everyone benefits, even if...collateral damage is high".

No. Lebanon has spent six years re-building itself, putting itself back on the road to recovery after 18 years of brutal occupation. It's economy was looking up, it had a model democracy for the region, tourism was booming...and suddenly Israel as, in Halutz' words, bombed it back 20 years. Hundreds of people are dead, and over a million people are displaced (over a quarter of the population). I also reject the term "collateral damage", but that's not for here.

In any event, your hypothetical situation - that either Israel or Hizbullah wins - is false. Hizbullah hasn't a hope of destroying Israel, and no-one pretends they do. If by 'winning' you mean politically, than they already have, and every second the war continues that victory is increased.

Nice to see you demolish Dave & his clueless cohorts, Jamie.

Well, firstly I would call respect for the law pragmatic. Society cannot function unless people respect the law, and the world will never be able to rid itself of violence and chaos where the weak are at the mercy of the powerful unless we have a system where everyone respects a universal code of law. Now, obviously we are a long way from that yet, but the first step is to condemn and wherever possible punish those who violate international law, like Israel is currently doing.

War doesn't, as a rule, interract well with laws. Israel is not violating the Geneva convention, and they are protecting their population and their legitimate interest in self-preservation.

It's tragic that there have been so many civilian casualties, but the IDF does make an effort not to harm civilians, but they ARE pragmatic, and if civilians will not leave or are being used as human shields they WILL go through them. This is a known fact and it's been seen before, and it makes perfect sense from their perspective.

If Lebanon and the UN will not deal with Hezbollah as they should, then Israel has very little option in the face of ongoing attacks, but to destroy the infrastructure of the region and render the area essentially uninhabitible.

Secondly, you are right to say that Islamic fundamentalism is more of threat to America than Israel. I think from that you need to ask a second question: why, and how can we stop it? Well, the answer to that is long and complicated, but essentially it boils down to this:

Many people all over the world share legitimate grievances against the West.

In your opinion. In my opinion this is apologist bullshit.

This makes them much more likely to support extremist terror groups like al-Qaeda, and is the reason why those said terror groups are not isolated within the communities and so easy to deal with.

Nothing America has ever done could justify an attack like 9/11 or the myriad other attacks against America which have happened before or since. There's no argument you can make which would justify them, so you're wasting everyone's time trying to go there.

Therefore, the response to terrorism should be two-fold: firstly, using police and other established methods we should go after the terrorists themselves and then prosecute them under criminal law. Secondly, and in parallel, we should seek to address the legitimate grievances that keep those terrorist groups alive. Incidentally, we should address those grievances with or without the threat of terrorism.

Perhaps you could address those 'grievances' in detail, because I know what the stated grievances are and they are manufactured self-justification with very little merit. Perhaps you know some deeper, secret justifications which actually make sense.

Here's the truth. The fundamentalist, totalitarian leaders who are either in power or want to be in power in various parts of the world need a boogeyman to use to motivate their people in the same way that Hitler needed the Jews. America has become 'the great satan' not because of any fault of America, but because that serves the political interests of those who want to unify people behind an extremist ideology, and who know that this is easiest to do when there's a state of constant war and an external enemy to fight. America is the perfect enemy for this because traditionally it would not strike back and it was far away and easy to threaten with hollow words and little or no fear of reprisal.

Of course, they have a bonus straw man to attack in the form of Israel, which is closer and weaker and more clearly dangerous. Plus it's full of evil Jews and everyone loves to hate the Jews. The problem is that unlike America, Israel won't just lie back and take the abuse.

"So if Israel wipes Hezbollah out everyone benefits, even if the cost in collateral damage is high. Plus they leave Lebanon alone after eliminating the threat. If Hezbollah wins all we get is more mindless violence and terror."

I'm afraid you've contradicted yourself there: "everyone benefits, even if...collateral damage is high".

Indeed. My mistake. Everyone benefits EXCEPT hezbollah and their totalitarian/fundamentalist backers. Gosh, that just breaks my heart.

No. Lebanon has spent six years re-building itself, putting itself back on the road to recovery after 18 years of brutal occupation.

Odd, I thought the Syrians had only pulled out last year and the rebuilding started then. Oh wait, are you referring to some other 'brutal occupation'? Are you claiming that Syrian occupation was a rebuilding period?

