This demonstration took place in Britain over the weekend. Police estimate over 20,000 people attended (organizers put the number at 100,000.)
Apparently, they're "ALL HIZBULLAH" now.
One wonders if those holding those signs understand the nature of the cause they're endorsing.
The URLs on the sign lead you to the Islamic Human Rights Commission and Innovative Minds, an anti-Zionist / anti-(US) imperialism organization.
On their website, the IHRC calls for:
and supports the national demonstration this coming Saturday (5th August) calling for an unconditional and immediate Israeli ceasefire in Lebanon and Gaza, as well as an end to US and British support for Israel’s terror.Note that a ceasefire is only demanded of Israel -- apparently Hezbollah can continue bombing till all the Jews are dead.
This demonstration follows one held July 22 which was called:
Demonstration Against Israeli atrocities in Lebanon and PalestineI suppose this one was in anticipation of the 'massacres' which had yet to occur. StopWar called it the International Day of Action Against Israeli Aggression. These rallies were held in cities around the world and across Canada.
At this weekend's demonstration, Stop the War spokesman John Rees said:
"Their (the British government's) silence is permitting mass murder in Lebanon by the Israeli forces. Look at the casualties: it's eight to one".The gut reaction to that ratio is to imagine David (Hezbollah) vs Goliath (Israel) but the reality is that it's only Israel's restraint that has kept the ratio so low. If Israel fought the way Hezbollah does, by targeting civilians, the death toll would be in the tens of thousands and the ratio would reflect that.
The ratio would be more even too, if Hezbollah protected Lebanese civilians, instead of hiding amongst them.
If ratios of deaths are the issue, then why aren't these protesters demanding that Lebanon and Hezbollah start protecting their civilian populations, instead of using them as tools of propaganda?
Similar demonstrations took place here in Canada:
Some carried placards in support of Hezbollah and the group's leader Hassan Nasrallah, and others chanted "Vive Hezbollah."These demonstration could have simply called for peace. They didn't. Their demands for a ceasefire could have been directed toward both Israel and Hezbollah. They weren't.
.
Instead it called for a unilateral ceasefire. This wasn't an anti-war march, it was a call for Israel to surrender and leave its fate to an intractible enemy. How comforting for Hezbollah to know that many in the west support their cause.
canadianna
19 comments:
what those, including harper, fail to recognize in their unconditional support of israeli foreign policy, is that condemnation of israel's excessive and often indiscriminate use of force in lebanon does not translate into support for hezbollah's sloppy and relentless bombing of northern israel.
Jeff is playing the anti-war left card--"Hey, just because we're against the war in Iraq does not mean that we want Saddam back in power." Yet, that is exactly what would have happened if the left had their way.
The left does understand that Hizbollah cannot be negotiated with when its agenda includes the destruction of Israel. How do you broker a peace deal when really the one side hates peace and hates Israel?
Jeff -- supporting Israel's right to defend itself is not 'unconditional support'.
The only ones using the word 'unconditional' are those calling for an unconditional ceasefire by Israel -- they might just as well call for 'unconditional surrender'.
You use the words 'excessive' and 'indiscriminate' -- what could be more discriminating than putting ground troups into Lebanon at considerable risk, rather than just flattening the entire place?
This could have been over for Israel by now if they had not been trying to avoid hitting Lebanese civilians. Too bad Lebanon's government and Hezbollah are not so worried about their people.
What exactly is the proportionate response to the 'sloppy and relentless bombing' that preceded Israel's response?
You call Hezbollah's bombing 'sloppy', implying that it isn't quite as bad for Israel, because it is imprecise. Just because they haven't the capability to target a particular building, doesn't mean that buildings are not being destroyed. The only reason the civilian casualties are so low in Israel is because people have evacuated or are living underground. Whole communities, including at least one hospital in Haifa are living underground and have been since the 'sloppy bombing' started.
And, if you happened to bother to read the post -- anyone who says that they 'are Hezbollah' (as those people at the rally did) or who calls for an Israel-only ceasefire (which the people at the rally did) is supporting Hezbollah's bombing of Israel.
As for you, you just haven't worked out the meaning of 'anti-Zionist'.
20,000 people? Very, very sad.
Clearly the left doesn't understand the situation at all.
Leftists are too simple-minded about important matters. They don't want to think for themselves.
It's sufficient for them to watch the MSM and hear Islamists and their left-wing ideological apologists claim against reality that Islam is a "religion of peace and tolerance".
The reality is that Islam is about supremacism, intolerance of non-Muslims, intolerance of women, of sexual minorities, atheists, and other religious peoples, most particularly Jews.
The Koran mandates jihad for all able-bodied Muslims.
