Skip to main content

View Diary: Gaza Death toll tops 110 as Israel hits targets in densly packed residential areas killing civilians (201 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Gutin, do recall that not also accusing others of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    bad conduct DOES NOT mean that the actually accused did not commit the conduct it was accused of. It is not a valid defense of A to a charge that A did bad thing x that B also did it and was not similarly accused. Nor is it helpful for Israel to refuse to participate in investigations, and then take the position that the investigation was unfair because there was something they could have contributed, which they declined to contribute by their want of participation.

    And all of us recall the mess that Israel made of the Mavi Marmara investigation when it did its own as the only one it would permit to go forward.

    •  I am not saying that Israel should not have to (0+ / 0-)

      answer for any human rights violations it may have committed. What I am saying is that the UN is the wrong organization to try to get Israel to answer for these things because its historical obsession with Israel, especially from the 1970s on, leads it to selective enforcement of its goal to protect human rights.

      You are correct that if, say, I am caught speeding I can not argue that it is OK because I was going speed of traffic and no one else got pulled over. However, if the police officer running the speed traps is found in a court of law to only pull over people wearing kippot/yarmulkes (as I do) then he can expect that traffic citation to be thrown out and possibly a civil rights lawsuit.

      Lets take the metaphor further - lets say that I am in a known anti semitic area in which, even if I am able to prove selective enforcement, the results of any legal challenge have been pre determined because of the prejudices of not only the police officer but the court itself! In that case, I may choose not to even participate and defend myself, choosing instead to protest the entire proceeding. Defending myself may actually make things worse since kangaroo courts are excellent at selectively hearing and responding to what witnesses have to say.

      The question for me is not whether Israel should be held responsible for violations of human rights; the question is what outside state or organization has the moral standing to hold them accountable. I can think of three: (1) The US government, (2) NATO, (3) The worldwide Jewish community. Whenever 1 or 3 get involved and tell Israel to stop Israel tends to listen because of feeling like she has been fairly treated by those groups over the years.

      If you believe that ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're an idiot.
      If you believe that NONE of the criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're a fool.
      If you call EVERYONE who criticizes Israel antisemitic, you're just an a$$hole

      by A Gutin Daf on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:45:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lemme see here. (0+ / 0-)

        Of your three options for proper determiners of Israeli conduct, one is the US government, its one and only ally in the world, pledged to its defense and best interests, one is the military forces of Europe and the said US, who have their own horrible history with the ancestors of present Israelis, a matter which Israel uses actively in its diplomacy, and the third one is the relatives. No person not affiliated with Israel would accept any of those three because of the built in bias of issues with Israel or the ancestors who founded it and which are still separate live political issues.

        Have you forgotten that Palestinians also have rights here? They are invisible in your analysis.  The UN is not necessarily biased against Israel because of the sheer number of resos brought, since Israel regularly ignores them anyway, and since resos are not usually internally instigated but instead are considered because someone authoritized to make a complaint  and ask for relief according to the rules of the UN system has made one.

        And unlike all three of your suggestions, filled with bias involving Israel no matter who the victims are, UN has access to international professionals without those built in biases, from places never invovled in this particular problem, to consider what to do. By contrast, you treat this matter as if the only entity worthy of consideration was Israel, and that none of the victims or their communities should have any voice at all.

        As you may also know, perhaps, one of the effects of Palestine getting nonmember state UN recognition at the end of the month will also provide another forum, the International Criminal Court. Do you have a problem with that forum as well?  Palestine has not had the right prior to recognition as some sort of state to go there for relief, and Israel is not a bound signatory and has objected to any complaint by Palestine as to access to that forum while not a state.  

        Your real problem with the UN is that you can't figure out how to avoid its jurisdiction, so instead you complain about the number of actions it has taken, without considering their content or the facts submitted to their proceedings in support of those complaints.

        •  I know Israel would not accept UN intervention (0+ / 0-)

          But I bet Palestinians would accept a coalition involving Europe and the US with Turkey and Egypt added into the mix. Without Turkey and Egypt the Palestinians would be absolutely right to refuse the involvement of such a coalition for good reasons that you stated above.

          I think the concerns of the Palestinians, especially the population in Gaza, have to be part of any decision making process.

          Let me state this another way - we disagree as to whether Israel has a legitimate beef with the UN but we both agree that Israel HAS a beef. I am seeking solutions that have a chance of working; I do not think UN intervention as the official 3rd party is one of them.

          If you believe that ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're an idiot.
          If you believe that NONE of the criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're a fool.
          If you call EVERYONE who criticizes Israel antisemitic, you're just an a$$hole

          by A Gutin Daf on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:14:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site