In Jim Rome’s analysis of the Barry Bonds, and the revelation that one (or more) of the mystery substances he’s used in the past were banned steroids, he brings up an intriguing circular argument, which I’m particularly fond of. Bonds, who is one of the best baseball players in the world, renowned for his training regimen and work ethic – the argument goes, it is inconceivable that an athlete of his caliber would not know what he was putting in his body. Unless, of course, he didn’t want to know. And the only reason he wouldn’t want to know, is if, in fact, he already did know.
My old boss used to call this sort of tactic “plausible deniability.” Indeed.
I think Israel is doing, and has done for years, the same thing, when it comes down to the death toll their attacks have imposed upon the unforuntate civilians surrounding their enemies – in all theatres. The mounting civilian death toll in Lebanon is no exception to this analysis, even though Israel will argue that she is doing everything within her power to prevent undue civilian casualties. Like Bonds, It is equally inconceivable that one of the strongest armies in the world, equipped with the best that precision-smart bombs and intelligence networks (Mossad) have to offer, would not know that their attacks were likely to kill lots of civilians. Unless they didn’t want to know. And the only reason they wouldn’t want to know, is because they already knew.
As I’ve previously noted, Israel’s leafleteering, urging the Lebanese to leave the area, etc., is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Amnesty International confirms this:
“The Israeli air strikes have forced hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee their homes and thousands more are at risk as the Israeli army has warned the population in certain areas to leave, but at the same time it has bombed the roads and bridges out of the areas, trapping civilians there.”
Now, I’ve never said Hezbollah was morally superior to Israel, and you will never hear me say that Israel is morally superior to Hezbollah. I simply refuse to evaluate the relative moralities of two gangs of murderers. Before I go any further, allow me to make one thing unmistakeably clear: I assure you that my objections to Israel are not meant to be, nor should they be interpreted as an endorsement of Hezbollah. I just think that there are definitely two sides to this story, and most of the media seems to focus on Israel’s cause. Poor fucking israel – commander of the 13th largest military in the world, overseer of the Mossad Intelligence agency, renowned for its assassinations and torture, and financed annually by more American aid than the entire African continent. But, the media would have you believe that Israel is an entirely innocent victim.
The fact of the matter is we haven’t a clue what those Israeli soldiers were doing that brough about their kidnapping. It’s quie possible that Israelis weren’t in Lebanon. But maybe they were. Perhaps Hezbollah should not have launched their raid days after the PLO initiated a similar incursion from Gaza. But the did. So look – there’s two sides, and Israel is not at all the victim that they play on the nightly news. Far from it. But Israel, and the IDF (which “D” stands for Defense, even though she’s historically been involved in quite a bit of Offense, too) will be portrayed as heroic defenders of the innocent – women, infants, civilians.
Propaganda never looked so beautiful, indeed. Because Israel has such a tremendous record of defending civilians. A true paragon of moral superiority; Yahoo! , the BBC and Human Rights Watch offer a few examples. Are these really the people we want to be supporting with our Veto power in the UN Security Council? It’s no wonder that Israel stands in defiance of dozens of UN resolutions and mandates.
Of course, I could go to Free Palestine for information about Israel’s occupation of Gaza, their mistreatment of the Palestinian people, which rivals the United States’ treatment of Native Indians during the 19th century. Fortunately, I don’t need to. Mainstream media is full of damning evidence against Israel.
Via BBC, Amnesty International condemns Israel’s actions:
The report lists “reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian areas… and excessive use of force …Certain abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes … Amnesty also says Israel has continued to use Palestinians as “human shields” during military operations, “forcing them to carry out tasks that endangered their lives”, despite an injunction by Israel’s high court banning the practice.
Or, Human Rights Watch also notes:
Human Rights Watch identified fifty-two Palestinians who were killed during the operation, of whom twenty-two were civilians. Many of the civilians were killed willfully or unlawfully. Human Rights Watch also found that the IDF used Palestinian civilians as “human shields” and used indiscriminate and excessive force during the operation.
Fifty-seven-year-old Kamal Zghair, a wheelchair-bound man who was shot and then run over by IDF tanks on April 10 as he was moving in his wheelchair equipped with a white flag down a major road in Jenin; (emphasis added)
Thirty-seven-year-old Jamal Fayid, a paralyzed man, who was crushed in the rubble of his home on April 7 after IDF soldiers refused to allow his family the time to remove him from their home before a bulldozer destroyed it…
Even as recent as July 20, 2006, the Times Online indicates that Israel’s actions in the current conflict in Lebanon could ostensibly be considered “war crimes,” although whether she will be taken to task for them is largely a matter of politics, not international law.
With reports of at least 300, mostly non-combatant, deaths in Lebanon during several days of air and artillery strikes, Louise Arbor, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, said that certain Israeli actions constituted “foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians” – illegal under international law… International law prohibits armies from: “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects…which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.”
The Geneva Convention requires that “Parties shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants.” Israel’s typical response is that they wouldn’t have launched the attack had they known or anticipated widespread civilian casualties. Well, one would hope they would say such things in hindsight – failure to admit this much would indicate clearly that they have no regard for human life. Failure to at least feign remorse would mean tossing your “plausible deniability” out the window.
The typical Mutual Fund advertisement bears legalese to the following: Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Now, I know that Israel’s horrendous history with regard to human rights is no guarantor of its future actions, but I’ve every reason to believe the trend will continue, and no reason to believe they’ve done a tactical 180. So before I hear another argument about how righteous Israel is – how civil, how appropriate their response is – how necessary it is for their survival, consider Israel’s record on human rights, and re-evaluate the merits of their arguments.
Tags: Lebanon, War, Human Rights