The Koran mandates Muslims to request that Kaffirs (non-Muslims) convert to Islam. And if they refuse, to give them the opportunity to become "Dhimmis" (obedient servants of Muslims who must pay a tax to Muslims for not being a Muslim). Finally, if the Kaffirs refuse that, too, the Koran mandates that they be put to death.
Do any leftists here wish to claim that I have just lied? If so, then provide proof, else your accusation is in and of itself worthless (as I'm telling the truth, there's nothing to prove I'm lying... it's in the Koran-- I have verified it via research).
The problem in the MidEast is that the Islamic world is intolerant of Israel simply because it isn't an Islamic state and therefore must be crushed, the Jews either converted or killed, and then made an Islamic theocracy, much like under the Taliban. Israel is NOT an aggressor. In fact, by international law, Gaza and the West Bank are Israeli territory which is actually occupied by mostly Arab Muslims whom the Islamic world refused to accept as refugees following the war of 1967. Israel, being humane (unlike the Islamic world), rather than cleansing these folks (as the Islamic world is trying to cleanse the MidEast of Kaffirs), allowed them to stay, even to move into Israel and enjoy full human rights.
Hezbollah has been attacking Israel from Lebanon with the full support of the Lebanese gov't for years now. They started the current war years ago... the kidnapping of the IDF soldiers was merely an event they planned to provoke Israel further as the missile attacks alone weren't getting any retaliation.
Interesting how the left and the MSM have never given a crap that Israel is the victim and is, out of necissity for its very survival, fighting back in self-defence.
Hezbollah is utilizing Pallywood as a propaganda tool to tell the world lies about Israel's activities and in fact is deliberately using human shields and posing as civilians while attacking Israel. Israel has no choice anyhow; therefore ALL OF THE BLAME FOR ALL CIVILIAN DEATHS IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF HEZBOLLAH. Plus the Lebanese gov't is as guilty of aiding and abetting this evil, hateful, racist, supremacist Islamic jihad organization as the Taliban was of aiding and abetting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Lebanese President can cry for the TV all he wants... but he's guilty as sin for allowing a jihadist group to grow right on his soil and wage jihad against Israel for years.
Hezbollah must be crushed, obliberated, wiped out completely or forced to surrender unconditionally before there can even be any consideration of a ceasefire, which is a non-starter as long as Hezbollah continues to exist and threaten Israel's existence.
And over the long run... Islamist supremacism, which is the greatest threat facing humanity in the world since Hitler's Nazis, must be brought to its knees and forced to abandon the Koran's evil doctrines of Islamic supremacism, forced conversion/slavery and murder.
But leftists are too closed-minded and are stubbornly refusing to use their brains to understand the reality of the world... as to think is too hard for them... they'd rather be told and accept lies as it's far easier to submit thereto... as they apparently wish to become Dhimmis in an Islamic theocratic planet (which, by the way, would execute gay people, something the left doesn't want to acknowledge as then they'd have to start calling Muslims hateful, murderous monsters, as they do to regular folks who dare express even the slightest differnece in opinion relative to enforced political correctness wrt sexual minorities...)
Please, if you don't know the truth about Islam, but you genuinely care and, as you claim, have an "open mind", I recommend you start with the following site, from which you can learn so much about the reality of Islam you will be shocked.
http://tinyurl.com/orvlm
That is the introduction to the site run by Ali Sinha, an ex-Muslim who understands the true reality about Islam and has called for its abolition, as a matter of fact.
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php
No one has ever proven him wrong. NO one.
Any questions?
First of all, I am anti-Hezbollah, anti-terror, and anti-extremism of all kinds...
It makes me sad to know that Arabs remain brainwashed even when they live abroad.
But what also saddens me is how you, and others, are always so certain that Israel did the best possible job in minimizing civilian casualties. How do you know that? Any proof? Are any of you in the IDF and know how much civilian life is valued?
And if you don't know, like me, then why assume the best scenario possible for the Israeli cause? That Israel has done the most in avoiding civilian casualties.
"But what also saddens me is how you, and others, are always so certain that Israel did the best possible job in minimizing civilian casualties. How do you know that? Any proof? Are any of you in the IDF and know how much civilian life is valued?" -Mechanicalcrowds
---We know as Israel has been observed pulling punches all the time. IDF soldiers have been dying and Israeli civilians have been dying precisely due to this attempt to avoid civilian casualties.
Don't just watch the MSM. Seek also the hard way evidence that Israel is indeed trying to minimize civvy casualties. I believe you haven't seen the indubitable preponderance of evidence.