I love the way you talk around what you really want to say.

In any event, your hypothetical situation - that either Israel or Hizbullah wins - is false. Hizbullah hasn't a hope of destroying Israel, and no-one pretends they do. If by 'winning' you mean politically, than they already have, and every second the war continues that victory is increased.

Hezbollah and their Iranian cohorts in Lebanon need to be exterminated, not only for the good of the US and Israel, but for the good of Lebanon. I realize you despise the Lebanese for being Christians and pro-western so that doesn't matter to you, but it's the truth.

Dave

"War doesn't, as a rule, interract well with laws. Israel is not violating the Geneva convention, and they are protecting their population and their legitimate interest in self-preservation."

Yes, you are correct to say that in war, people often behave in ways they would otherwise never dream of.
That is why we have rules of war, so that even when diplomacy fails and we have to resort to force, we do not let ourselves become dehumanised.

I could argue for a long time about why laws of war are necessary, but to potentially save me the bother, are you actually againt any laws of war? Are you against the Geneva Conventions, the doctrine of proportionality and all the other legal framework that governs conduct in war?

I don't think you are, although of course correct me if I'm wrong on that. If I'm not, then ther's absolutely no way you can avoid being against what Israeli is doing now. International law is not a convenience to be dipped in at leisure: you either accept the rule of law or you do not. If you do, then any violation of that law (in this case, any war crime) is not legitimate and is to be condemned.

I can't see how you can say Israel hasn't broken the Geneva Conventions. I'll give you the most uncontroversial instance - sonic booms. Israel has repeatedly used them in Gaza since the kidnapping of Shalit. Convention Four of the Geneva Conventions states that all acts that deliberately intimidate civilians are prohibited. Sonic booms serve no purpose other than to intimidate, and when blasted at 1:30AM over a refugee camp, the 'intimidees' are civilians. Thus, Israel's use of sonic booms is a war crime.

Or we can take another completely uncontroversial example: the bombing of the gaza city power plant (and the power plant on the coast of Lebanon, that led to the environmental disaster). A power plant is civilian infrastructure - that is undeniable. That within the 40% of Gaza that relied on the power plant for electricity, water and sewage disposal there are likely to be some terrorists does not make the power plant terrorist infrastructure. that was collective punishment, which is a grave war crime, and against the Geneva Conventions.

"It's tragic that there have been so many civilian casualties, but the IDF does make an effort not to harm civilians, but they ARE pragmatic, and if civilians will not leave or are being used as human shields they WILL go through them."

It is not a "known fact". How can it be when all the evidence points the other way? When Israel refused to allow aid to reach civilian for the first eight days of the conflict (and only sporadically after), when it destroyed block after block of residential buildings, hen it struck power plants, churches, houses and flattened villages and when it forced at gunpoint the entire population of Southern Lebanon to evacuate, it was deliberately causing civilian harm. Disproportionate, unnecessary (for self-defence) and collective military punishment was heaped on the Lebanese people, totally and utterly deliberately. Making a million Lebanese homeless was not accidental, nor was bombing the power plants, nor was using cluster bombs in civilian areas, nor was using phosphorus weaponry and nor was bombing houses in Beirut - all of that was deliberate.

If it is such a "known fact", would you care to evidence your view that all this *was* accidental?

"If Lebanon and the UN will not deal with Hezbollah as they should, then Israel has very little option in the face of ongoing attacks, but to destroy the infrastructure of the region and render the area essentially uninhabitible."

That is not an option. That is like saying "Israel has no option but to nuke Lebanon, and kill every Lebanese man woman or child." That would certainly get rid of Hizbullah in Lebanon. Is it an option? No, because it violates the rule of law (and basic morality, as does this).

The truth is that Hizbullah have gained enormously from this conflict. Let's accept Olmert and co's claim that they have severaly wounded Hizbullah militarily. So what? Hizbullah can always re-arm. The most that achieves is delaying the problem a couple of years, at huge humanitarian expense. The battle will be won and lost politically, and politically Hizbullah have scored a massive victory. They are now worshipped as heroes throughout the Arab world, and polls show Lebanese support for them has increased in all sections of the community except the Druze. Once more, Hizbullah can claim to be a resistance movement.

