As a Canadian, it's helpful to have nice objective metric so that we can keep track of who the good guys and bad guys are in the region.

Body counts are perfect for this, as they are absolute numbers. And numbers don't lie.

So let's see. So far, Israel has killed eight innocent Canadian civilians (seven plus one), and now an innocent Canadian peacekeeper with the UN, for a grand total of nine.

Hezbollah is running a distant second with a grand total of only zero innocent Canadians.

See? Nice and simple. No anti-spin goggles required.

Well put, Norm.

"I don't think Israel intended to kill the observers"

Well - check the story about USS Liberty - you may change your mind!

As the U.S. has shown time and time again, "precision-guided missiles" aren't anywhere near as precise as they're advertised. If Israel had confirmation that the UN peacekeepers were there, then it is, as Kofi Annan said, a deliberate attack.

"As the U.S. has shown time and time again, "precision-guided missiles" aren't anywhere near as precise as they're advertised."

that's true, they don't always hit the right target. but come one, do they hit a complete other target by accident? I doubt there was a hezbollah building directly in front of the UN building.

I second Theo's comment. Either Israel uses precision targeting accurately target militants or Israel's weapons are inaccurate and therefore they are simply firing relatively indiscriminately.

Your comments about Hizbolla 'do it sober' is completely unconstructive and is irrelevant in this instance. It appears only to portray Hizbolla as evil and Israel as essentiallly good.

It portrays Hezobblah accurately there is no pretense that the purpose of shooting missles into civilian areas is meant to terrorize and as retribution for Israeli excesses. All I'm saying is they don't claim it is an accident, or a mistake, or any of the other rationales Israel offers to explain its actions.

So much for Israeli compassion for civilains and non-combatants. Sigh.

Israel's U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman expressed his "deep regret" for the deaths and denied the post was intentionally targeted.

Rescue workers were trying to clear the rubble, but Israeli firing "continued even during the rescue operation," Struger said..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/aponremiea/mideastfightingunobservers;ylt=AhNKcynU1OPZi.PTQ0zKkhYUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

Btw, the Israeli air strike was a direct hit on the United Nations position. This is not an accident or a miss.

The day before Israel shot down its own Apache, and a few of its soldiers were hit by friendly fire. In Iraq, many U.S. soldiers died of friendly fire. In one instance, recounted by a FOX News reporter who covered the Iraq war, he described a U.S. helicopter gunner spraying fire at clearly marked U.S. Humvees and injuring a solider. Despite the markings, it was misidentified and hit. (I mention that it's FOX News just to be clear -- but I dont think it weighs any on this particular story.)

I can't imagine any benefit that there would ever be to Israel from destroying a U.N. position. The only result is lots of criticism.

AnoCan... Unfortunately, numbers are not always that clear. Like they say, statisticians are the best liars in the world. The U.S. has killed more people in its history than say, Somalian war lords. I wouldn't agree that Somalian war lords are the good guys, though.

In all instances when countries wage war, it's always a choice if the lesser evil. Killing is always bad, regardless of the justifications.

While this really saddens me, 300 Lebanonese have died in similar circumstances. Lebanonese who have been the deliberate targets of Israeli bombing. I don't care if they claim this wasn't deliberate. Israel has shown very little regard for where they are firing (or rather their interests have been demonstrated not to lie in not killing people) and therefore anyone who dies at the other end of an Israeli bomb was a deliberate target in my book. This indiscriminate killing added 4 more bodies to Israel's pile of murder.

Though I do believe the Israelis do have an interest in killing UN observers. They send a clear signal that they don't care about international opinion, they don't want UN interferance in terms of a peacekeeping force, that they don't recognize the UN observers as a welcome pressence.

The Israelis were told numerous times, in many different levels of communications that they were getting very close to the UN Observers and they made direct requests to cease the firing. The under secretary of the UN personally called the Israeli mission in New York over this. And yet the IDF did not stop firing. I'm sorry but you don't fire at a target over a period of hours with several points being told that its too close, to then turn around and say 'it was an accident'. And even if it was just an accident, it demonstrates that the Israelis should not be given the capacity to carryout military actions around any civilian population given their complete ineptness. So are they horrible soldiers, or malicious? Both situations tell me that every ounce of pressure needs to be put on Israel to stop these attacks right now.