Also, if Israel hadn't been trying to preserve civilian lives, then they'd have cleansed Gaza and the W.B. way back in 1967, as would've the Islamists if they won the territory. Interesting the Islamic world refused to open its doors to these "refugees".
There is NO doubting Israel's commitment to human rights and the preservation of innocent life. But this MUST be understood in the context of Hamas/Hezbollah posing as civilians and using human shields inside civilian areas while waging their war attacks upon Israel.
It is proven. Just look and see for yourself.
It is also proven that the Islamists aren't avoiding civilian casualties. Indeed, their goal, stemming from the imperatives of Islamic jihad, which is about offensive, racist, murderous supremacism, not "resistance", is to kill as many innocents as possible. This might sound like b.s., but it's true.
You're online. The truth is out there.
You might start here:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=1&page=1
If one wants to grow a plant, then one plants a seed into the soil, waters it, nurtures it, and ensures it receive specific light.
Should anyone be surprised of the seeds that such hate marches plant in the minds of young Muslims? We almost found out today. Had the massive airline plot in Britain not been foiled, an estimated 5,000 innocent people would have been murdered.
The dots are not far apart, folks. Sadly, those like "jeff" refuse to connect them.
Sentinel,
First of all let's get this out of the way. Why did you partially respond to me by telling me how bad extremists are? I am not arguing that, I said in the beginning I am anti-extremism... etc...
"IDF soldiers have been dying and Israeli civilians have been dying precisely due to this attempt to avoid civilian casualties."
Does this prove that Israel is doing it's best to avoid civilian Lebanese casualties? No.
"Don't just watch the MSM. Seek also the hard way evidence that Israel is indeed trying to minimize civvy casualties. I believe you haven't seen the indubitable preponderance of evidence."
What is MSM? I am seeking the evidence but you haven't shown me any.
"Also, if Israel hadn't been trying to preserve civilian lives, then they'd have cleansed Gaza and the W.B. way back in 1967, as would've the Islamists if they won the territory. Interesting the Islamic world refused to open its doors to these "refugees"."
Perservation of civilian life is not an on/off switch. What we are arguing here is the EXTENT to which Israel is trying to avoid civilian life. You are saying Israel is doing the most possible and I'm saying it's trying but not hard enough.
"There is NO doubting Israel's commitment to human rights and the preservation of innocent life. But this MUST be understood in the context of Hamas/Hezbollah posing as civilians and using human shields inside civilian areas while waging their war attacks upon Israel."
Why there is no doubt? You are asking Muslims to question something sacred to them, their religion, but you can't question the Israeli government yourself?
"It is proven. Just look and see for yourself."
Show me, you haven't given me anything at all.
MechanicalCrowds -- I think you're being sincere in your question.
Israel has the capacity to level Lebanon. It's that simple. They could do it by air assaults -- in other words -- from a distance. Distance provides safety for their own military.
They could have eliminated Hezbollah by carpet bombing the place, and they would have killed the civilian population too.
Instead, they've sent in ground forces. Those troops are subject to hand-to-hand combat and already many have been killed when entering booby-trapped houses.
When the IDF went into Jenin (where they were accused of a massacre that didn't happen) they were lured into traps by women and children claiming to seek shelter from the terrorists.
When the Israeli government, with the support of its people, is willing to put the lives of their soldiers on the line by putting them on the ground in Lebanon, rather than just bombing the whole place to oblivion, that tells me that they have the lives of Lebanese civilians in mind.
You say that it's (Israel is) trying but not hard enough
What more can they do? What other country on earth even tries to avoid civilian casualties during a war? They've dropped leaflets telling people where they will be bombing, where their troops will be moving in --- they are telegraphing their war strategy -- do you think that's helpful to their military action --giving the enemy advance warning of their positions when they warn civilians away?
No, but they do it --why? To prevent civilian casualties.
When preventing Lebanese civilian casualties risks the lives of Israeli soldiers, they are not obligated to do so under the rules of war -- but they do it.
What more could be expected and would it be expected of any other country?
"Israel has the capacity to level Lebanon. It's that simple. They could do it by air assaults -- in other words -- from a distance. Distance provides safety for their own military.
They could have eliminated Hezbollah by carpet bombing the place, and they would have killed the civilian population too."
Yes they have the capacity to do all that. But is civilian life the only reason why they did not do that? Do you think it's in the best interest of Israel to something like that? I think not, so civilian life might not be the only motive here.
"When the Israeli government, with the support of its people, is willing to put the lives of their soldiers on the line by putting them on the ground in Lebanon, rather than just bombing the whole place to oblivion, that tells me that they have the lives of Lebanese civilians in mind."
