Civilian Casualties
- From: "Richard Shulman" <richardshulman5@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Jul 2006 09:41:39 -0700
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES 14300 - Richard H. Shulman
Some Israeli missiles misfired, killing Arab civilians. In reaction,
Defense Min. Peretz ordered the Army to scrap mission that might harm
civilians. This appears to give preference to Arabs over Israelis
(IMRA, 6/21). If the terrorists are spared, they will not spare
Israeli civilians! If Peretz has no effective alternative, he should
scrap his order.
Former Israeli soldier HaimWatzman wrote an Op.-Ed. (NY Times, 6/22)
against IDF use of Arab human shields. Some practices he described, my
news sources, which may sugar-coat what Israel does, deny. Is he
vinegar-coating what the Army does? I suspect both. The Op.-Ed. is
phrased as thoughtful, but were it thoughtful, it would acknowledge the
best arguments from my sources and find a compromise.
He ends with a statement that Israel and its soldiers would be more
secure if it acted more ethically, i.e., put Arab civilians first. The
Arabs put their terrorists first, their civilians second, and Israeli
civilians last, without ill consequences. Europeans sneak into the
P.A. to serve the Arabs as human shields in order to hinder Israeli
defense against terrorism. The Arabs make their whole population human
shields, by hiding among civilians and shooting at Israelis from behind
civilians. That widespread and totally unethical Arab tactic - it is
a war crime - rates not even a mention by the former soldier. And he
talks about Israel needing to gain the high ground?
Watzman describes a former IDF practice, since then banned by the
Supreme Court as getting neighbors, sometimes by coercion, to knock on
doors. He neglects the fact that the practice prevented firefighting
and thereby saved lives of civilians as well as of soldiers. That is
ethical. Not doing it is unethical, at least not asking the people to.
Forbidden from using Arabs to knock on doors behind which terrorists
have taken refuge, the IDF has taken to bulldozing the houses down,
when the terrorists fail to surrender. Mr. Watzman claims that
endangers the civilians inside. Why? They could come out, couldn't
they? Why not just ban the coercion? If abused, Arabs would
complain. In Israel, they get more than a fair hearing for their
complaints.
He casually mentioned the Supreme Court as if it were being ethical.
It is so far leftist as to be anti-Israel. It favors the Arabs and
forbids most Israeli methods of defense. How it carps and harps on the
few civilian casualties that are inevitable in war. Not inevitable are
numerous casualties, which the Arabs strive for. I lived through the
period of WWII, when both sides targeted civilian cities. The US and
Israeli armies now minimize civilian casualties. We should be proud of
them and not worry about the few collateral casualties accompanying
proper prosecution of the war. We should remember that the Arabs have
no mercy and seek mass-murder, and that their civilians support their
gunmen in this.
I find it all too convenient for anti-Zionists to use ethical standards
for civilians as a means of keeping Israel from effective self-defense,
while ignoring the criminal means employed by the Arabs. These human
rights people are like the Devil quoting scripture.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Terrorism
- Next by Date: Abbas Lies, Yet Retains Respect
- Previous by thread: How To Assess Iraq War
- Next by thread: Abbas Lies, Yet Retains Respect
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
