Hospital? What hospital? The place was empty? A hospital in a wartorn country full of wounded people and it was empty? Sounds like a hospital to me.

One more time. If Hezbollah moved away from the Lebanese civilians, would they be getting killed? If the Israeli army stopped trying to protect its citizens from rockets would they still be getting killed?

You tell me where the fault lies.

BTW. According to reports, the israelis ran through the "hospital" shouting the names of the captured israeli soldiers. They were intending to break them out, by they were moved. So, you hide the biggest piece of collateral you have near as many civilians as you can. Whose idea was that? Thats right, the all-righteous Hezbollah. Israels fault my ass. If you truly cant see that, you arent looking. Its becoming clearer day by day, that the more innocent ARABS that are killed by Israelis, the happier Hezbollah are.

How can you not see this stuff Killa? Cmon man, you have to admit its a little strange how these militants always seem to be surrounded by women and children.

While we're on the subject, whats your opinion on what Hezbollah is doing re. shooting rockets into Israel, targeting innocent civilians. I believe we are yet to hear your views on that.

Civilian casualties are not avoidable during a war.

During the NATO Balkans peace keeping opearation, 500 civilians were killed by NATO forces during the "active" part of the campagn, and 12000 during the following incubation period. And that is according to European numbers. Some Balkan sources claim the number of civilians dead as a result of NATO peace keeping opeartion at 30000.

Yet NATO went in there to make the peace and keep it, and they did.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't have armys or militans blasting away at each other with modern weapons and not kill civilians. This is why war is BAD! This is why Hizbollah should have never attacked in the first place.

Human Rights Watch... another impartial obsever...


April 13, 2004
By Anne Bayefsky
When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth's umbrage at criticism.

Roth, however, volunteers a test of his organization's reliability when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely Human Rights Watch's behavior at the UN's infamous "anti-racism" conference held in Durban, South Africa shortly before 9/11. If the organization's actions were assailable there, he says, it would make "it easy to reject the objectivity of Human Rights Watch reports on Israeli conduct."

It is a test that Human Rights Watch fails hands down. I know because I was there as the representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). Roth himself did not attend.

Just prior to the conference Roth telegraphed his convictions in an interview on US National Public Radio, August 14, 2001, when he said about the pending controversy and the effort to focus attention on Israel: "Clearly Israeli racist practices are an appropriate topic."

So in the lead-up to Durban, Human Rights Watch fanned the flames of racial intolerance notwithstanding that Israel's citizens are one-quarter Arab and enjoy democratic rights they have nowhere else in the Arab world, while neighboring Arab states are Judenrein.

At Durban one role of Human Rights Watch was to exclude the representative of Jewish lawyers and jurists from over 40 countries. Here's what happened:

As a representative of the IAJLJ, I was a member of the caucus of international human rights nongovernmental organizations. Human Rights Watch, along with others such as Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (renamed Human Rights First), was also a member of this caucus. Together we had a right to vote on the final NGO document, and hours before the last session gathered together to discuss our position.

The draft included egregious statements equating Zionism with racism, and alleging that Israel is an "apartheid" state guilty of "genocide and ethnic cleansing designed to ensure a Jewish state."

As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend. The views of a Jewish organization, he explained, would not be objective and the decision on how to vote had to be taken in our absence. Not a single one of the other international NGOs objected.

THE HUMAN Rights Watch role at Durban? To inhibit Jewish lawyers and jurists from being fairly represented or defended.

Later that afternoon, my colleague Daniel Lack and I insisted on entering the meeting, but their minds were made up. In the face of the flagrant anti-Semitism all around them the group, including HRW had decided neither to approve nor disapprove of the final declaration, and not to vote.

Instead the international NGOs, including HRW planned to introduce an introductory paragraph that would cast the document as a legitimate collection of the "voices of the victims."

In the evening, as the declaration was considered, a motion was made to delete draft language that had come from the Jewish NGO caucus. The Jewish caucus had proposed including a statement that the demonization of Israel and the targeting of Jews for destruction because of their support for Israel was a form of anti-Semitism.

