August 8, 2006

Newsflash: Israel Commits Near War Crime, Almost, Except They Didn't. Quite.

Hatched by Dafydd

This is a staggering charge that should, if there is a God, swiftly turn American public opinion against the Israelis, who have shown themselves to be such oppressors and aggressors against peaceful Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon. The headline from AP says it all:

Israeli Strike Kills 13 Near Mourners
by Ahmed Mantash [evidently his usual parther in fair and balanced reporting, Moshe Pippik, was unavailable for this effort]

Mourners in a funeral procession for Israeli airstrike victims scattered in panic Tuesday as warplanes again unleashed missiles that hit buildings and killed 13 people, witnesses and officials said.

The first missile struck a building about five minutes after the march by about 1,500 people had passed by, killing one person and wounding five.

In this almost war crime, which would have been an atrocity if the Israelis had actually struck the funeral procession, and was averted only by their underhanded trick of not actually striking the funeral procession, the Israelis had the temerity to strike a building some time after a funeral procession had passed by, frightening the mourners -- who imagined that they must have been the targets, and the Israelis were simply too dilatory and missed them.


To see how terrified these near-martyrs were, who almost suffered what would have been a crime against humanity (if the Israelis had actually done it, that is), just read their terror-stricken response:

The blast was close enough to send mourners screaming, "Allahu akbar!" or "God is great!" Some broke away from the procession, while others continued on.

I hope we all see how evil and horrific those Israelis are: if they had actually committed the despicable act that they didn't commit, targeting innocent mourners in a funeral procession (whose first reaction to being frightened is to scream "Allahu akbar!"), then they would have been obviously evil and horrific; are we going to let them slide from this just charge, merely on the flimsy excuse that they did not, in fact, do it?

I think not. Let heads roll! Let revulsion sweep the world! The Associated Press is absolutely correct to highlight would could have been a ghastly and brutal attack on unarmed mourners, except that they didn't quite attack them. Their obviously concocted claim should not save them from the world's ignominy and opprobrium:

Witnesses said one of the destroyed houses belonged to Sheik Mustafa Khalifeh, a cleric linked to Hezbollah, but it was unclear if he was among the casualties. Most Hezbollah officials have left their homes and offices since the offensive began nearly a month ago.

Ghaziyeh has been targeted several times, but the attacks Monday and Tuesday were the heaviest. The town was overflowing with displaced people, who have swelled its population to 23,000.

After all, besides having the gall to attack a city that contained some displaced people, Israel is holding up the peace process by not agreeing to withdraw completely and trust the word of the hitherto thoroughly compromised Lebanese government that they will, in fact, take up the slack and prevent Hezbollah from returning. In fact, even Hezbollah itself has embraced this plan... which must prove they want only peace:

Lebanon put its offers on the table: pledging up to 15,000 troops to a possible peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon and saying Hezbollah's days of running a state within a state would end. The military plan had added significance since it was backed by the two Hezbollah members on Lebanon's Cabinet - apparently showing a willingness for a lasting pact by the Islamic militants and their main sponsors, Iran and Syria.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora on Tuesday praised Hezbollah's resistance, but said it was time for Lebanon to "impose its full control, authority and presence" over the war-weary country.

"There will be no authority, no one in command, no weapons other than those of the Lebanese state," he said on Al-Arabiya television.

Since it is clear to all with eyes to see that the Lebanese government is not in any way beholden to or even connected with Hezbollah, whose representatives sit not only in parliament but in the cabinet itself, surely such oral assurances should satisfy Israel. What more could they demand?

After all, the world knows that Israel has already been crushed in this war they started; AP has announced ever since Israel rolled into Lebanon that the war was a quagmire and could never be won by the oppressors. I mean, the Israelis. After all, how long can they go on accepting such losses as this?

Some of the fiercest skirmishes broke out around the village of Bint Jbail, a Hezbollah stronghold that Israeli has tried to capture for weeks. An Israeli solider and 25 Hezbollah guerrillas were killed, the Israeli military said.

Hezbollah TV also reported pre-dawn attacks on Israeli forces near the Mediterranean town of Naqoura, about 2 1/2 miles north of the border. The Israeli military said two reserve soldiers were killed in the area.

The latest casualties brought the number of people killed in Lebanon to at least 684, while the Israeli death toll was 100.