You cannot have security without peace, and you cannot have peace if you keep killing civilians and flouting the law. Israel knows this, everyone knows this. Israel's purpose in this campaign is not really to weaken Hizbullah militarily. It's to re-establish Israeli deterrance, to send out a message that there will be no land swaps (it sees a 'land swap' domino effect, from Shabaa to the West Bank). On top of this, some people point to a coming war on Iran, or a distraction from Gaza, or an attempt to (in future) re-occupy southern Lebanon. About these I am less sure.

Anyway, if the inability of the UN and Lebanon to deal with Hizbullah was the reason for the fighting, it would have stopped days ago. States around the world have agreed to send troops, Lebanon has agreed to employ full sovereignty over the south and to have only one army, and Hizbullah have said they will engage in talks regarding this after a ceasefire. Hizbullah have said they will ceasefiring when Israel does.

But that isn't the real reason, which is why the Israeli response to Hizbullah's ceasefire option was to say, 'If Tel-Aviv is hit, we will destroy all of Lebanon's infrastructure' (paraphrased).

"Perhaps you could address those 'grievances' in detail, because I know what the stated grievances are and they are manufactured self-justification with very little merit."

Well, there are many. The West has intervened numerous times to make the lives of ordinary Arabs worse, for its own self-interest. We can look at Iran in 1953, when the democratic Mossadegh was overthrown by the US and replaced with the dictatorship of the Shah for decades, until in 1979 he was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution. We can look at Western intervention in the Israel/Palestine conflict, with Western arms and diplomatic support enabling Israel to perpetuate the occupation of the Palestinians. We can look at countries like Jordan and S. Arabia today, where horrible regimes are kept in power partly by Western support. We can look at Iraq, when the West supported (militarily, financially, diplomatically) Saddam Hussein throughout his worst atrocities, and backed him in a war against Iran. The West is responsible for a decade of sanctions that killed over a million Iraqis, including 500,000 children. It is responsible for the more recent war in Iraq, which has killed over 100,000 Iraqis and led it to civil war. The US backed Turkey militarily and diplomatically throughout its atrocities against the Kurds. In Afghanistan, the US and co. ignored the pleas of a conference of Afghan leaders working towards democracy, who requested that they be allowed to overthrow the Taliban from within, and waged a war in revenge for 9/11. And so on, and so on.

"In your opinion. In my opinion this is apologist bullshit."

Well, you can think it is bullshit, but not that it is apologist. It is not apologising for anything. As I explained, terrorists themselves are criminals, and should be dealt with as such. The reason why they are so dangerous and are able to be so dangerous is because of the widespread support they recieve in many communities throughout the world, and a main reason for this is that many people share legitimate grievances against the West.

"Of course, they have a bonus straw man to attack in the form of Israel, which is closer and weaker and more clearly dangerous. Plus it's full of evil Jews and everyone loves to hate the Jews. The problem is that unlike America, Israel won't just lie back and take the abuse."

That's ridiculous, on many levels. To present America and Israel as 'victims' is an incredibly reversal of the truth. The US and Israel are the two biggest violators of international law in the world. They have both frequently launched wars of aggression against other countries. I also reject your equation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, for what I would hope are obvious reasons.

"Indeed. My mistake. Everyone benefits EXCEPT hezbollah and their totalitarian/fundamentalist backers. Gosh, that just breaks my heart"

No, you said "collateral damage", which is a euphemism for the murder of civilians and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. Hizbullah benefits from this, the victims are obvious.

"Odd, I thought the Syrians had only pulled out last year and the rebuilding started then. Oh wait, are you referring to some other 'brutal occupation'? Are you claiming that Syrian occupation was a rebuilding period"

Fine, for the sake of argument (since I am not familiar with conditions under Syrian occupation) one year of re-building. That makes it alright, then...

"Hezbollah and their Iranian cohorts in Lebanon need to be exterminated, not only for the good of the US and Israel, but for the good of Lebanon. I realize you despise the Lebanese for being Christians and pro-western so that doesn't matter to you, but it's the truth."

Don't try and substitute ridiculous allegations in place of serious argument. In any event, the majority of Lebanese are Shi'ite - or don't they count to you?

There is a truth that you keep skirting around here - Israel is bound by international law, and it has violated it repeatedly. That makes Olmert, Peretz and co. war criminals who should be tried in the Hague. Hizbullah are also war criminals and are also terrorists, who should be likewise prosecuted. The main difference between you and I, it seems to me, is that I expect everyone to abide by the law, whereas you exempt Israel from it completely.

