Donna Ferentes
jubliado
For what it's worth, so was Jello Biafra. Most pissed off I was, as it stopped me seeing him live in Cork.Andy the Don said:
editor of Hizbullah's main media outlet to attend STWC conf
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
Did Hezbollah deliberately targetted Israeli civilians through it's rockets?
While Hezbollah certainly killed Israeli civillians there is substantial evidence that their targets were military.
Ironically, while Hezbollah were accused of being based in civillian areas. The Israeli military actually locates many of it's military bases in civilian areas including next to hospitals!
I refer to an article by Jonathan Cook, a British journalist who once lived in Cardiff but is now based in Nazareth, Israel. He makes it clear that much of what happened during the war hasn't properly reported because Israel's military were censoring many reports. He notes the widespread reports in the Western Media that Hezbollah rockets shells landed next to a hospital - what the Western Media didn't tell you was that there was an Israeli Military Base next door!
"As a first-hand observer of the fighting from Israel’s side of the border last year, I noted on several occasions that Israel had built many of its permanent military installations, including weapons factories and army camps, and set up temporary artillery positions next to -- and in some cases inside -- civilian communities in the north of Israel.
Many of those communities are Arab: Arab citizens constitute about half of the Galilee’s population. Locating military bases next to these communities was a particularly reckless act by the army as Arab towns and villages lack the public shelters and air raid warning systems available in Jewish communities. Eighteen of the 43 Israeli civilians killed were Arab -- a proportion that surprised many Israeli Jews, who assumed that Hizbullah would not want to target Arab communities.
In many cases it is still not possible to specify where Hizbullah rockets landed because Israel’s military censor prevents any discussion that might identify the location of a military site. During the war Israel used this to advantageous effect: for example, it was widely reported that a Hizbullah rocket fell close to a hospital but reporters failed to mention that a large army camp was next to it. An actual strike against the camp could have been described in the very same terms.
It seems likely that Hizbullah, which had flown pilotless spy drones over Israel earlier in the year, similar to Israel’s own aerial spying missions, knew where many of these military bases were. The question is, was Hizbullah trying to hit them or -- as most observers claimed, following Israel’s lead -- was it actually more interested in killing civilians.
A full answer may never be possible, as we cannot know Hizbullah’s intentions -- as opposed to the consequences of its actions -- any more than we can discern Israel’s during the war.
Human Rights Watch, however, has argued that, because Hizbullah’s basic rockets were not precise, every time they were fired into Israel they were effectively targeted at civilians. Hizbullah was therefore guilty of war crimes in using its rockets, whatever the intention of the launch teams. In other words, according to this reading of international law, only Israel had the right to fire missiles and drop bombs because its military hardware is more sophisticated -- and, of course, more deadly.
Nonetheless, new evidence suggests strongly that, whether or not Hizbullah had the right to use its rockets, it may often have been trying to hit military targets, even if it rarely succeeded. The Arab Association for Human Rights, based in Nazareth, has been compiling a report on the Hizbullah rocket strikes against Arab communities in the north since last summer. It is not sure whether it will ever be able to publish its findings because of the military censorship laws.
But the information currently available makes for interesting reading. The Association has looked at northern Arab communities hit by Hizbullah rockets, often repeatedly, and found that in every case there was at least one military base or artillery battery placed next to, or in a few cases inside, the community. In some communities there were several such sites.
This does not prove that Hizbullah wanted only to hit military bases, of course. But it does indicate that in some cases it was clearly trying to, even if it lacked the technical resources to be sure of doing so. It also suggests that, in terms of international law, Hizbullah behaved no worse, and probably far better, than Israel during the war.
The evidence so far indicates that Israel:
* established legitimate grounds for Hizbullah’s attack on the border post by refusing to withdraw from the Lebanese territory of the Shebaa Farms in 2000;
* initiated a war of aggression by refusing to engage in talks about a prisoner swap offered by Hizbullah;
* committed a grave war crime by intentionally using cluster bombs against south Lebanon’s civilians;
* repeatedly hit Lebanese communities, killing many civilians, even though the evidence is that no Hizbullah fighters were to be found there;
* and put its own civilians, especially Arab civilians, in great danger by making their communities targets for Hizbullah attacks and failing to protect them."
Full article here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=13559
While Hezbollah certainly killed Israeli civillians there is substantial evidence that their targets were military.
Ironically, while Hezbollah were accused of being based in civillian areas. The Israeli military actually locates many of it's military bases in civilian areas including next to hospitals!
