That was Israeli strategy in the 2006 invasion of southern Lebanon. It's Israeli strategy today in Gaza. Disproportionate power.. immense damage and destruction... by plan. It's a strategy not targeted at an armed opponent. This is a strategy targeted directly at civilians - the young, the elderly, women and children - the cannon fodder that are least able to get out of the way when you come calling.
C'mon, Justin. Remind me again about Israel's "commitment to peace."
There's even a name for it. It's called the Dahiyeh Doctrine, named for the Beirut suburb that Israeli warplanes carpet bombed.
It's all about inflicting civilian casualties, destroying their homes and depriving them of essential services - electricity, water, sewage plants - hospitals, schools - all of which Israel has destroyed in the past month in Gaza as part of its "commitment to peace."
Israel waged this sort of peace in Gaza before and it became the subject of the 2009 Goldstone Report commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. I expect our parliamentary greaseballs - Steve, Justin and Tommy Boy - never got a copy. That the very same doctrine is happening again - today - according to the very same game plan - is no coincidence. It's also a war crime unless, that is, your name is Harper, Trudeau or Mulcair.
MoS, The Disaffected Lib
I found an interesting article on Dahiyeh published in October, 2008 in the Jewish news service, YNET news.
ReplyDelete"... I do not think that the Dahiya strategy would have received the official stamp of approval had our leaders’ view of accountability not changed. This change was not the result of an orderly examination process, but rather, a growing realization that led to the following conclusion: Our neighbors must be held fully accountable for their leaders’ acts.
"We have failed in our sophisticated attempts to distinguish between innocent individuals and sinning leaders. We have failed in the effort to distinguish between “simple people who also have fathers and children” and those who incite those simple folk. Without saying so explicitly, we reached the conclusion that nations are responsible for their leaders’ acts.
"In practical terms, the Palestinians in Gaza are all Khaled Mashaal, the Lebanese are all Nasrallah, and the Iranians are all Ahmadinejad."
This reinforces the conclusion that, despite Israel's claims to the contrary, it is primarily targeting Gaza's civilian population, not Hamas. The systematic reduction of Gaza, the choice of targets, the strategy so obviously patterned on Dahiyeh admits of no other conclusion. Mulcair is vermin. Trudeau, in his praise of Israel, is either feeble-minded or actually worse than Mulcair.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3605863,00.html
I often wonder, Mound, if, on an international scale, we are judged the same way when it comes to Harper's foreign policy. If Canada is noticed on the world stage at all, are all Canadians tarred with his brush?
DeleteI hope not. Yet if we elect that fiend again I suppose we deserve it.
DeleteIt was only today that I read somewhere that Canada has refused to fund the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) - the agency that happens to run the 200+ schools in Gaza that the IDF is bombing - since 2010 (one of Harper's many decisive moves on the foreign relations front). A google search brought out all the usual right wing sources praising Canada/Harper for this move.
ReplyDeleteThen I found this gem from back in 2004 when Canada was a far more compassionate and even handed player on the world stage:
"GLYN BERRY (Canada) lauded the work of UNRWA’s staff, particularly under the current security situation. He also expressed concern over a grave deterioration of conditions in the Gaza Strip, which included the violent deaths of children. He called on all parties to pay special attention to the protection and safety of children. In addition, the safety of UNRWA staff, as well as their ability to do their work, remained priorities for Canada.
As one of the Agency’s 10 largest donors, his country’s commitment to UNRWA and the refugees remained steadfast, he said. He welcomed the Agency’s commitment to implementing long-term internal reforms and encouraged the reform of various procedures to ensure the well-being of the refugees and greater accountability to donors. In that regard, Canada was pleased with the creation of the Working Group on Stakeholder Relations and also pleased that UNRWA had reiterated to its employees the importance of working as impartial, international political servants. Affirming that the only path to a peaceful future in the Middle East lay in a negotiated settlement, he said that Israel’s anticipated withdrawals presented new opportunities. Consequently, he concluded, UNRWA’s role in humanitarian relief and social services remained essential."
http://electronicintifada.net/content/un-general-assembly-expresses-support-unrwas-work-calls-adequate-funding/1934
What a difference 10 years makes! Anyway, the continued dumping on any UN initiative or resolution that criticizes Israel or protects Palestinians was made most evident in recent years when ALL three political parties shat on the Durban Anti-Racism commitments and refused to have Canada support or attend the follow-up meeting to see how well countries did on following the August 2001 Resolutions. All these opponents borrowed the anti-UN sites (UN Watch and Eye On UN) preferred language of dubbing the event "Durban II". There were some grumblings about compensation for slavery and better rights/treatment for indigenous peoples but the biggest complaint was how badly condemned Israel was for their treatment of the Palestinians.
Thanks for those insights, BY. Yes, what a difference 10-years makes. Neo-liberalism has swept all three major parties, most dramatically within the NDP. It's no coincidence that these leaders all look like grey suits stuffed with wet cardboard. Canada's political spectrum has been choked off. We still know which party holds the right but none seems to anchor the left and who stands where in the centre-left is a matter of opinion.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes wonder what Pierre would make of his son.