Sonic booms a war crime??? Pulleeeze...

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." [my emphasis]

Sonic booms serve no other purpose but to intimidate, and so surely there can be no doubt that the use of them is a war crime.

That's what B'Tselem seems to think. Perhaps you could put your well thought-out arguments to them.

Of course, sonic booms are illegal for two reasons under that same article - aswell as being intended to intimidate, they are also a form of collective punishment. You can't localise a sonic boom, particularly when you release it at 1:30AM over a refugee camp.

Sonic booms cause miscarriages, muscle spasms, bed-wetting, temporary deafness, anxiety attacks, breathing difficulties, nose bleeds, windows to shatter and leave people trembling with shock. I take it from your blase that you have never experienced one, or, indeed, seven in a row, as the Palestinians in Gaza have had to recently.

Of course, if we go further back, say to November last year, we can see that the IAF created no less than 28 sonic booms in one week. In that Septmeber, they created 29 in just five days. The Guardian report

I take it from your blase that you have never experienced one

Wrong. I spent a full year living under low level ones in Vietnam. They're annoying, no question. They're no worse than being under a severe thunderstorm. A war crime? BS.

"Sonic booms cause miscarriages, muscle spasms, bed-wetting, temporary deafness, anxiety attacks, breathing difficulties, nose bleeds, windows to shatter and leave people trembling with shock. I take it from your blase that you have never experienced one, or, indeed, seven in a row, as the Palestinians in Gaza have had to recently...

The Arabs in Gaza can wipe their noses with my underwear. Or maybe they can cry their children's eyes with copies of the Geneva Convention - it'sas good as any other brand of toilet paper. My ass bleeds for the poor babies.

I never read of types like you complaining about the consant missiles and gunfire rained on the residents of Gush Qatif.

Paybck is a bitch, Jamie, and now the Arabs in Gaza are getting the payback they richly deserve. What is occurring in Lebanon is another matter...

I plan a longer response for Jamie soon, but right now I'd just like the see a source for his claim that 'sonic booms are illegal', because some US citizens who live near major air bases and test fields would love to be able to enforce that law.

And trying to suggest that they are illegal under the geneva convention is ridiculous and won't cut it. I want to see a treaty applying specificially to sonic booms.

Dave

Jamie/Heathlander/nutjob,

Hezbollah attacked first. They're the ones who did the kidnapping, and you expect Israel not to respond. Sorry, but you want appeasement.

I do feel that Israel is fighting for its survival. They wanted peace, but Hezbollah doesn't. Saying that Israel's response has made itself less secure is like saying Churchill's response brought on the blitz.

Sorry, but this violence is happening because Israelis were moronic enough to trust in the 'peace plan' prescribed by the leftists in their midst, including Peace Now and the oh-so-loyal Israeli Arabs.

Hopefully, never again will Israelis be stupid enough to get suckered into a 'peace plan' with lying aggressors who are only waiting for the chance to re-arm.

Clavos: Again, you are denying they are a war crime. I've provided the article, aswell as a more detailed report by a human rights organisation that comes to the same conclusion. So far, you're detailed arguments to contrary have consisted of 'Purleeze' and 'BS'.

Ruvy: Again, you're either talking in anger or you are siply indifferent to human (yes, the Arabs are human) suffering. That link I provided(the Guardian one) cited a report that found an increase of 40% in misscarriages in Gaza due to sonic booms (not recently - that was last year). Besides, you're doing that thing you sometimes do where you group all Arabs as terrorists who deserve 'payback' - it's just wrong, and for really obvious reasons.

Dave: I provided my source - the Geneva Conventions and B'Tselem. At the moment, you;ve given absolutely no reason why you disagree. Unless you're saving it for that longer post, both you and Clavos seem to think it's enough to say 'I disagree' and that's it.

Sanjay: can you provide a single sentence where I have said I expect Israel not to respond? No? I thought not.
As I have said many times, expecting Israel to confine its response to what is legal under international law is not the same as saying Israel has no right to respond.

As to Israel wanting peace - it is Israeli-US rejectionism that is mainly responsible for the lack of a current settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, not the other way 'round.