I refer to an article by Jonathan Cook, a British journalist who once lived in Cardiff but is now based in Nazareth, Israel. He makes it clear that much of what happened during the war hasn't properly reported because Israel's military were censoring many reports. He notes the widespread reports in the Western Media that Hezbollah rockets shells landed next to a hospital - what the Western Media didn't tell you was that there was an Israeli Military Base next door!
"As a first-hand observer of the fighting from Israel’s side of the border last year, I noted on several occasions that Israel had built many of its permanent military installations, including weapons factories and army camps, and set up temporary artillery positions next to -- and in some cases inside -- civilian communities in the north of Israel.
Many of those communities are Arab: Arab citizens constitute about half of the Galilee’s population. Locating military bases next to these communities was a particularly reckless act by the army as Arab towns and villages lack the public shelters and air raid warning systems available in Jewish communities. Eighteen of the 43 Israeli civilians killed were Arab -- a proportion that surprised many Israeli Jews, who assumed that Hizbullah would not want to target Arab communities.
In many cases it is still not possible to specify where Hizbullah rockets landed because Israel’s military censor prevents any discussion that might identify the location of a military site. During the war Israel used this to advantageous effect: for example, it was widely reported that a Hizbullah rocket fell close to a hospital but reporters failed to mention that a large army camp was next to it. An actual strike against the camp could have been described in the very same terms.
It seems likely that Hizbullah, which had flown pilotless spy drones over Israel earlier in the year, similar to Israel’s own aerial spying missions, knew where many of these military bases were. The question is, was Hizbullah trying to hit them or -- as most observers claimed, following Israel’s lead -- was it actually more interested in killing civilians.
A full answer may never be possible, as we cannot know Hizbullah’s intentions -- as opposed to the consequences of its actions -- any more than we can discern Israel’s during the war.
Human Rights Watch, however, has argued that, because Hizbullah’s basic rockets were not precise, every time they were fired into Israel they were effectively targeted at civilians. Hizbullah was therefore guilty of war crimes in using its rockets, whatever the intention of the launch teams. In other words, according to this reading of international law, only Israel had the right to fire missiles and drop bombs because its military hardware is more sophisticated -- and, of course, more deadly.
Nonetheless, new evidence suggests strongly that, whether or not Hizbullah had the right to use its rockets, it may often have been trying to hit military targets, even if it rarely succeeded. The Arab Association for Human Rights, based in Nazareth, has been compiling a report on the Hizbullah rocket strikes against Arab communities in the north since last summer. It is not sure whether it will ever be able to publish its findings because of the military censorship laws.
But the information currently available makes for interesting reading. The Association has looked at northern Arab communities hit by Hizbullah rockets, often repeatedly, and found that in every case there was at least one military base or artillery battery placed next to, or in a few cases inside, the community. In some communities there were several such sites.
This does not prove that Hizbullah wanted only to hit military bases, of course. But it does indicate that in some cases it was clearly trying to, even if it lacked the technical resources to be sure of doing so. It also suggests that, in terms of international law, Hizbullah behaved no worse, and probably far better, than Israel during the war.
The evidence so far indicates that Israel:
* established legitimate grounds for Hizbullah’s attack on the border post by refusing to withdraw from the Lebanese territory of the Shebaa Farms in 2000;
* initiated a war of aggression by refusing to engage in talks about a prisoner swap offered by Hizbullah;
* committed a grave war crime by intentionally using cluster bombs against south Lebanon’s civilians;
* repeatedly hit Lebanese communities, killing many civilians, even though the evidence is that no Hizbullah fighters were to be found there;
* and put its own civilians, especially Arab civilians, in great danger by making their communities targets for Hizbullah attacks and failing to protect them."
Full article here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=13559
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
treelover said:
Treelover do you admit that your claim that Hezbollah suicide bombers targetted Israeli civilians was factually incorrect?
If you don't even know the basics then why are you on this thread?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Well, they are slightly different in scope, aren't they? And one shouldn't claim one thing when another is true, should one?treelover said:
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
articul8 said:
A link to an Al-Manar piece produced under Mousawi's directorship:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/371.htm
Yes, I'm quite happy calling him a murderous terrorist. If not murdering.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
As a point of general principle, at any time when people have been on the receiving end of imperialism, the organisations they have joined have tended to have what we would (quite reasonably) tend to regard as reactionary social policies. People who back away from them often do so for very good reasons. But the consequence of saying that therefore, they are beyond the pale and cannot be supported or worked with, is to say that people can't resist imperialism until they adopt progressive politics. I don't agree with that: it seems to me to take no sides between the boot and the head upon which that boot is placed.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
You're aware that that's a very controversial and contested source?Maurice Picarda said:
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
Andy the Don said:
Ooooh what a lovely charachter I'm warming to him more already. Sometimes you have to judge people by the company they keep. If this is the sort of company that STWC are not just being fellow travellers with but honoured friends then I can see yet another reason why STWC has failed to engage people desipte much early hope.