Hi Eugene, Israel has benefits in resisting the 22 Unitedn Nations resolutions condemning its rogue state atrocities for the last 50 years. What's one more with Israel's legandary contempt for the United Nations and its humnitarian and democractic Charter?

Have you considered that Israel is trying to intimidate UN so that it can force more favourable terms for any ceasefire?

==== Update ===

Report: U.N. observers' calls unheeded

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/aponremiea/mideastfightingun_observers

By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer Wed Jul 26, 6:19 PM ET

Exerpt:

"[United Nations] Officials in the outpost called the Israeli army 10 times during those six hours, and each time an army official promised to have the bombing stopped, according to a preliminary U.N. report on the incident, which was shown to an Associated Press reporter on Wednesday.

Once it became clear those pleas were being ignored, the force's commander sought the involvement of top officials in New York, a senior U.N. official in New York said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation of the incident was not yet complete...

====

Why else did Secretary-General Kofi Annan make the accusation that the attack was "apparently deliberate?"

Just like the deliberate shelling of the public beach without warning which killed 8 innocent Arab sunbathers.

Are the pro-Israeli crowd going to call the Associated Press and United Nations as anti-semite for not sweeping Israeli slaughter of innocent United Nation Officials?

TYPO: Israel SAW benefits in resisting the 22 Unitedn Nations

Are the pro-Israeli crowd going to call the Associated Press and United Nations as anti-semite for not sweeping Israeli slaughter of innocent United Nation Officials under the carpet?

"I can't imagine any benefit that there would ever be to Israel from destroying a U.N. position. The only result is lots of criticism."

You're right, it's kind of a puzzler. Israel has hit several clearly marked ambulances as well--in addition to bridges in the north and people and stuff that have nothing to do with Hezbollah. It's hard for me to attribute deliberate intent to Israeli leaders in the case of these outcomes, but at some point the actions begin to speak for themselves.

An old German saying goes: "When the rock leaves your hand it belongs to the devil."

1. Israel has never had the high ground to lose

the whole discussion has a racist discourse to it, see rahul mahajan

http://www.empirenotes.org/

Pundits routinely distinguish between acts where there is supposedly a deliberate intent to kill civilians and those where, although civilians might die in large numbers as an utterly predictable consequence of the act, there is no specific intent to kill civilians. One is condemned as terrorism, something that places the committer of the act completely beyond the pale of civilization, while the other is merely collateral damage, an unfortunate but necessary part of the civilized way of war, engaged in by virtuous people and governments whose righteousness is not even subject to question.

In order to truly respect the distinction between civilian and fighter that is at the heart of the laws of war, it’s necessary to eliminate the doctrine of collateral damage.

One obvious flaw of the doctrine is that it provides great cover for actual war crimes. Israel has deliberately targeted airports, ports, bridges, and tunnels. Of the close to 400 Lebanese killed, the vast majority were not fighters, although a very large number are children. Israel has bombed residential areas in south Beirut and throughout southern Lebanon, the only concession to their civilian population being the dropping of leaflets warning residents to evacuate the entire area. Recently, a family fleeing a border village was targeted, with three killed, because they were driving in minivans – among Israel’s rules of engagement is indiscriminate targeting of trucks, minivans, and motorcycles, supposedly because Hezbollah either uses such vehicles often or could use them to carry missiles and launchers. Trucks are also used to carry food and medical supplies, but that, apparently, is just tough luck.

But beyond narrow questions of fact about whether a particular killing really is collateral damage lie deeper flaws with the doctrine. First, in its application it is consistently entangled with racism and an ignorant and blind cultural supremacism. We “know” that Israelis and Americans don’t intend to kill civilians, just as we “know” that Hezbollah does. If nothing else, we point to the fact that Hezbollah’s missiles, with which it has been attacking Haifa and other northern cities, are extremely inaccurate and cannot possibly be used to reliably attack a particular military target.

Of course, when the United States bombed North Vietnam, its weapons were also incredibly inaccurate, yet there we still “knew” that targeting civilians was not the “intent.”

How about the idea that Hezbollah and Hamas would much rather kill soldiers than civilians, they just don’t have much ability to do that (although Hezbollah has fought well against the IDF in southern Lebanon)? If Israel’s bombing of civilian areas, targeting minivans, is justified because it doesn’t want to sustain the casualties that would come with a more discriminating approach, why not justify Hezbollah’s rocket attacks because it doesn’t have the technology to do better? What, other than our intrinsic knowledge that Israelis are like us, thus civilized, and that Hezbollah is a bunch of Arabs, thus uncivilized, prevents us from giving Hezbollah’s excuse more credence than Israel’s?

The other major flaw is the idea that, as Sahr Conway-Lanz documents in his recent book, Collateral Damage, basically you can do anything you want to civilians as long as you claim to have no intent to kill them. Much of the book involves tracing the bit-by-bit evolution of the doctrine in roughly the 10 years after World War 2. In the Korean War, which really put the doctrine firmly on its feet, as he shows, rules of engagement evolved to the point that, in the last half of the war, entire cities were targeted for destruction by virtue of the reasoning that said the cities produced something necessary for the war effort and that they contained roads that troops might travel on. In other words, that they were cities. And yet, even though the American public wanted to retain the idea that targeting civilians was wrong, these decisions never aroused any serious revulsion.

As Conway-Lanz suggests , the sensible criterion by which to judge whether one is targeting civilians is not something totally unmeasurable like supposed absence or presence of intent to kill them, but rather concrete steps taken to minimize or eliminate the possibility of killing civilians. With this criterion, assaults like Israel’s on Lebanon, or the first U.S. attack on Fallujah, where 60% and more of fatalities are civilian, could not possibly make the grade.

It would be an important step toward putting such questions on fairer ground and remedying the extreme bias implicit in our basic framework regarding questions of war. It would also allow for an unbiased definition of terrorism. So, of course, the powers that be will resist it tooth and nail.

AnoCan said "See? Nice and simple. No anti-spin goggles required."

It's amazing that you can try to make this point while putting a tremendous amount of spin on the issue.

"numbers don't lie" -- this is true, but the can certainly mislead.

Your numbers might be useful if a) Only Canadians were killed by either side, or b) Canadian lives were more valuable than any other lives. Neither is the case.

You cannot tell me that the life of an innocent Canadian is worth more than that of an innocent Israeli or Lebanese (?) citizen. If you want to go 'no-spin', then report complete and inclusive body counts for both sides!

Aside: I don't agree with the body count as a good metric argument, either. The societal impact (on all sides) goes well beyond mere body count. Certainly these intangibles are far more difficult to estimate or calculate, but lack of a sound method for determining impact doesn't make a lousy one acceptable.

kes, nobody is accusing anyone of anti-Semitism. I don't think I've ever seen that accusation. Your opinion is your opinion. Bombing a UN outpost has no benefit, it sends no signal. Bombing the UN outpost won't make the UN say "ok, never mind, you guys go ahead without our interference." It serves no purpose. If you want to believe in conspiracy theories about the evil Israelis and their hate of the UN and of Lebanon, go ahead. I can't argue with irrationality.

THere was no delibirate shelling of the beach in Gaza. It was either Hamas with a work accident, or an old unexploded Israeli shell (bad still, but not THE DELIBIRATE BOMBING OF A BEACH).

If you feel that Israel should ignore a terrorist group to its north and accept then be my guest. Israel is a Western nation with different standards -- it does not want to wage war but it will not accept ANY attacks on its territories just like the US should not and just like Britain should not. Israel will not say "oh well, it happens." It's easy for us to say that from our safe American homes, it's totally different.

The better question is whether Israel's aggressive strategy hurts its interests in the long run. Maybe there is a better way to go about their aims -- disarm Hezbollah somehow else? That is a constructive discussion. But accusations of delibirate bombings of US positions is not.

Good post, Norm.