Jamie,

The Geneva Conventions you cited do NOT specifically address sonic booms, only what you and B'Tselem consider to be the effects of them.

Since, as Dave pointed out, plenty of people all over the world live on a daily basis with sonic booms in their neighborhoods, and with NO APPARENT ill effects, that makes the assertions of B'Tselem opinion only. Yes, I know they quote "authorities" to back themselves up, but since they are clearly an advocacy group with an obvious political agenda, their assertions have little force, IMO.

Just because a "human rights" organization with an agenda says something is so doesn't make it fact. The B'Tselem group references a Lebanese Arab organization, the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, as their authority--that can hardly be considered an unbiased citation.

The Guardian report you cite ALSO cites the GCMHP, plus two individuals, Eyad El Sarraj, a psychologist working for GCMHP, and Jumaa Saqqa, a surgeon at Gaza's Shifa hospital. Neither of these people can be considered to be unbiased, therefore, they are not credible.

I also have direct, personal experience with low level sonic booms over an extended period of time (#22), they are nothing like what is described by your two sources, which is why I discount the statements of both B'Tselem and the Guardian report you referenced.

Jamie,

One last point: The increase in miscarriages mentioned by Dr. Saqqa thus:

"There were no other symptoms and the rise happened after the sonic booms. We can see no other explanation.

establishes ONLY a coincidence in timing. In the absence of further data, his statement DOES NOT establish causality. Faulty science on the part of the good doctor.

Dave: I provided my source - the Geneva Conventions and B'Tselem. At the moment, you;ve given absolutely no reason why you disagree. Unless you're saving it for that longer post, both you and Clavos seem to think it's enough to say 'I disagree' and that's it.

As I said before, the Geneva Convention offers no specific restrictions on sonic booms and there is no international treaty restricting them. They're annoying but not dangerous. There's not one medical study which shows any permanent physical damage from them. The claims of your sources are purely anecdotal and not scientific in nature.

The argument that the Geneva Convention bans them under the collective punishment provision is ridiculous. They're not being used as punishment, they're being used as psychological warfare - l ike playing loud music at Manuel Noriega when his palace was beseiged. They're designed to annoy, not to do real harm.

Would your Hezbollah buddies rather be woken up by sonic booms one night a week - which is the total extent of the damage - or see more bombs falling on them and the civilians they hide behind.

Dave

Clavos - I provided details, based on the article I provided not to argue that sonic booms as wrong, just to counter your dismissive attitude about them. I won't get into an debate with you now over what sonic booms are like - I have nothing to go on except those accounts.

But my point in bringing up details about what its like to experience sonic booms wasn't to prove they are illegal - they are illegal because they violate article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

As you can see, Art. 33 states: "Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

Now, are you trying to say that sonic booms are not meant to intimidate? Of course not - the sole purpose of them *is* to intimidate. That makes them illegal under the Conventions, and the use of them a war crime.

Dave: what do you mean they offer no "specific" restrictions on sonic booms? They don't specifically say: "No sonic booms", that's right. Neither do they specifically say "No bombing civilian infrastructure, such as power stations". Instead, they say "no collective punishment", and bombing the power station came under that and so is prohibited. Likewise, sonic booms are designed to intimidate civilians and so come under "intimidation" which is prohibited.

"The argument that the Geneva Convention bans them under the collective punishment provision is ridiculous. They're not being used as punishment, they're being used as psychological warfare - l ike playing loud music at Manuel Noriega when his palace was beseiged"

Firstly, they are against the Conventions for two reasons - collective punishment and because they are designed to intimidate.

Secondly - of course they're collective punishment. If you emit seven sonic booms in the early hours of the morning over a Palestinian refugee camp, then yes, sure, some militants (any that are in the camp) will suffer the effects. So to will the entire civilian population of the camp. That's collective punishment. As you said, it's psychological warfare, and its aimed at civilians.

"Would your Hezbollah buddies rather be woken up by sonic booms one night a week - which is the total extent of the damage - or see more bombs falling on them and the civilians they hide behind."

I'm surprised to hear you so confidently denying that sonic booms cause any ill effects. It's almost as if you were an expert on the subject. In any event, ignoring the slur as always, who cares about whether Hizbullah would prefer to be woken up by bombs or booms? What exactly is your point? Do you have one?