And after all, what have the Israelis to fear from this wonderful peace peace proposal, supported unanimously by the foreign ministers of the member states of the Arab League -- a group that is well known to harbor only friendly feelings towards Israel? Lebanon has pledged to ensure their coalition partner Hezbollah has no control over southern Lebanon, which currently dominates the Lebanese Army by superior force of arms, supplied by their patron Iran transshipped through their other patron, Syria (which controlled Lebanon absolutely for 29 years):

Saniora's government voted unanimously to send 15,000 troops to stand between Israel and Hezbollah should a cease-fire take hold and Israeli forces withdraw.

The move was an attempt to show that Lebanon has the will and ability to assert control over its south, where Hezbollah rules with near autonomy bolstered by channels of aid and weapons from Iran and Syria. Lebanon has avoided any attempt to implement a two-year-old U.N. resolution calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah, fearing it could touch off civil unrest....

Qatar Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani warned of "a civil war in Lebanon" between Hezbollah and government forces if the Security Council does not make changes to the U.S.-French draft resolution [that is, if Hezbollah does not get its way]. "Lebanon won't bear it," he told Al-Jazeera.

With such ironclad assurances, surely even Israel must give way at last to world public opinion! After all, the full weight of international condemnation is about to fall across the Israelis' necks, and it must surely destroy them, the way they nearly tried to almost destroy those innocent pallbearers and mourners in what might have been a crime against humanity, if only Israel had actually done it. For lo! see how the quagmire thickens:

In Geneva, the U.N. Human Rights Council said it plans to convene a special session this week to consider taking action against Israel for its Lebanon offensive.

Against such force and power arrayed, what aggressor dare stand against?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, August 8, 2006, at the time of 1:34 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:


The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Something tells me you are being sarcastic. I heard earlier on Fox that the French were backing out on supporting the Resolution they helped write. How typical.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 8, 2006 2:59 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 8, 2006 4:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: TBinSTL

Ya know, I think the biggest mystery to me in all of this is, how anyone with even two brain cells to rub together can avoid seeing through the garbage that the Islamists keep throwing our way. I can only conclude that any and every person that buys into their lies is thoroughly, unrepentantly and possibly irredeemably evil. I'm not buying ignorance as an excuse anymore, I'm not even gonna give them a pass for mental illness or disability. I've tried so hard to remain calm and moderate, avoiding hateful rhetoric and saying things like, "that would make us no better than them". I'm nearing my "tipping point". I don't want to wish ill on any innocents but I'm beginning to believe that some people just have to die so that others can live in peace and I believe that the ones to die should be them. Am I wrong for feeling this way? I feel less human for having said it but when they continue to choose evil I may not be able uphold the standards of western tolerance much longer. Is this what it means to be "radicalized"?

The above hissed in response by: TBinSTL [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 8, 2006 5:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: TBinSTL

I apologize for the lack of paragraph breaks, newly minted radicals often forget things like paragraph breaks. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

The above hissed in response by: TBinSTL [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 8, 2006 5:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


(I hope that doesn't stand for "tuberculosis in St. Louis!")

Am I wrong for feeling this way?

Just remember, TB: "Every human life has value... but sometimes that value is a negative number" ™.


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 8, 2006 6:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: TBinSTL

No worries, it's just my somewhat unfortunate initials. I still like Leon Redbone's "Tb Blues" heh.

The above hissed in response by: TBinSTL [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 7:59 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

..."warplanes again unleashed missiles that hit buildings and killed 13 people, witnesses and officials said." (snip)

"The first missile struck a building about five minutes after the march by about 1,500 people had passed by, killing one person and wounding five."

Okay so, 13-1 = 12 dead Hezbo jackals? or am I missing something?

I've argued before, one of the problems with this war is that we are being much too cautious of civilian life. It allows the soft support of Hezbollah to continue since there is little cost to those "not involved".

I wonder - what if Israel had adopted a different strategy. For every missile Hezbo fires into Israel, Israel will drop one bomb in the center of a Southern Lebanon town, trying to kill as many civilians as possible. One for one. How could that not be construed as as entirely fair and proportional?

Now, Israel would kill many more people than Hezbollah, but is it their fault Hezbo can't shoot straight?

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 10:17 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved