Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme, said: “We condemn all attacks on civilians, but unlawful attacks by one side cannot justify violations by the other. Israel's attacks this week display a degree of disproportion and recklessness which has so often characterised Israeli military attacks in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in recent years."
Malcolm Smart disgusts. Nowhere in his nauseating display of moral idiocy does he recognize, or even hint at recognizing, that the Israelis left Gaza entirely. They uprooted whole villages, though Gaza, like the "West Bank," is an area that according to the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine was to be part of the territory set aside for a Jewish state. And it is less than 1/1,00th of the vast areas that the Arabs inherited.
And in those areas where the Arabs rule, in those lands that we too easily call "the Arab world" (it's a phrase from ARAMCO propaganda of the 1940s and 1950s), in the nearly two dozen lands they now rule, every non-Arab (see the blacks of the Sudan, see the Kurds of Iraq, see the Berbers of North Africa) and non-Muslim (see the Copts of Egypt, see the Maronites of Lebanon, see the Assyrians and Chaldeans of Iraq) group must constantly fight for its continued existence. Every such group is forced to endure the steady pressure of Islam and of "Uruba" or Arabness, in a never-ending attempt to make these non-Arabs or non-Muslims forget their own history, through cultural and linguistic imperialism, or -- as with the black Africans in the Sudan, both the non-Muslims of the south, and the non-Arab Muslims of Darfur -- to simply be wiped out, or at least sufficiently reduced in numbers, so that the Arabs can inherit the land, and, what's more, the oil known to be in the south, and suspected to be in Darfur. In 1900 the population of the Sudan was almost entirely black African, with only a small Arab sliver in the north. That has changed.
Malcolm Smart, in his false equivalences, lets one side kick the beam. He knows that Israel wants only to stop the rockets from raining down on Sderot, and now on Ashkelon. He knows, he must know, what the Western allies did when rockets rained down on London. He must know how any country, and one not as tiny or as permanently under siege as Israel, would react if, from territory adjacent, people who wolfishly howled with glee at the prospect of destroying neighbors simply shot rocket after rocket into cities. And these rockets are not aimed at military targets and sometimes, inadvertently, misfire. They are not aimed at all. They are simply shot into cities. What would the French, the British, the Italians, the Americans, the Canadians do in such a situation?
There is no country on earth that gives evidence of being more scrupulous, taking more care, than the Israelis in their response. Where they fail, it is in not making absolutely clear to the malcolm-smarts of this world that they are ignoring the problem, the problem of the permanent opposition of the Arabs of Gaza, the Fast Jihadists of Hamas, and the Arabs of the "West Bank," the Slow Jihadists (who want that Jizyah from Western donors to resume, and to flow into the pockets of their eager warlords, with some of it no doubt to be shared with the general populace) of Fatah.
What does Malcolm Smart, or all the moral preeners in NGOs -- or in foreign offices -- expect Israel to do? What would they do, if it were their country having that steady rain -- not the gentle rain of heaven upon the place beneath, but a rain of death and potential death, that keeps coming and coming?
There is only one way, and in such circumstances there has never been any way but that one way. And that is to punish those who rain those rockets, and make them suffer, until they stop. No appeals to decency or common sense will do.
If Malcolm Smart has a plan, let's hear it. And perhaps he will also care to tell us what entitles him to be heard -- is it that he has slithered his way to the position he now holds? Is that what gives him moral authority, that he is now that grand thing, the director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme? Is that it?
Is that the reason we are to listen to Malcolm Smart, and are asked, for one second, to regard his viciousness and idiocy as morality? Is he in a position to tutor anyone in such matters? Why? On what theory?
Truth must never get in the way of ideology. Malcolm Smart has a script that he cannot deviate from: underdogs good, state bad.
Almost by definition anyone who fights against the power of a state is the underdog. It says so in the script.
Notice that Smart did not say the retaliation was unprovoked, but rather, unjust simply because it was "disproportionate".
You gotta love that reasoning.
Notice that Smart did not say the retaliation was unprovoked, but rather, unjust simply because it was "disproportionate".