Mine is that sonic booms are illegal, and Israel's use of them is just one of its many crimes since June 25th.

Jamie, repeating the same "points" over and over doesn't make them valid. You have yet to prove that a sonic boom is even intimidating, much less physically damaging.

I remain unconvinced by your argument.

You disagree that sonic booms are intimidating? What purpose exactly do you think they serve?

Jamie, Dave and I both say that sonic booms are merely annoying.

You say, in #30:

I won't get into an debate with you now over what sonic booms are like - I have nothing to go on except those accounts.

And then you contradict yourself by getting into a debate with me as to whether or not they are intimidating. I told you before that the accounts you cite offer no testable credible proof; as Dave says, they are "...anecdotal and not scientific..." But, they are in your words, all you have to go on. I have experienced sonic booms; you haven't.

What part of "unconvinced by your argument" do you not understand?

are you guys actually arguing about whether Israel intends the action to be intimidating or annoying - ?

gotta go with intimidating here - imagine sonic booms from planes that might just as easily drop a bomb on your head

troll

Clavos: Are you serious? You think IAF Gnerals sat down and thought to themselves, "I know, let's annoy the Palestinians! Let's really irritate them for a laugh!"

Sonic booms are a tactic of intimidation. It *does* shatter windows and it does frighten people. I didn't want to get into an argument about the miscarriage claim and correlation/causality and so on, but witness accounts show that people do get very frightened when a sonic boom jolts them out of bed in the middle of the night. Witnesses describe it as like an earthquake, or like a bomb going off right near you. Nose-bleeds *do* happen because of them, unless for some reason you - unlike the IDF or anyone else, as far as I can tell - want to challenge the Palestinian Health Ministry's description of its effects.

Sonic booms are a show of force. They are the IDF's way of showing the Palestinians what they can do, without actually having to drop bombs on them. This is intimidation, and is illegal. Since it causes civilian suffering, it is also collective punishment.

troll: You're right, the debate is getting a bit too focused around the sonic booms point. That was just meant to be an example - of which there are many - of Israeli war crimes. It is that, though - the use of sonic booms is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. I notice no-one has attempted here to defend the Israeli bombing of the two power stations, or the flattening of residential blocks in Beirut, or any other of the numerous crimes. That is heartening - it suggests that even among those who disagree over the sonic booms thing accept the Israelis have commited war crimes, and so is in the wrong.

Dave: what do you mean they offer no "specific" restrictions on sonic booms? They don't specifically say: "No sonic booms", that's right. Neither do they specifically say "No bombing civilian infrastructure, such as power stations". Instead, they say "no collective punishment", and bombing the power station came under that and so is prohibited. Likewise, sonic booms are designed to intimidate civilians and so come under "intimidation" which is prohibited.

There's also nothing wrong with bombing civilian infrastructure during a war. It's to be expected and it's also not outlawed in the Geneva Convention either.

As for 'collective punishment', there's no debate on this issue. The 4th convention provisions on collective punishment refer to physical, corporal punishment. The restrictions were specifically in response to the German reprisal measures against civilians in occupied france where they would kill civilians if a village did not surrender resistence fighters, or kill 10 random citizens for every german killed by insurgents. THAT is what collective punishment is, not sonic booms.

Firstly, they are against the Conventions for two reasons - collective punishment and because they are designed to intimidate.

Sorry, you're just wrong here. Intimidation implies threat of death, not threat of rattling windows and waking up the pet dog.

Secondly - of course they're collective punishment. If you emit seven sonic booms in the early hours of the morning over a Palestinian refugee camp, then yes, sure, some militants (any that are in the camp) will suffer the effects. So to will the entire civilian population of the camp. That's collective punishment. As you said, it's psychological warfare, and its aimed at civilians.

They're collective, but they do NOT meet the definition of punishment by a long shot. And pysichological warfare is not outlawed by the convention.

I'm surprised to hear you so confidently denying that sonic booms cause any ill effects. It's almost as if you were an expert on the subject. In any event, ignoring the slur as always, who cares about whether Hizbullah would prefer to be woken up by bombs or booms? What exactly is your point? Do you have one?

What I said is that there are no scientific studies showing that there is physical harm from sonic booms. Find me a study, because I sure couldn't find one. My point is that a couple of doctors saying something based on a few isolated cases with no scientific study involved does NOT make something true.

Mine is that sonic booms are illegal, and Israel's use of them is just one of its many crimes since June 25th.

Except that you are completely wrong.

Dave

Dave - those planes do carry threat of death...intimidation is an appropriate description

troll

But it's not intimidation in the sense intended in the geneva convention. Considering the similar use of buzz bombs in WW2 they certainly would have specified that kind of action as prohibited if they had intended it to be.

Dave

How can you say it isn't punishment? It causes suffering to the civilian population, and that's collective punishment. That's what 'collective punishment' means.

And what do you mean there's no debate on the issue? Because Dave Nalle says so? Presumably, if two respected human rights organisations disagree with you about collective punishment, I think its fairly safe to say there's debate.

I didn't say the Geneva Conventions outlawed targeting civilian infrastructure - they permit it under certain circumstances. If the military gains from bombing a block of houses (for example) outweigh the humanitarian suffering caused by that action, and if bombing the house is a military necessity (and the oweness is on the aggressor to show that it is), and if all possibly measures have been taken to minimise civilian casualties, then it's permissable. As I said, what Israel has done and is doing completely violates these principles.

Intimidation is frighten and to scare, and in any event the Israeli jets do carry with them a threat of death. Sonic booms are a show of force - lethal force. It is not a "couple of doctors" that say sonic booms cause nosebleeds and severe stress and other such ailments, it is a respected human rights organisation (Physicians for Human Rights - Israel [PHR]) and that Gaza medical group. Do you have any evidence to show they are lying? At the moment, you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'I don't believe you'. I haven't been able to find any refutation of PHR's statement about sonic booms, and I have looked.

What, by the way, do you think the purpose of sonic booms are? Surely, they are to frighten (intimidate) and to cause suffering to people (in this case, to civilians)? If not, what reason do you propose they are carried out for?

It's not collective punishment, it's the logical result of harboring terrorists in your midst.

If I let a group of known terrorists, robbers, or murderers hide out and use my house as a base I could expect the police to knock down my door, use concussion grenades, possibly shoot me, and throw me out of my house and into jail making my life miserable also.

What is occuring is the same action being played out on a larger scale.

*It's not collective punishment, it's the logical result of harboring terrorists in your midst.*

these are not mutually exclusive even under such a perverse logic

troll

RedTard - I recommend you read HRW's latest report. They conclude that, although it is certainly true that Hizbullah sometimes disgracefully fire from civilian areas, this cannot explain let alone justify the scale of civilian casualties caused by Israeli air-strikes.

Jamie SW, ref your comment to Dave #10: well, if you're not defending Hezbollah, or damning Israel, then what IS the point of your article? 'Cause those are the two main points I get out of it, and I read/understand English very well, thank you.

"these are not mutually exclusive even under such a perverse logic"

Unfortunately, maintaining any sort of civilization among human savages requires such perversity. You can't let any two bit thug who's willing to hide behind an innocent skate because you're too much of a pussy to deal with it.

Red - you're right...I momentarily forgot how hopelessly barbaric humans are

troll

Jamie,

...although it is certainly true that Hizbullah sometimes disgracefully fire from civilian areas...

Why didn't you say "Hizbullah often criminally fire from civilian areas?"

Or are the Israelis the only criminals in your view?

Nancy: The point of this article was to take a look at the common tricks and false arguments apologists for Israeli atrocities use to defend them.
Who said I'm not "damning" Israel? Of course I am - what Israel is doing is disgusting, immoral and illegal. What kind of person would I be if I didn't?

Clavos: What? Of course what Hizbullah do is criminal. It's many things - barbaric, criminal, disgraceful, terrible and so on. Listen, I don't know why you're trying to make it seem like I'm defending Hizbullah - as I've stated clearly many times, Hizbullah are a bunch of terrorists. I don't think it's really necessary for me to keep writing 'disgraceful, barbaric, criminal and terrible' every time I talk about Hizbullah, because we all know that. Just like if I was writing about al-Qaeda and 9/11, I would feel the need to say that I think what they did was wrong. We all know what they did was wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to Israel, these things do need saying, because many people here don't accept that what it is doing is illegal, immoral, barbaric and terrible. You see?

Ahem...that's: I *wouldn't* feel the need to say what they did was wrong. :)