The vote to delete the Jewish caucus's proposal succeeded and all Jewish organizations from around the world walked out.

What did Human Rights Watch do? The organization said nothing. It made no move to vote. It stayed. Notwithstanding that the Jewish voices had been silenced, two days later at a press conference, HRW (along with Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee/Human Rights First) repeated the claim that the "voices of the victims" had legitimately prevailed at the NGO conference. HRW spokesperson Smita Narula said: "The document gives expression to all voices."

What else did Human Rights Watch do in Durban? It misrepresented the final outcome to the world press.

AFTER THE fact, Human Rights Watch got nervous about the possible reaction of its many Jewish funders. So the cover-up began.

On September 6, 2001 Human Rights Watch spokespersons Reed Brody and Joel Motley wrote in the Conference News Daily that the NGO declaration "marks a major success... and recognizes the scourge of anti-Semitism."

They neglected to mention that the declaration had redefined anti-Semitism, changing its meaning from the hatred of Jews to something which included "anti-Arab racism."

Six months later, in February 2002, Human Rights Watch published an update stating: "What really happened at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban? The conference we participated in was completely different from the one covered in American newspapers."

What else did Human Rights Watch do after Durban? It denied what happened there.

As for Roth's claim of the organization's objectivity in reporting on governments throughout the region, one need look no further than its inability despite an annual budget of $22 million to produce a specific report on human rights abuses in a country like Libya, or the relative paucity of attention over the years given to states with appalling human rights records like Saudi Arabia and Syria, as compared to Israel.

So there should be no surprise when HRW wrongly describes Israel as violating international legal norms, for example, by labeling the killing of someone like Sheikh Ahmed Yassin or Ismail Abu Shanab an "assassination" or "liquidation."

International law does not protect all combatants from being targeted before judicial process, or grant them immunity from military operations when they use civilians as human shields.

Having the courage to speak out against the tide of hate directed at Israel and the Jewish people is not one of the strengths of Human Rights Watch.

When will this leading international human rights NGO stop believing it has to earn its stripes by demonizing Israel, or that to stay in business it must avoid criticizing Israel's enemies?

The writer, a professor at York University in Canada, is an international lawyer and a member of the Governing Board of UN Watch, based in Geneva

Jews actually bother to show up to such events? Why? Why are we even funding them still. These organizations are useless and controlled by many private interests. What a waste of money. I gotta say the idealism of our people never does us any good.

Posted by efw:

The reason is because Hezbollah is an integral part of Lebanon life. From social structures, to schools, to hospitals, to government positions, Hezbollah members are everywhere. Their families - mothers, fathers, sons, daughers, uncles, cousins, and so on - live in Lebanon. The fighters go home at night to eat. They sleep and relax in these homes. And yes, they probably store their guns and bombs in these places too. The military members of Hezbollah are friends with non-Hezbollah Lebanese- they interact on a daily basis. Just like you see Israeli soldiers sitting at a bus stop, or going to a movie. Who, then qualifies as a Hezbollah militant? The whole family? Just the fighter? Who is a civilian? Only non-Muslims? How can you tell who is who from 1000 feet up going 600 miles per hour? Where do you draw the lines? You see, it's not so easy for a person to tell their child to stay away from that guy.

What you are saying is that much Lebonon is integrated with a known terrorist entity and therfore is not merely a nation under hostage by Syria, but a nation that supports an organization that stands for the complete annihilation of Israel. Either way, this terrorist opperation shares seats in parlement and is active in eliminating any opposition that theatens it...

This terrorist organization is stockpiling munitions creating a growing threat to Israel's existence... Israel has every right to destroy the threat... if the militants dress as civilian's, stockpile weapons with civilian's and take cover offered by civilians; than these individuals are no longer qualified as mere civilians in standard military practice; they are considered hostile and therefore subject to engagement...

If you believe that the US did not target the Talaban in their homes... you are misinformed.. if you believe the US spared the children of Libia's leader you are again misinformed... if you believe the US spared the family or hosts of Bin Laden's 2nd in command,,, you are again misinformed.
They are not party to the Geneva conventions, they do not follow any semblance of accepted military practices for engagement and as such are not bound by mainstream laws regarding military engagement... they are terrorists and they don't phone you up warning you before they come at night and cut your throat...