I think the simplest question is this: would Israel be as willing to kill innocent Israeli civilians as it is willing to kill innocent Lebanese or other civilians? If not, how do they justify their actions?

Their clearly seems to be a lack of balancing between their interests and the lives of other innocent people.

Not worse than Hezbollah, like you say, but still not seemingly deserving our unequivocal support either.

Marcus, I think you're right that if given a choice between other innocent civilians dying or Israeli innocent civilians dying it would choose the former.

This concept in itself is not really shocking or embarassing. The same is true for any country.

Eugene, your reasoning is ludicrous. Does killing innocent Arab civilains in Lebanon make innocent Israeli civilains safer?

Nope, the Hezbollah has responded to Israeli air strikes with a sustained rocket barrage that is reaching deeper into Israel.

So your reasonly fails on both tactical and humanitarian grounds.

I see some people using logic, instead of facts, to justify and rationalise Israel's carpet bombing tactics, which destroy entire civilian blocks, fleeing civilain vehicles, foreign travellers, internationalised institutions like the Airport and UN position.

Kindly apply your logic to answering these questions for me.

1] Are claims that Israel is not targeting civilians with its nation-wide bombing of all of Lebanon onsistent when Hezbollah is operating in Southern Lebanon

2] Has Israel produced any proof for their claims that the Hezbollah fighters were hiding in that area just before they bomb it?

3] Has Israel explained why it even bombs fleeing civilian cars, if not to maximise fatalities in the typical show and awe approach to carpet bombing?

4] Has Israel given adequate explanation for targeting non-Hezbollah positions and institutions like the Lebanese airport and the United Nations building?

If Israel provides no proof, then Israel deserves the same moral condemnation that US enjoys for going to way on false premises and fake intelligence.

Logical?

Wouldn't it be logical for Israel to stop justifying the MILITARY creation of a Jewish state on Arab lands that the Jews do not legally own by expelling 8 million Arabs from such lands when the Jewish population is 80% European origin with no Middle Eastern ancestry.

Wouldn't it be safer for Israli civilains to live in a country where they are welcomed, and not universally condemned for their unpunished military atrocities and terrorist methods?

I mean, since we are talking about logic. A murderer can't condemn other murderers if he get off scott free, right? Same thing for a Jewish terrorist condemning an Arab terrorist/resistance fighter? Fair?

Watching the news this morning in Ireland. They actually managed to piss off the Irish government and believe me that takes some doing.

Not that anything will come of it.

Bit on a tangent but also news in Ireland, 5 people who had been jailed for damaging a US military plane where let off free as it was found they were doing it to protect lives.

I'm passing on a article writen in the spring of 2005 (15 months before the current events) that told me more about who Hizbullah are than anything else I've read recently. They ain't exacty Al-Qaida.

http://bostonreview.net/BR30.2/cobban.html

Please see this exchange with Juan Cole:

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1153978821.html

To reiterate my point, Israel either fire accurately or they don't. This certainly doesn't look like an accident. And excuses don't really mean anything. Israel are obligied to makes excuses, Hizbolla are not. This may be unfair, but so is Israel's disproportionate use of force.

While Hizbolla may 'terrorise' and fire into civilian areas, Israel are also conducting terror activities and firing into civilian areas, in both Gaza and Lebanon.

They do this with the aid of 21st Century technology and therefore while completely sober.

Without the rhetoric and citing of 2000 years of idiotic "facts", does anyone have any idea how we solve this?

Zak, I have never read a single plan from anyone that had any chance in hell of working. Do you have a plan? Does anyone have a plan for how to have peace in Iraq? This is a screwed up world we live in.

In response to the "how do we solve this" question, it would appear that an initial step may involve a cease fire, if I may be so bold as to suggest the obvious. Which begs the question, why is the US so adamant about refusing to call for an immediate cease fire? Is it for political reasons during an election year? Is it some thinly veiled implied support for israel? What is the point of convening a meeting in Rome to sit around and conclude that the US feels that the conflict should be carried out with the utmost restraint and the bad guys should stop being so bad?

The politicking is interfering with common sense and the continued "acknowledgement" of "regrettable" occurences that are routinely chalked up to the ineveitable consequences of "conflict" is getting old quickly.