That's because the political actor here (Israel) is a polity that is Western, allied with America, and Jewish, and the "victim" is a Third World people (the most victimized and "oppressed" Third World people now on the planet, Muslims). Any pragmatic military response by Isreal (and by any Western country against Muslims anywhere) will always be "disproportionate" according to the PC MC template that Maxwell Smart here follows through his shoe-phone. The forces of KAOS -- according to him and his ilk -- are not "the Other" -- they are Ourselves.
"Notice that Smart did not say the retaliation was unprovoked, but rather, unjust simply because it was "disproportionate"."
Look into international war law. "Disproportionate" is a criterion in whether or not defensive action is legal. That's why he's using the term.
Overall, international war law is structured to bind more powerful countries (which are typically more powerful because their populace is more free and sane, allowing for a stronger economy and better technological progress), to the benefit of weaker ( and typically more corrupt, oppressive) countries.
This is one instance of that.
"Maxwell Smart! Kaos is calling on the shoe phone - they want their political philosophy back!"
"Overall, international war law is structured to bind more powerful countries (which are typically more powerful because their populace is more free and sane, allowing for a stronger economy and better technological progress), to the benefit of weaker ( and typically more corrupt, oppressive) countries."
International war law is also biased against the West, and biased in favor of the Third World, according to a paradigm by which the Third World is seen to be perpetually weak and "oppressed" by the West, unless systemic changes (or Revolution, from the 1920s to the 1980s) are instituted to undo the "hegemony" of the West and its premier torchbearer, America. The U.N. and the E.U. have been assiduously at work on those systemic changes for decades; and during this time, their collusion with the OIC is becoming tantamount to a crypto-Caliphate that can exert its influence and supremacist ambitions upon the West, from within Western structures with the cooperation of Western actors, some witting, probably the majority witless in their politically correct multi-culturalist idealism.
"Any pragmatic military response by Isreal (and by any Western country against Muslims anywhere) will always be "disproportionate" according to the PC MC template [...]"
That is not the whole story.
Actual defense requires that sometimes defensive actions be "disproportionate" in terms of inflicting greater damage on the perpetrator, in order to create a disincentive to initiate attack that reliably cancels out the incentive initiate. Being bound to simple proportionality, without looking at the structure of incentives, allows an enemy to calculate attacks such that your response doesn't rise to the bar of true defense; doesn't cancel out their incentives to attack.
Upshot is that the rule of proportionality actually *increases* incentive to attack first, in some circumstances (such as this), relative to what the situation would be if you had a rule that allowed less bounded defensive force.
So, yeah, you're totally right that the real problem with defending ourselves comes from us, our culture, our "side", so to speak. But it is also built into the legal structures; the problem isn't the spin alone.
What would a truly "proportional" response look like when Hamas has put into its charter that their goal is the total destruction of Israel? How does one "proportionally" respond to plans of genocide?
Be careful what you ask for...you might just get it.
"The U.N. and the E.U. have been assiduously at work on those systemic changes for decades; and during this time, their collusion with the OIC is becoming tantamount to a crypto-Caliphate that can exert its influence and supremacist ambitions upon the West, from within Western structures with the cooperation of Western actors, some witting, probably the majority witless in their politically correct multi-culturalist idealism."
Yes, sadly, exactly.
The plus side is there is, in the US, a good deal of suspicion of the UN, that could eventually turn against the above.
Situation is rough for Europe, though.
Since Hamas abides by no rules of international war law, Israel is not obliged either.
Additionally, who is the monitor of proper military proportionality? The UN? In that case a big-fat Emily Litella "never-mind", is in order.
hope_and_justice wrote:
"Upshot is that the rule of proportionality actually *increases* incentive to attack first, in some circumstances (such as this)"
Agreed. That way Hamas can dictate the proportion and not bite off more than they can chew, drawing the support of the global media like Hezbollah did in 2006.
What would the French, the British, the Italians, the Americans, the Canadians do in such a situation?
in all likelihood, the Canadians would activate fully all their Highlander regiments and give Hamas a ultimatum surrender or die, and the Highlander units do not back down or lose fights
Well, there is a "once and for ever" solution available to the Israelis, non-nuclear, and they have the forces available to do it. Seal the border with Egypt and simply go house-to-house. Move everyone to the beach, and, when the town is cleared, heard the remainder into Egypt.
Whether they then bull-dozed the entire mess into the sea could be decided later.
Xero G said:
"What would a truly "proportional" response look like when Hamas has put into its charter that their goal is the total destruction of Israel? How does one "proportionally" respond to plans of genocide?"
Bingo. I wonder what Amnesty's official response is on that? That Israel is to only let themselves be "partially" destroyed?
Disproportionate, eh?
Alright, I have a proposition for every single one who has used that phrase since its first idiot appearance during the Lebanon incursion in 2006.
Israel is bombarded daily with unguided, random rocket attacks, to the tune of what, thousands in a year? So, the proportionate response is maybe this; for each unguided, random rocket, Israel fires an unguided, random rocket at a Gaza population center. Is that proportionate enough, a**hat?
Well said Jesus Worshipping Zionist, absolutely spot on.
A couple of points regarding AI:
1. It is an NGO. Whenever I now hear commenters from NGO, I think "marxists" who will always side against the west. That's because marxists want to destroy the west.
2. The brief of AI was to be a voice for prisoners of conscience, political prisoners. They - just like many other marxist HR groups - are now acting way beyond their remit. Why has nobdoy asked Malcolm not very Smart why an organisation that is supposed to defend prisoners of conscience is supporting the very people who not 12 months ago were dragging people kicking and screaming from their homes before summarily executing them whilst their horrified, helpless families watched?
As for disproportianate response -how very silly. If someone is picking a fight with you and they fight dirty, if you stick to the "Marquis of Queensbury rules" you will lose. Upshot: If you fight dirty(hiding behind women and children the cowardly vermin) don't stamp your feet and cry like a bitch when your opponent retaliates using whatever means he can to disable you.
The Malcolm not very Smart's of this world should, before they contaminate the atmosphere with their bile, be forced to live for 1 year in Sderot.
Methinks he wouldn't be Malcolm Streetsmart enough to hack it.
"If Malcolm Smart has a plan, let's hear it. And perhaps he will also care to tell us what entitles him to be heard -- is it that he has slithered his way to the position he now holds? Is that what gives him moral authority, that he is now that grand thing, the director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme? Is that it?"
Oh for one moment of this. One moment of dialogue during which Malcolm Smart defends his position, attempts to answer Hugh back, accepts that he doesn't just get to talk and run. But it won't happen. He is preaching to the converted, for the most part. He prefers that constituency. He does not read jihadwatch.
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - The United States expressed regret on Saturday for clashes that killed more than 60 Palestinians and two Israelis in the Gaza Strip and called for an end to the violence threatening a renewed U.S. peace effort, the White House said...."
One day the west will see a 9/11 -- quite unlike the 9/11 we witnessed here in America -- from jihadists similar to those George W. Bush is seeking to "end the violence" against; similar to those Bush is seeking a peace effort with.
President Bush, the Europeans and the west are playing with fire it seems to me. Mr. Bush has done little more than coddle and appease these killers. Mahmoud Abbas is an unregenerate murderer. Bush has embraced him and his Fatah terrorists. This may one day come back to haunt America.
Under Bush, the U.S. has increasingly turned against Israel and her security and toward the jihadists.
What is it about U.S. President's of the last 40 years that think their legacy has to be peace in the middle east?
Every administration seems to have spent it's last year or two cramming some peace deal between the palis and Israel (usually involving Isreal conceding land and the palis conceding nothing) down Israels throat. And to what purpose? So they can be the President that brought peace to the middle east.
Ain't gonna happen.
It's a cop-out for you to only post in friendly-waters here and feel self-righteous.
If you wish to change things, like convert the moonbats or at least the undecided, then how about helping counter their un-responded libelous assertions in the comments area of YouTube?
