A lot of people are appalled by the Gaza onslaught. Even the Jewish community is in secret agony over it. Israel supporter David Rothkopf recognizes the "odiousness" of the war, Michael Walzer its "awfulness." Why then do you have to go 20 paragraphs into this Times story on the Israeli government's whitewash of the war–"Israeli Military Says Actions in Gaza War Did Not Violate International Law"–before you get this paragraph:
Israeli and international human rights groups rejected the Israeli
military’s internal investigations as inadequate. Human Rights Watch
called Wednesday’s statement by the military “an insult to the
civilians in Gaza who needlessly died.” The army leadership, the group
said, is “apparently not interested, willing, or able to monitor
itself.”
Why wasn't this in the second or third paragraph? Did Sarajevo's explainers ever get the benediction of the Times? Jim Crow's? Notice that Human Rights Watch is such an exemplary organization that on the Times editorial page today, the editors urge that lobbyist regulations be eased so that a former HRW staffer can join the Obama administration. Is HRW not worthy of extensive quotation? And this was not some minor gaps-and-lacunae criticism by HRW. "…an insult to the civilians who needlessly died." Wouldn't you want to hear more from them about this gov't report? Isabel Kershner, the reporter, is in Jerusalem; she could have waddled in (sorry–I need to quote Jane Harman) to Talpiot neighborhood to the offices of B'tselem and asked them why they see this as a "problematic" investigation. B'tselem. From Genesis: And God created human beings in his image. I want to see a profile of B'tselem! (Thanks to James North for the thinking here.)
During the height of the Irish Troubles, would the Times have sent an Irish-American Roman Catholic partisan to be their eyes and ears in Belfast?
It was inadequate, and at the same time, it was the most inquiring of any the players.
I didn't see any publications of Islamic Jihad's evaluation of its conduct, PFLP's, Hamas'.
Do you think that shelling civilians was not a war crime worthy of investigation? What percentage of their actions were war crimes if all they did was shell civilians? (85%)?
What percentage of IDF actions were war crimes (.5%)?
.5 is not none. Its not the Barak whitewash. But, its not 85% either.
Of course you know that the numbers sited are entirely hypothetical. Speculations, not science.
Witty, the human pretzel!
Witty, Palestine doesn't have a military.
As for the Qassam facts from June 2008 to the Gaza War, here are your facts, not speculation, and it addresses Hamas:
link to youtube.com
Witty, imagine in place of every Jew in the USA establishment, we had a Palestinian. Of course you can't. As an American Firster, I resent you.
Isabel Kershner is one of most tendentious journalists on the subject of Israel that is given platform in the mainstream media.
Witty, I wish you'd learn or write English. The only thing I can glean from your posts is that you think that since Israel did most of the killing, HRW should therefore devote most of its attention to the crimes of the Palestinians. That's what passes for peace advocacy coming from you.
I agree with HRW–they've put out reports condemning both Israel and Hamas and they don't pull punches in either case. Nothing at all like the sort of guff you type.
No question for those who follow this blog regularly that Witty, despite his slavish use of humanistic rhetoric, consistently
comes down as a rubber-stamper of Israel policies, which always ignore that Pals were there before the Jews came en masse back
(after centuries of comparatively no presence). Witty's approach is always to belittle or ignore the difference in actual
power and its implementation as between the Jews and Palestinians. Is there a World Palestinian Org comparable to
World Zionist Org?
So you are ignoring the fact that the Jews were there for over 3000 years, continuously. That they were the Majority in Jerusalem until ethnically cleansed by the Palestinians in 1948. That is comparitively no presence? It would seem you are spouting, comparitively, bullshit.
Joe, as an American firster, I condemn you.