On Criticizing Israel
On the matter of Criticism of Israel
When is Criticism of Israel Legitimate?
May 21, 2007 7:51 AM
Is criticism of Israel legitimate?
That certainly depends on what one means by “Israel”. If one means the existence of the State of Israel, the answer is categorically NO, both from a moral and ethical point of view, because UN-Resolution 181 is generally accepted – and it is not likely to be rescinded.
Sure, one can discuss all the possible reasons it was drafted and accepted, an probably find all sorts of non-reasons, but the fact of the matter is that as the existence of the State of Israel is NOW a fact, rescinding it would be a violation of the Israelis’ basic right to nationality as expressed in UDHR article 15:
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
If one by “Israel” means the entire national entity and it’s population in it’s entirety, the answer is yet again a categorical NO, simply because an entire nation and population cannot be held responsible, as there within a national entity and population will always be those , (the number is irrelevant) that disagree with others on a multitude of matters.
If one by “Israel” means the Government or Representative Body, the answer must also be NO, because a Government or Representative Body, although often consisting of a majority of representatives that are in agreement on many issues, does not contain only those, but also those in opposition or at least in disagreement with the majority of representatives.
Therefore one can only criticize those that are directly, actually and objectively responsible for the decisions, and none of those are named “The State of Israel.”
Who then is there to criticize?
One can very well criticize individual representatives, such as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, individual Commanding Officers and individual Legislators – one can even criticize pieces of legislation, propositions and drafts of those, when there is irrefutable evidence that those individuals one is criticizing have in fact acted or put forward material that violates International Law.
What is there to criticize?
One can justifiably criticize the practice of demolishing the homes of alleged suicide murderers and their families – and I deliberately say ‘alleged’, because if there is irrefutable evidence of the identity of said suicide murderer, then a crime has been committed, and from a point of justice a penalty has to be implemented. Yes, parents can, and should be held responsible for how they have raised their children.
One can further justifiably criticize if and when minors are detained and imprisoned in regular prisons. Minor, if there is evidence of their guilt, should be detained under such conditions that take into consideration that they are children.
One can also justifiably criticize imprisonment and detention without a just hearing and trial for any time-period other than what is stipulated in International Law – i.e it must be accepted that an alleged criminal can be held for questioning during the duration of the investigation of the crime and during the trial.
One can justifiably criticize any practice implemented by law-enforcement or military that is a violation of International Law, provided that an impartial, judicially knowledgable and objective investigation has been conducted by International Law Agencies that are not ethnically or otherwise compromised by connections to the area or peoples.
One can naturally criticize such political parties as are appropriate, provided that one can give irrefutable evidence that said parties in their “manifesto” endorse any of the above practices or violations of International Laws.
One has to be very careful that one, when criticizing ANY nation for human rights and International Law violations, has taken into consideration, objectively all aspects of of International Laws, and that one’s criticism is not overlooking or willfully ignoring International Law in its particulars or entirety. One also need the KNOW exactly what is International Law, so one does not assume that Recommendations, Advice and/or Declarations are International Law.
When all of the above has satisfactorily been taken into consideration and implemented in one’s reasoning, one can bring forth the criticism, but not until then.
About Indiscriminate Killings
May 27, 2007 7:39 AM
“So from this document it is clear that Israel is in violation of International Humanitarian Law when it indiscrimately kills Palestinian civilians in armed response to the rocket attacks.”
On principle, yes.
Yet, I would like to point out that IDF is often accused of “indiscriminately killing civilians” that are in fact not civilians, but illegal combatants, i.e Palestinian Militants concealing their arms.Another problem here is the fact that those illegal combatants are exactly that because they refuse to wear any kind of distinguishing mark that will set them apart from the actual civilian population.A third problem is that those illegal combatants have developed tactics that make use of the civilian population as human shields – which makes it difficult for the IDF to target military positions, weapons caches and depots without causing damage and death to civilian habitation and population.This is not meant to excuse the killings, it is only meant to point out that “indiscriminate killings” is not always just that.
If this is, then that is – right? “Any written attack on the Palestinians is an attack on all Arabic people.”So what you are saying here is that any written attack on Israel is automatically an attack on the Jewish People? Well, that certainly is good to know – that means I will have to block and ban every Pro-Palestinian member who dares to write one single line of criticism against Israel…and the reason I will have to do that is because any attack on [Israel] the Jewish people is Anti-Semitism.
“Exporting arms to repressive regimes is definitely a case of ‘disregard(ing) the plight of others‘, don’t you agree? “I am not sure the bold text can be understood to mean arms export, but as you can see – my blog entry is quite critical of Israel on a larger scale – so why don’t you just thank G-d for the good graces that this “Racist Nazionist” and “Blind Defender of Israel”, “Baby Killer” etc actually wrote that, because it is indeed critical of Israel, and on a far more intense level than merely pointing to details.As for specifically condemning Israel’s arms export – I told you yesterday that I have too little information from objective sources, to do anything other than express myself in general terms about both parties, which I have already done, so stop pushing, [name edited out]