The US's refusal to take a clear and common sense position that is neutral and mutually beneficial to all involved (i.e., "Stop the fighting, cool off, sit down and talk to each other so you both can come to some understanding with a mature, rational acceptance that both sides will make concessions for the greater good") is the obvious first step. Why we, the US, refuse to take a leadership role and instead sit back with our thumbs up our ass can only be political and makes us look like callous, partisan armchair obesrvers. It is obvious that we favor Israel - even the UK is getting a little miffed with our brazen willingness to ship more missles presto-pronto to the front, ignoring protocol to do so:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5218036.stm

Let's not dance around the appearance of impartiality - dispense with all the surperficial bullshit and get down to brass tacks. Even if we are partial to Israel, we can and should use our position to inject some calm into the current situation and insist on a cease fire, a time out, and the initiation of real, meaningful dialog where adults come to the table with realistic expectations and the acceptance that you do not get without giving.

If the US continues to sit on the sidelines and do nothing, then zakdegrassi you have your answer - we, the US, do not want to solve the problem because the current situation is more convenient and beneficial. I think the real problem lies with both sides feeling that compromise cannot be the answer, when in fact, compromise is the only answer.

Sorry for the rant. I am not interested in taking either side, I believe that, while the "2000 years" add complexity, there are some basic issues that get clouded by the rhetoric and the desire for each side to appear "right" and therefore posssess the only acceptable outcome for any solution. If all of the noise and chestbeating and nonsense could be stripped away and rational discussion could take place between human beings, unencumbered by beliefs and baggage, that might make for a good start. It would be a refreshing change if the policitcal leaders could stop being politicians for once and start acting like human beings.

Great, now China's pissed at Israel too...

Does anyone actually see an end to this that doesn't involve a mushroom cloud rising over Israel? That's not a suggestion, mind you, I just don't know how the two sides can ever reconcile.

How to solve this? Support Israel!

Israel! Your actions are justifiable. Destroy Lebanon -- that's the way to solve this problem (it's worked before!).

Those Arabs only respect force. You'll have real peace only by rooting out all the terrorists -- damn the "collateral damage", damn the consequences! You are creating long-term respect and love for your country and your citizens. You're making the world safer and teaching disaffected Muslim teenagers all over the world to leave Israel alone!

Your use of force is proportionate and reasonable. You are suffering just as much as the Lebanese. You have been wronged by history--you have every right to act in any way that suits you. You can do no wrong. You deserve our endless sympathy and understanding, and our billions in aid every year.

You are the Chosen People! The only important blood is Jewish blood! You are so smart! You have my personal love and support. You are not terrorists. Oy!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think Israel had overreacted on Lebanon and I think they should completely pull out of the West Bank and Gaza.

That being said, if anyone thinks that will get the Muslim fundamentalists who control southern Lebanon and Palestine to make peace with Israel, you're dreaming. As I said to someone today, if someone wants you dead, you can't negotiate with them to be half dead.

Still, I think Israel should get out of Palestine and Lebanon. But until you Hamas/Hezbollah-apologists recognize that these guys are radical religious wingnuts who have no interest in compromising on the issue of Israel's existence, we wont get anywhere. I find it fascinating that people like Norm clearly recognize that Christian fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are a threat to democratic values in America, yet they seem to not see that the threat from Muslim fundamentalists on nearly half the globe is far worse. For the most part the Christian loonies (and the Jewish loonies for that matter) aren't issuing fatwas and blowing themselves up. Muslim fundamentalists are. And while Israel in Gaza and the US in Iraq exacerbate the problem, they did not create it, nor will their lack of presence solve it.

I find it fascinating that people like Norm clearly recognize that Christian fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are a threat to democratic values in America, yet they seem to not see that the threat from Muslim fundamentalists on nearly half the globe is far worse.