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
Treelover you have got basic facts about Hezbollah wrong - therefore your opinion has little credibility.
By the way can I highlight the work of Jonathan Cook, he makes an important point that the much repeated claim that Hezbollah deliberately targeted civilians is not certain
http://www.jkcook.net/
By the way can I highlight the work of Jonathan Cook, he makes an important point that the much repeated claim that Hezbollah deliberately targeted civilians is not certain
http://www.jkcook.net/
Jonathan Cook said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Then you're not likely to achieve much, are you?KeyboardJockey said:
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Donna Ferentes said:
No. Actually, I wasn't. I did some quick googling to back up having called wossname a murderous terrorist, and thought that a video clip was unlikely to have been majorly doctored.
Anyway, he's clearly a thoroughly bad lot and it's depressing to see the left sharing platforms with him.
Back to Suburban now, I think.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Quick Googling (a qualified information professional writes) is not always the best way to obtain an informed opinion.Maurice Picarda said:
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
Maurice Picarda said:
My point of view as well.
Maurice Picarda said:
The level of open minded debate is probably higher there as well.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Donna Ferentes said:
That's how I earn a living, too, and I wouldn't disagree.
On the other hand, nobody is paying me to post here, so I'm not actually going to conduct a full audit of Al-Manar TV's programme history and adherence to Reithian principles before calling someone who's very probably a murder-glorifying cunt a murder-glorifying cunt.
Thank god for the Hands Off the People of Iran campaign, lets hope they become the dominant campaign group in the coming months. they have a founding conference soon.
Welcome to Hands Off the People of Iran!
Hands Off The People Of Iran fights against the threat of any imperialist intervention, war or sanctions against Iran. It looks to build active, practical solidarity with grass-roots radical secular forces in Iran, the militant women’s, workers and students movements. We want regime change, both in Iran and in the imperialist countries. But we know that change must come from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements - if it is to lead to genuine liberation.
http://www.hopoi.org/
Welcome to Hands Off the People of Iran!
Hands Off The People Of Iran fights against the threat of any imperialist intervention, war or sanctions against Iran. It looks to build active, practical solidarity with grass-roots radical secular forces in Iran, the militant women’s, workers and students movements. We want regime change, both in Iran and in the imperialist countries. But we know that change must come from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements - if it is to lead to genuine liberation.
http://www.hopoi.org/
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
No. But it might be worth knowing something about the people who you linked to, no? And if any of us post or link hurriedly we're likely to err, are we not? If we haven't time or energy to do better that's fine, but not caring about it, is not.Maurice Picarda said:
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
belboid said:
Er, no. It was the fact that he was a senior representative of Hezbollah that rather gave the game away.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
That's a rather circular argument.Maurice Picarda said:
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Donna Ferentes said:
No, I don't think so. It's clear enough what sort of organisation Hezbollah are for it to be possible to make a throwaway post regretting their popularity with the loony left, without any further justification.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
they wont. And they also have no problem with Hezbollah being invited to the STW conference (even tho they were rather stupidly refused the right to affiliate to the STW themselves.)treelover said:
Neither does the Lebanese Communist Party - also attending - who are in a rather better position than any of us to know whether this chap is a 'murderous bastard'
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Is it? I would have thought their nature was thoroughly unclear.Maurice Picarda said:
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Maurice Picarda said:
1) I don't see what is so evil about a mother commemorating the sacrifice and mourning the loss of her son (who died fighting the oppressive assault on a more or less defencless civilian population), and
2) Even if it was objectionable, don't all TV editors broadcast statements and attitudes with which they disagree?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I have no problem with the StWC having a representative of Hezbollah at their conference. I do have a problem with what will undoubtedly be an entirely uncritical presentation of Hezbollah's role and politics, with all the unpleasant parts neatly whitewashed away.
A couple of months ago the Irish Anti-War Movement held an equivalent rally/conference. The IAWM was at one stage the Irish equivalent of the StWC (although the anti-war movement here has since splintered) and like the StWC it is controlled by the SWP. I went along to the event, which had some interesting speakers and sessions.
One session was called "Democracy and Resistance in the Middle East". The platform consisted of Ibrahim Mussawi of Hezbollah (by audiolink), another representative of Hezbollah, an Iraqi academic, a Lebanese born member of the English SWP and an MP from the al-Sadr movement in Iraq. The Iraqi academic announced that he too was a supporter of Hezbollah, while the SWPer was introduced as "a Lebanese socialist" and also made only positive remarks about Hezbollah. So the platform consisted of a Sadrist, two Hezbollah members, a Hezbollah supporter and someone else who was uncritical about both Hezbollah and the Sadrists.
During the session a series of SWP members spoke from the floor. Some of what they said was fairly bland stuff about how this was exciting and we needed to build that. Where they spoke more specifically about different forces in the Middle East they were if anything more gushing than the people actually there to represent those forces. The chair of the IAWM, one of the SWP's two most prominent leaders, waxed lyrical about the wonders of the Sadr movement, describing it as a true national liberation movement and an anti-sectarian force. He also went on about how progressive their programme is.
Another SWP leader spoke about her wonderful experiences with Hezbollah in South Lebanon, where she had gone as part of a trade union delegation. She explained that she had encountered no sexism and that Hezbollah were not homophobic, or at least no more homophobic than any religious person tends to be. Not one critical word was said by any SWP member or IAWM representative about Hezbollah, the Sadrists, Hamas or the Iranian regime.
I got a chance to speak at the very end of the session and made the point that it is possible to oppose the occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine without whitewashing the politics of any force which happens to come into conflict with the Americans or Israeli regimes. We can defend Iran against imperialist aggression without supporting or hiding the policies of the Iranian state.
Immediately after I spoke the person chairing the meeting abused the chair to respond at length to me. After he had finished I was then denounced in turn by a Hezbollah rep, a Sadrist MP, the Lebanese SWPer and had apparently annoyed them so much that I was also attacked at the start of the next session by the Chairs of both the IAWM and the British Stop the War Coalition.
The same SWPers who argue that bringing socialist or class based arguments into the anti-war movement would "narrow the movement" or would be "divisive" don't seem to think this applies to lavishing uncritical praise on Hezbollah, Hamas, the Sadrists etc. The hypocrisy is startling.
A couple of months ago the Irish Anti-War Movement held an equivalent rally/conference. The IAWM was at one stage the Irish equivalent of the StWC (although the anti-war movement here has since splintered) and like the StWC it is controlled by the SWP. I went along to the event, which had some interesting speakers and sessions.
One session was called "Democracy and Resistance in the Middle East". The platform consisted of Ibrahim Mussawi of Hezbollah (by audiolink), another representative of Hezbollah, an Iraqi academic, a Lebanese born member of the English SWP and an MP from the al-Sadr movement in Iraq. The Iraqi academic announced that he too was a supporter of Hezbollah, while the SWPer was introduced as "a Lebanese socialist" and also made only positive remarks about Hezbollah. So the platform consisted of a Sadrist, two Hezbollah members, a Hezbollah supporter and someone else who was uncritical about both Hezbollah and the Sadrists.
During the session a series of SWP members spoke from the floor. Some of what they said was fairly bland stuff about how this was exciting and we needed to build that. Where they spoke more specifically about different forces in the Middle East they were if anything more gushing than the people actually there to represent those forces. The chair of the IAWM, one of the SWP's two most prominent leaders, waxed lyrical about the wonders of the Sadr movement, describing it as a true national liberation movement and an anti-sectarian force. He also went on about how progressive their programme is.
Another SWP leader spoke about her wonderful experiences with Hezbollah in South Lebanon, where she had gone as part of a trade union delegation. She explained that she had encountered no sexism and that Hezbollah were not homophobic, or at least no more homophobic than any religious person tends to be. Not one critical word was said by any SWP member or IAWM representative about Hezbollah, the Sadrists, Hamas or the Iranian regime.
I got a chance to speak at the very end of the session and made the point that it is possible to oppose the occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine without whitewashing the politics of any force which happens to come into conflict with the Americans or Israeli regimes. We can defend Iran against imperialist aggression without supporting or hiding the policies of the Iranian state.
Immediately after I spoke the person chairing the meeting abused the chair to respond at length to me. After he had finished I was then denounced in turn by a Hezbollah rep, a Sadrist MP, the Lebanese SWPer and had apparently annoyed them so much that I was also attacked at the start of the next session by the Chairs of both the IAWM and the British Stop the War Coalition.
The same SWPers who argue that bringing socialist or class based arguments into the anti-war movement would "narrow the movement" or would be "divisive" don't seem to think this applies to lavishing uncritical praise on Hezbollah, Hamas, the Sadrists etc. The hypocrisy is startling.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Denounced by so many people, Nigel. Must have been like a home from P&P...
untethered
For industry & decency
KeyboardJockey said:
I hear Chris Langham's looking for a new position.
Similar threads