They are putting troops on the ground because they have no other option. Carpet bombing Lebanon is not in the best interest of Israel and we all know it. Moreover, the fact that Israel can carpet bomb the whole of Lebanon does not justify actions that are less violent!
"What more can they do? What other country on earth even tries to avoid civilian casualties during a war? They've dropped leaflets telling people where they will be bombing, where their troops will be moving in --- they are telegraphing their war strategy -- do you think that's helpful to their military action --giving the enemy advance warning of their positions when they warn civilians away?
No, but they do it --why? To prevent civilian casualties."
The leaflets are a good thing. I respect Israel for doing that. But things like what happened in Qana (twice... read the UN report), makes me think. Was it really a mistake or did someone in the IDF say "well it could be civilians or it could Hezbollah but let's bomb it anyway".
"When preventing Lebanese civilian casualties risks the lives of Israeli soldiers, they are not obligated to do so under the rules of war -- but they do it.
What more could be expected and would it be expected of any other country?"
So Israel is risking their soldiers' lives only because they care about Lebanese civilian life? You really think so?
What more? I think the execution of the war could have been better. More damage to Hezbollah and less to the civilians.
mechanicalcrowds --
1st, the Israeli government's sole motivation might not be the protection of Lebanese civilians, but the people of Israel would certainly not stay behind this war if they thought the government was either purposely targeting civilians, or willfully disregarding the lives of civilians in Lebanon.
There are serious questions about the deaths in Qana, not just the numbers anymore, but the method. It appears the last strikes on and around that building happened hours before the building collapsed. Photographs have been staged. It's hard to tell and so long as Hezbollah tries to inflate casualty numbers to exploit or create tragedies, it will be difficult to believe anything they're saying (UN report or no UN report -- unfortunately, given the heavy anti-Israel bias, I'll reserve my judgement -- I don't trust the UN to make even-handed judgements on Israel).
You could be right that the Israeli government doesn't really care about Lebanese civilians -- their attempts to avoid them could really just be PR to prevent world opinion from getting any worse for them -- but the fact is, the best protection for Lebanese civilians would be for Hezbollah not to hide amongst them. As long as they continue to do so, there will be accidents, miscalculations, overzealotry, misinformation -- and tragedies will happen.
Only Hezbollah has the full power to prevent Lebanese civilian casualties, but it deliberately sets circumstances so they happen or it stages things to appear like they did.
I'm sure Israel would prefer more damage to Hezbollah too. It doesn't serve them well to have civilians hit, even if its only PR.
Anna,
"1st, the Israeli government's sole motivation might not be the protection of Lebanese civilians, but the people of Israel would certainly not stay behind this war if they thought the government was either purposely targeting civilians, or willfully disregarding the lives of civilians in Lebanon."
The people of Israel's stance towards their government and what they think their government is doing is irrelevant to my question!
And about Qana, if you're uncertain about the facts, like me, then why not say "I am not sure" instead of "Israel did nothing wrong" like a lot of people?
I know Hezbollah is the perpetrator, the criminal... I will say it again, I am not arguing that. But this does not give Israel a blank cheque.
This is how I think about it:
Hezbollah is a murderer that has committed a crime and ran away. They ran away with a car and drove to a crowded market and are firing back. Now Israel, the police, has the right to chase, try to shoot at, and catch them. But that does not mean they can take out an M60 machine gun, put it on the police car, and start firing away! Even though they are the police, they don't have the right to be reckless. I am not saying Israel is reckless, I am just questioning whether they are or not. You are completely certain they are not reckless, and I am not. Are you following my logic?
mechanicalcrowds -- yes, I do follow your logic.
The reaction of the Israeli people to the war and perceived governmental/military wrong-doing does indeed make a difference. Israel is a democracy and a very open one at that. There have been cases over the years where at various times the Israeli army, the government and its leaders have been found guilty of wrong-doing by Israeli inquiries and commissions.
They air their dirty laundry -- they don't try to hide it. That's why public opinion there really matters. Their people won't let the government get away with the wanton destruction of other peoples. Having survived to Holocaust, many Israeli Jews are only to aware of the tyranny that can come from overzealous government action. I trust the Israeli public to hold their politicians and their military accountable.
Never anywhere have I said "Israel did nothing wrong". I have said that Israel is not the aggressor. I have said that I believe Israel goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties (and I still believe that to be true -- even if Qana had as many deaths as originally reported, I don't believe it was deliberate). I have also said that avoiding civilians completely, is impossible and that the only way Lebanese civilians will be safe from Israeli bombing, is if Hezbollah quits using the tactic of hiding amongst civilians. None of that translates into "Israel does nothing wrong".
The only way Israel could avoid killing any innocent Lebanese civilians is if they were to quit fighting back. I don't see that as being a reasonable option.
I know you're wondering about the amount of force -- but what amount of force would be reasonable? How many deaths are reasonable?
Truth is, if you're human, the answer should be 'none'. But Israel is fighting an enemy deliberately hiding in homes and schools and mosques -- it's highly unlikely, no matter how careful they are, that if they strike back -- even with 'reasonable force', they'll only hit the enemy.
I do understand your position and I'm not trying to minimize your concern.
Can I join in on the discussion?
A little while back I did some analysis comparing the rate of civilian casulaties in recent wars. Later on I will update it and include the data on Yugoslavia. It is clear that the actual rate of civilian casualties was lower because the Lebanese Government's estimate was too conservative.
In summary:
1. Yes Israelis are making mistakes.
2. Yes it is possible that a particular IDF officer took the wrong decision deliberately. In case of Qana I believe that intelligence was deliberately mislead and was guilty of not verifying it's sources, but I don't know for sure.
3. IDF has been more successful than any other army in comparable conflicts in minimizing the rate of civilian deaths. This is stunning when you take into account the nature of the conflict.
On a separate issue: how come Hezbollah has air-conditioned bunkers and a network of tunnels, but children and civilians in Lebanon are not using them?
Wow... this post is getting bigger but our gap is getting smaller!
Anna,
"Israel is a democracy and a very open one at that. There have been cases over the years where at various times the Israeli army, the government and its leaders have been found guilty of wrong-doing by Israeli inquiries and commissions.
They air their dirty laundry -- they don't try to hide it. That's why public opinion there really matters. Their people won't let the government get away with the wanton destruction of other peoples. Having survived to Holocaust, many Israeli Jews are only to aware of the tyranny that can come from overzealous government action. I trust the Israeli public to hold their politicians and their military accountable."
I agree, an open democracy is a good thing. History has showed, however, that even such a system does not prevent scandals from happening. We have heard of so many scandals coming from democratic government recently. Do you think the ones that we hear about are all that is? You think they don't try to hide their mistakes?
Just because Israel is a democracy that is sensitive to public opinion does in no way indicate that they don't make mistakes and try to hide them.
"Israel did nothing wrong."
So you agree or disagree with the above statement?
What I think you were saying before is that Israel is doing the best job possible avoiding civilian casualties. This, to me, is basically saying "Israel did nothing wrong."
"The only way Israel could avoid killing any innocent Lebanese civilians is if they were to quit fighting back. I don't see that as being a reasonable option."
I agree... who doesn't?
"I know you're wondering about the amount of force -- but what amount of force would be reasonable? How many deaths are reasonable?
Truth is, if you're human, the answer should be 'none'. But Israel is fighting an enemy deliberately hiding in homes and schools and mosques -- it's highly unlikely, no matter how careful they are, that if they strike back -- even with 'reasonable force', they'll only hit the enemy."
I am not wondering about the amount of force. I actually think they needed more. I'm wondering about it's accuracy.
Again, I am not saying hit enemy only as that is impossible. I am saying less civilians and more enemy and that is possible in my opinion.
Thank you Anna for the decent discussion. And thank you for not attacking my person.
why am I always outnumbered?
Shlemazl,
I see you keep using that chart you made. Unfortunately, I see a few big holes in it which I won't mention now. But I'm sure you'll get some critisizm if you present it to some war statistic expert.
Anyway, I agree with 1 and 2 as you can guess. I appreciate you saying these points.
I am uncertain, either way, about point 3. I don't find the Israeli performance 'stunning' that's for sure. But I think points 1 & 2 do not support it very well!
I will be away for a few days and won't be able to read/respond.
take care
I concur completely with Canadi-anna and many others, particularly Canadian Sentinel for lucid explanation and expose of Islamist terrorist agenda.
The question exists, will the cease fire prove Hisballah incapable of cessation of violence? Maybe for a length of time and then it is likely Israel will be back to square one.
UNSC resolution 1701 negates all terrorist org.'s authority and onus rests with Lebanese gov't to place embargo on future arms resupply. Hisballah's ego centric fanaticism and death threats against Israel is not likely to dissipate anytime soon.
And will the IDF soldiers be returned? Next week should tell story. If one kaytusha rocket ever fires into Northern Israel at any time in future, international community has undisputed proof terrorist org. MUST BE TAKEN OUT. The 'bait and switch' tactic can't be tolerated beyond this resolution's implementation.
Personally I think Israel is taking the ultimate risk perhaps because they are adhering to a moral code which they hope to advance on international stage as they confirm their 'right to exist' which should always have been a given anyways.
Post a Comment