I totally agree that Muslim fundamentalists are a great danger, greater than some fundamentalist Christians most likely, but they are both so fucking nuts that It is hardly worth discussing. I don't see much difference between a Timothy McVeigh who killed hundreds using a bomb and a suicide bomber. They're both delusional and their victims are equally dead. What is it exactly that I've written Zak that would make you think I don't see the threat. Does criticism of Israel, for you, really equate with love of Israel's enemies? I see Israel unnecessarily killing innocent civilians and it makes my blood boil. I feel the same when I see the United States wiping out families in Iraq. There is a wide range of belief systems out there ranging from rational to crazy and everything in-between. Israel and the United States have a tendency to lump them all together. Further the fundamentalist danger is not just a religious one, though I think It usually has its roots in religious upbringing, more specifically authoritarian personalities. Both the Bush Administration and Israeli leadership are similar in that regard. It is the arrogant, the I'm father figure, I know what is best that leads to irrational actions in my opinion. They see most issues as black and white and that is the problem.

Norm,

forestflyer's comment "You are the Chosen People! The only important blood is Jewish blood! You are so smart! You have my personal love and support. You are not terrorists. Oy!"

Isn't that a bit beyond basic sarcasm? I've seen you shut down very emotional rants from those alleging anti-semitism... but would you mind telling persons such as these to at least comment more constructively? I mean... "The only important blood is Jewish blood?" that's offensive, man.

That is, needless to say, not even close to the mainstream view in Israel, as determinable by academic surveys, ethnography, and other forms of qualitative and quantitative analysis.

I agree with you that his comments were insensitive, and I certainly prefer that comments are constructive. The rule is criticize people, no. Criticize ideas, yes. His comments while insensitive were I believe trying to make the point that some in Israel view Israeli life as more valuable than others. I feel the same way about the United States. I think if you go to war especially one like the U.S. in Iraq you have a responsibility of going out of your way to preserve innocent civilian life even when that leads to more American deaths. I have not shut down any threads. I recently banned one commenter for making personal attacks. You may have felt I was too quick, but this was the second time I've felt it necessary to ban him. I think the phrase he used was " you are an asshole" I understand that you and I have different perspectives and that we each see the world from our own. That said, I don't recall you being outraged when that individual accused me of wading in anti-semetic waters, or when he called me an asshole. When someone makes such charges, I believe they have an obligation to point to specific examples of such anti-semetic statements. Feel free to send me an email if you would like to discuss it further. I don't like to clutter up the comments with discussions that are secondary to the post.

Sorry to clutter up the comments, but I agree with Demiurge. It is one thing to criticize the decisions of the government of Israel. But the comments made by forestflyer are too personal and I see it as a hurtful satire on the Jewish people.

Thanks for the response Norm, even though I dont agree that you can equate Christian or Jewish fundamentalists with Muslim ones. Look at their actions. There's been one Timothy McVeigh (although I've never heard him referred to as a Christian fundamentalist, but i'll go with it), look at all the examples of Muslim fundamentalist atrocities there out there. To suggest there's no difference "worth discussing" is a bit naive, i think.

The thing I was most struck by in your response though was that Israel's attack of civilians makes your "blood boil." As I've said, Israel has gone too far. I wont dispute that. But I wonder why you seem to express a piss off with Israel's actions. Doesn't it piss you off, make your blood boil, that Hezbollah purposely plants itself and its bombs in civilian areas so that people like you will get all offended when Israel responds to the launch of those bombs? Isn't is clear that's their tactic? Put their own people in harm's way as pawns in their struggle with Israel. Shouldn't THAT make your blood boil more than anything?

Let's discuss this in a more general way not Israel and Hezbollah because there are factors on both sides that skew the discussion. In the United States war of independence we quickly resorted to guerilla tactics realizing that in a conventional war we would lose. If you are up against a tank and all you have is a rifle you're fucked unless you use tactics to equalize the battle. The tactics Hezbollah and Hamas and others use is despicable, but you certainly wouldn't expect them to heed the call to come out and 'fight fair' knowing that was tantamount to surrender. I suppose I'm being a little bit pollyanna here when it comes to the realities of war, but war as they say is hell. So yes I understand that Israel does what it thinks it must as does Hezbollah. I suppose the metric I'm using is how many innocents are dying on the respective sides, through what I consider recklessness.