Turkish PM Erdogan slams Israel as murderer of children

What’s interesting is that it’s the Turkish prime minister of all people to call out Israel in these terms, in such a public forum. Turkey has long been an ally of Israel, the two countries being relative outsiders to the Middle East, sharing security concerns regarding Iraq and Syria. Since the nineties especially the ties between these two countries have been tight, with their militaries training together and Turkey buying arms from the Israeli defence industry. These ties won’t be broken by one public outburst, but it does put a strain on them.

Erdogan is of course the leader of an explicitly Islamic party and it’s therefore no surprise he feels the plight of his co-religionists in Gaza. What I would like to konw is how his outburst was recieved by the Turkish establishment, especially the army, which is fiercly secular and dedicated to defending the secular nature of the Turkish state. This won’t have allayed their already existing suspicions about Erdogan, no matter how popular his outspokenis is with the Turkish public.

Finally there’s also the small matter of hypocrisy Erdogan has engaged in with this outburst. Turkey after all has a long history of repression itself, especially of the Kurds, including under Erdogan’s leadership.

More Morbid Fear Of Melanie Phillips

Here’s Tony Benn, (nee Viscount Stansgate), the last doughty remnant of the Christian socialists, giving a BBC newsdroid merry hell on the subject of moral cowardice and giving in to Israeli bullying:

He’s right, they’re scared – though I must admit if I had that shrieking Zionist harpy Phillips in my ear every five minutes I’d be scared too. I’d also change my phone number.

Facteiousness aside very little has been made – as yet – of the current BBC Director General, Mark Thompson relationship with the Israeli government or of his 2005 visit to Israel at governmental expense.

This cosying-up to a foreign leadership (and such a politically rabid one as that) is something a BBC DG has never done before, presumably on the grounds that it would compromise BBC impartiality and neutrality.

Of course the cosy tete a tetes he had with Ariel Sharon and sundry other Israeli political notables, those couldn’t possibly affect his impartiality or appear to impute an appearance of impropriety at all, no sir.

Hate vs hope: struggling for the future of Israel

The reality of the state of Israel in its current form:

All civilians living in Gaza are collectively guilty for Kassam attacks on Sderot, former Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu has written in a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings.

The letter, published in Olam Katan [Small World], a weekly pamphlet to be distributed in synagogues nationwide this Friday, cited the biblical story of the Shechem massacre (Genesis 34) and Maimonides’ commentary (Laws of Kings 9, 14) on the story as proof texts for his legal decision.

According to Jewish war ethics, wrote Eliyahu, an entire city holds collective responsibility for the immoral behavior of individuals. In Gaza, the entire populace is responsible because they do nothing to stop the firing of Kassam rockets.

The former chief rabbi also said it was forbidden to risk the lives of Jews in Sderot or the lives of IDF soldiers for fear of injuring or killing Palestinian noncombatants living in Gaza.

Eliyahu could not be reached for an interview. However, Eliyahu’s son, Shmuel Eliyahu, who is chief rabbi of Safed, said his father opposed a ground troop incursion into Gaza that would endanger IDF soldiers. Rather, he advocated carpet bombing the general area from which the Kassams were launched, regardless of the price in Palestinian life.

“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand,” said Shmuel Eliyahu. “And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop.”

In the letter, Eliyahu quoted from Psalms. “I will pursue my enemies and apprehend them and I will not desist until I have eradicated them.”

Eliyahu wrote that “This is a message to all leaders of the Jewish people not to be compassionate with those who shoot [rockets] at civilians in their houses.”

A small ray of hope:

I could answer each and every one of these claims in turn, but I’m ready to stop this perverse game of rhetorical ping-pong. I don’t buy the rationalizations any more. I’m so tired of the apologetics. How on earth will squeezing the life out of Gaza, not to mention bombing the living hell out of it, ensure the safety of Israeli citizens?

We good liberal Jews are ready to protest oppression and human-rights abuse anywhere in the world, but are all too willing to give Israel a pass. It’s a fascinating double-standard, and one I understand all too well. I understand it because I’ve been just as responsible as anyone else for perpetrating it.

Israel still enjoys a lot of legitamicy in the western media, a lot of support, but is it just me or has that support been waning? Even the BBC seems less eager to put up with the usual distortions and outright lies offered by IDF spokepersons. Has this ubercynical war perhaps been one bridge too far for Israel?

Why “they made me do it” doesn’t work with warcrimes either

Daniel Davies, in the process of putting the boot in to Michael Walzer, explains why the excuses made by the IDF for their shelling of UN schools, even if you believe them, are not good enough:

Under Protocol 1, Article 57, a commander has three duties (explained very clearly in “Constraints on the Waging of War: An Introduction to International Humanitarian Law” by Frits Kalshoven and Liesbeth Zegveld):

1) to do everything feasible to verify that the chosen target is a military objective

2) to take all feasible precautions in the choices of means and methods to avoid, or in any event minimise harm to civilians and damage to civilian objects

3) to refrain from carrying out an attack if may be reasonably be expected to cause such harm or damage in a quantity which would be excessive relative to the concrete and definite military advantage anticipated.

So, under international law, for example, “minimising civilian casualties” is a basic primary requirement – it’s something you always have to do, not something you get extra brownie points for and certainly not something you can trade off against a slightly dodgy choice of target. Furthermore, “minimised” casualties could still be “excessive” relative to the concrete and definite military advantage anticipated.

As Lenny puts it, the IDF doesn’t expect you to believe their excuses, but uses them to frame the debate:

And the first thing the IDF let us know is that it was done on purpose. Their excuse was barbaric, of course. The idea that an invading force may attack a building filled with hundreds of terrorised civilians just in order to kill two of those resisting the invasion is nothing short of grotesque. But the fact that it was barbaric was part of the point: rather than bluntly condemning a war crime, you were invited to focus on whether Hamas would be so evil as to attack Israel’s brave boys from within a civilian building. Because it is so frequently repeated you might be predisposed to assume that Hamas did indeed position its ‘infrastructure of terror’ among unsuspecting citizens but, whether you are so predisposed or not, you are already drawn into the macabre calculus of the murderer if you even get involved in that argument. You have tacitly accepted the logic in which war crimes are not merely acceptable, but actually appropriate, if the enemy really is as evil as Israel says.

What’s also important is the context in which these IDF “mistakes” took place, of a gratitious invasion of Gaza, a war waged more for the sake of Olmert’s election prospects than any great strategic need. As I’ve shown on Wis[s]e Words, the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel was working. This is a war of choice, so personally I’d say Israel has even less scope than normal in what it can and cannot do because they are in the wrong from the start!

Let’s follow Venezuela’s example

And expell the Israeli ambassador in protest over the invasion of Gaza:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuela ordered the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador on Tuesday to protest Israel’s military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

President Hugo Chavez has condemned the campaign in Gaza, where nearly 600 Palestinians have been killed in ground and air strikes. Israel launched the attacks Dec. 27 to stop Palestinian militants from firing rockets into southern Israel.

Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry announced the decision in a statement, saying it “has decided to expel the Israeli ambassador and part of the personnel of the Israeli embassy.”

Chavez earlier condemned the Israelis carrying out the military campaign as “murderers” and urged Jews in Venezuela to take a stand against the Israeli government.

“Now I hope that the Venezuelan Jewish community speaks out against this barbarism. Do it. Don’t you strongly reject all acts of persecution?” Chavez said.