Those of us who do it are fatigued and need reinforcements- the audience needs you enlightened posters there!
What is it about U.S. President's of the last 40 years that think their legacy has to be peace in the middle east?
walterc,
I've only seen it in the last two presidents. For probably fifty years before that, presidents were good if they kept communism from advancing and the economy from collapsing.
Then the Cold War ended soon after Reagan left office, and Bush 41 followed that up with a global alliance against Saddam. After that, being a caretaker just wasn't good enough. Why, I don't know. Not enough glamor in just minding the store, I suppose. The lesson for future presidents should be: just forget your "legacy". Do a good job and keep this country secure and your legacy will be assured. If you try to write your own history you're sure to try too hard and inevitably you'll mess things up.
if AMerica was under attack on a daily basis from rockets being fired from Canada and Mexicoe, just how long do you think the America people would allow this????? and what do you think the outcome would be for the countries firing rockets into America?????
Smart did not simply say that Israel's response was "disproportionate." Read it again. He said the following:
"Israel's attacks this week display a degree of disproportion and recklessness which has so often characterised Israeli military attacks in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in recent years."
Both "Disproporitonate" and "Recklessness" are DOUBLE-SPEAK for implying that the Jews of Israel have no right to protect themselves in the face of terror, and that they should allow themselves to be exterminated just like were in the Holocaust.
There is no such thing as as a "proportionate" response in warfare. The whole idea is to use a disproportionate amount of force to defeat an enemy.
There is no other country in the world, now or at any time in the past century, who has been as careful to avoid civilian casualties as Israel -- even when doing so puts it at further risk.
Smart called Gaza, "Occupied Palestinian territory." Gaza is not Palestinian territory, and never was Palestinan territory. The land has always belonged to Israel, despite being illegally occupied by Egypt between 1948 and 1967. It cannot be said that Gaza was "occupied" by Israel at any time because these territories have been identified as "disputed territories" since the Armistice of 1949. Likewise, these territories cannot be called "Palestinian territories."
There have never been a single, Palestinian people that are distinct from any other group of Arabs and that have their own history. Prior to Israel's Independence, "Palestinians" only referred to Jews!
Israel should never have relinquished control of Gaza since (a) they were not required to do so by any UN resolution, and (b) the consequences have been hazardous not only to innocent Israelis but also Palestinian Arabs.
More than 80 percent of Palestinian Arabs living in Gaza want Israel to retake control of Gaza because Hamas was not elected to power by Gazans -- they strole it from Fatah, and because Hamas has made Gaza alving Hell.
In the two years that they have had total contorl of Gaza, they have devoted more time to firing rockets at Israel civilians than in helping their own.
Finally, all reports of Palestinian deaths are exaggerated -- they are intentionally increased, sometimes fourfold, to bring condemnation on Israel. These civilian deaths also include militants and rocket crews killed in preventative actions.
Why hasn't there been any condemation of Hamas's reckless and unprovoked attacks on purely civilian targets? This is a rhetorical question because I've stated the answer for you at the beginning.
As long as there are gullible people who will believe anything you tell them, the lies and distortions of israel will continue.
Israel should be congratulated for its superhuman restraint. Hamas is lucky - it should be "No more Mr. Nice Guy" and Gaza is a smoldering ash heap.1
Is he Maxwell's stupider brother?
There is no such thing as as a "proportionate" response in warfare.
There is such a thing under the PC Rules for Modern Warfare, which has stronger force than paper agreements such as Geneva insofar as it has become writ in men's hearts and minds. These Rules dictate that Western armies when fighting Third World peoples (and most especially Muslims) must always fight with one hand tied behind their back while their attackers can get away with murder of civilians, grotesque torture, using civilian shields, not wearing uniforms, etc. -- in short they can flout Geneva, but we can't.
Israel should heed General William Tecumseh Sherman’s dicta:
“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
and,
“War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over.”
I would personally add, “Israel needs to tell the Smarts of this world to go to hell.”
"disproportional and reckless"?
From the Mouths of Morons we are all expected to suffer.