Blind support of militarism, Israeli or otherwise, is wrong
Sun, 01/11/2009 - 11:44am | mal contends
Update: Rights group: Israel uses white phosphorus in Gaza
Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:41 PM EST
The Associated Press
By JASON KEYSER Associated Press Writer
The lessons of the Vietnam War, the illegal invasion of Iraq, one can go on, are lost on today's Congress, most strikingly on congressional Democrats.
The thing about war is that it is an utterly destructive act and should be avoided whenever possible, you know?
Most Democrats who voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq know this truism, but voted for the war anyway out of perceived political convenience.
Now Rep. Tammy Baldwin and most Democrats are making the same mistake on Israeli militarism of the same stripe.
Baldwin is a particular disappointment because we know damn well that she knows better but chooses political convenience over the lives of innocent Palestinian families (and actually Israel's long-range security) out of a cynical political calculation.
SOP? Sure, but one expects better out of Baldwin.
Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:41 PM EST
The Associated Press
By JASON KEYSER Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM (AP) — Human Rights Watch said Sunday that Israel's military has fired artillery shells with the incendiary agent white phosphorus into Gaza and a doctor there said the chemical was suspected in the case of 10 burn victims who had skin peeling off their faces and bodies.
This is what Rep. Baldwin and others are supporting. It's wrong, period.
---
Yesterday Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison) voted for a resolution that unconditionally supports Israel's attack on Gaza, and places full blame for both the attack and the resulting civilian deaths on Hamas. The resolution passed overwhelmingly.
The lessons of the Vietnam War, the illegal invasion of Iraq, one can go on, are lost on today's Congress, most strikingly on congressional Democrats.
The thing about war is that it is an utterly destructive act and should be avoided whenever possible, you know?
Most Democrats who voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq know this truism, but voted for the war anyway out of perceived political convenience.
Now Rep. Tammy Baldwin and most Democrats are making the same mistake on Israeli militarism of the same stripe.
Baldwin is a particular disappointment because we know damn well that she knows better but chooses political convenience over the lives of innocent Palestinian families (and actually Israel's long-range security) out of a cynical political calculation.
SOP? Sure, but one expects better out of Baldwin.
Tags: 
You’re correct that the Palestinians have been mistreated by Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the other various Arab dictatorships in the region.
But Israel with tacit (at least) US approval is doing the killing in Gaza. You’re further correct that Islam is often employed in a reprehensible fashion rejecting any notion of a classical liberal society in favor of bigotries and the related authoritarian systems of law.
Though one should note that this denial of liberty has never been an obstacle to our entering into alliances in the region.
You are empirically incorrect that Hamas has committed anything close to the killing and wounding of human beings that Israel has committed. Nor is Hamas anything like the threat to international law and human rights that Israel is.
And you do not point to a case for killing innocent Palestinian families. I mean they are people, though racism against Arabs prevalent among Israeli and American militants reject such notions of Arab humanity. That's the problem that Baldwin and others have if we take their stands at face value. [I don't take the stands at face value, I think Baldwin knows better but in a phrase: doesn't give a shit. Actions speak here.
It’s worth noting that Israel and the United States (and often South Africa when run by the racists) typically are/were alone in rejecting any two-state solution that the UN and other international bodies advocated.
Your descriptions of a “failed and war-like culture” and “culture of hatred” in the face of the atrocities that Israel has committed are ironic.
I don’t feel any kinship to religions generally and certainly not to the brands of Islam that we see in the region, but as a thinking citizen I do advocate a heavy presumption against killing people, even religious people.
The neocon siege mentality that you have has and is now leading to disastrous consequences, if you accept mass killing, collective punishment, starving, denial of liberty, illegal occupationn and the like as disastrous.
apology that militarists the world over use to justify killing innocents, though you seem to not believe in such a thing as innocence among the Palestinians murdered [let’s call it what it is] apparently: "... elections have consequences....," so I guess it's fine children are murdered.
That apology is: We have a better county therefore killing is justified … in self-defense of course.
Your argument is that the relative pluralism and internal civil liberties in Israel justify a militaristic foreign policy.
It’s the same argument militarists here use: The US is among the most free and materially productive countries internally so anything we do externally in our foreign policy must be just and employed with the best of intentions.
But it’s plain that, to quote a letter from the Sunday Times, that "Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime.”
That’s worth reading in its entirety by those concerned with human rights in foreign policy as well: See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5488380.ece
And see below:
ISRAEL has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that it amounts to an act of “self-defence” as recognised by Article 51, United Nations Charter.
We categorically reject this contention.
The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence. Under international law self-defence is an act of last resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and necessity.
The killing of almost 800 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 3,000 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire.
For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years after Israel’s redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire.
And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because Israel maintained effective control over it.
Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the truce with Hamas. Instead it killed 225 Palestinians on the first day of its attack.
As things stand, its invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law. In addition, the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes.
We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population from such attacks. However, the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas.
Ian Brownlie QC, Blackstone Chambers
Mark Muller QC, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales Michael Mansfield QC and Joel Bennathan QC, Tooks Chambers Sir Geoffrey Bindman, University College, London
Professor Richard Falk, Princeton University
Professor M Cherif Bassiouni, DePaul University, Chicago Professor Christine Chinkin, LSE Professor John B Quigley, Ohio State University Professor Iain Scobbie and Victor Kattan, School of Oriental and African Studies Professor Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva Professor Said Mahmoudi, Stockholm University Professor Max du Plessis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban Professor Bill Bowring, Birkbeck College Professor Joshua Castellino, Middlesex University Professor Thomas Skouteris and Professor Michael Kagan, American University of Cairo Professor Javaid Rehman, Brunel University Daniel Machover, Chairman, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights Dr Phoebe Okawa, Queen Mary University John Strawson, University of East London Dr Nisrine Abiad, British Institute of International and Comparative Law Dr Michael Kearney, University of York Dr Shane Darcy, National University of Ireland, Galway Dr Michelle Burgis, University of St Andrews Dr Niaz Shah, University of Hull Liz Davies, Chair, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyer Prof Michael Lynk, The University of Western Ontario Steve Kamlish QC and Michael Topolski QC, Tooks Chambers