These terrorists cannot have it both ways... they cannot call for your destruction and maintain a policy of wiping you off the map.. and then call a cease-fire because they are running out of ammo.

Lets not be dellusional here; Iran set this in motion to divert the world's attention, get the sympathy for their ambitions within the Muslim world - placing them in a more favourable position against demands to stop development of a nuclear arsenal.
Hezbollah is Iran; Iran declares publicly its right to wipe Israel off the map...

This is war, war is ugly and cruel and catches innocence in its path; no one has the right to demand that Israel restrain itself if they are not prepared to go and weaken this Iranian proxy themselves.('');

Posted by colorfl1:

no one has the right to demand that Israel restrain itself if they are not prepared to go and weaken this Iranian proxy themselves.('');

People have every right to demand Israel restrain itself. In fact, people who believe that Israel is making a huge mistake, both for herself and for innocent civilians of any stripe, have a duty to speak up.

To say that one is not allowed an opinion unless they go and fight Hezbelloh themselves is asinine.

You have no right to comment further on the Knicks unless you go out and play with them...

I found it interesting that some people try to convince others on this thread that Israel is deliberately killing civilians in Lebanon just because they are rasists and Zionists.
Well... If this will be true it will be tens if not hundred of thousands Arabs already dead.
Can you imagine how many people the Israeli Jets, tanks, artillery, warships, rockets can kill if this will be the objection of Israeli army? The Lebanon will be a desert.
When Russian army was instructed indeed to give the terrorists a lesson - 15000 civilians in Groznyy died in 2 days and 100 thousand was dispraised. When the Russia was fighting in Afghanistan - almost a million of Afghan people was killed. Most of them civilians. How many civilians were killed by American army in Vietnam, Korea, Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
It's sad but Israel will never be able to win the war with Hezbollah and alike as they are too civilized. The nation of people who was killed and displaced for generations just cannot do it with others. So they doomed to lose unless America or Russia, or other superpower will decide to "help out". Then nobody will count the civilian casualties - it will be no people to do counting…

Just to keep the thread going...

No, it's not like Bush's pre-emption doctrine because Hezbollah attacked Israel. Iraq didn't attack the U.S. If it was like pre-emption, Israel would have invaded before they were attacked, and they didn't.

I like your last post efw. I am more then happy to debate the issue of Israels best way forward in this war. But in order to debate it, one must agree the facts. The fact is that if not for Hezbollahs continued practice of surrounding themselves with civilians, civilians would not getting hurt.

You mention above that Hezbollah is entrenched in all Lebanese life, and therefore they are surrounded by civilians and cannot help it. You also ask who is the militant, and how do you define the civilians.

In response I would say as follows. This is not a war where one army is fighting another army. The Israeli army's goal is to eliminate the threat of Hezbollah. Hezbollahs charter is to create a Shiite islamic area, cleansing the Middle-East of Jews. So, the Israelis are therefore fighting anyone who wishes to use force to destroy Israel. There are women in the Israeli army, so I see no reason why there should not be women in Hezbollahs ranks. You say Hezbollah is a part of Lebanese life. I will not believe that all Lebanese people are intent on using violence to destroy Israel. But if they are, then by definition, they have joined the ranks of Hezbollah. Your post identifies one of the greatest gains Lebanon would get from the elimination of Hezbollah. They are surrounded by vicious killers on all sides to the extent that they have become part of their lives. Eliminate Hezbollah and perhaps the Lebanese people can begin a life free of militant violence and terrorism. Since the Israelis are fighting a group of men with a stated goal of Israeli destruction, I would define a militant as anyone who shares that goal. Remove Hezbollah from Lebanon, and the Lebanese will not be those people.

Now that we have identified Hezbollah as not only a threat to Israel, but to the Lebanese way of life as well, perhaps we can ask what is the best way to remove them. It can be argued that what the Israeli army is doing is not the best way to achieve their goals. Im not a military general, so I will leave it to you to suggest alternatives.