I understand your answer.

I wasn't questioning your reaction to any poster, nor do I have any comments to make in that regard.

I was just curious about how anyone was a "foreigner" on the world wide web. But again, I understand your point in the context you've provided.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/node/14887

It's time to redefine "pro-Israel"

[...]

During the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah [...] The Bush administration backed Israel to the hilt and delayed a ceasefire resolution -- just as they are doing now -- in a futile attempt to give Israel time to eke out a military victory. Not to be outdone, Congress passed a resolution of support by a vote of 410-8, after deleting a clause from the initial draft that called for both sides to minimize harm to civilians. The result of all this "support" was a major setback for Israel, however, as the ill-conceived war undermined Lebanon’s fragile democracy and left Hezbollah stronger and more popular than before. Delaying the ceasefire also cost more Israeli and Lebanese lives.

And here's the real tragedy: giving Israel unconditional support wasn't a true act of friendship then and isn't a genuine act of friendship now; on the contrary, it's positively harmful to the long-term interests of the Jewish state. [...]

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/node/14887

The logic behind the argument of the government of Israel escapes me. They say that they will not stop their attack til Hamas stops firing rockets. Would even a written guaranty ensure that Hamas will never fire a rocket? No.

This rationale leads to the conclusion that you must cleanse the area of everyone, because that will be the only state of affairs when there will be no more rockets. It is brilliant logic, if your plan is to completely eliminate any and all resistance to your goestrategic vision.

One must conclude that Israel is really out to completely eliminate any Palestinian resistance, and that human consequences are irrelevant. 'We must destroy the village to save it'. Funny how we never remember history. Maybe we just choose not to.

The problem with Glennnnnnn and the usual barking pack here is they are not interested in Israel's context. We can recount the history of the Jewish People and Israel's 50+ plus year struggle to survive until the cows come home, and I do not think that would be enough for these folks to even pause for one moment, and acknowledge the existential challenges which Israelis face.

Most of them are committed leftists. Their religion is some collectivist fantasy, and since many of the Middle East's regimes spout on about colonial tyranny and the like, they view Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah etc as their natural allies.

Palestinians suffer in horrible conditions not because of their own horrid leaders with their villas in France and foreign bank accounts, their condition must be Israel's fault.

The Russians spared no one and totally leveled Grozny, and not a peep from these people. Recently they savaged Georgia and, again, not a peep.

Yes, there is an unmistakable stench here, PalestraJon, and you and I are not engaging in a "tactic," you and I and WinSmith are simply noticing the age old hatred of a particular people, a mindless animus which stains the ranting mob here. And they will continue to howl at anyone who points this out.

And, of course Glennnn can not and will not really respond to your request that he put the past week in Gaza into some context and perspective. It is as if Israel just attacked Gaza out of a clear blue sky.

None of this explains why your family hates Israel.

Much earlier in this thread, ondelette wrote:

And Israel's civilian leadership has done exactly what causes war crimes to happen. It was pretty much a given that armed soldiers would act this way given the way their civilian superiors acted. That's why I pleaded yesterday not to make monsters out of soldiers. When you train someone to solve problems with force, you have an obligation to that person to be circumspect about the orders you give them and the social pressures you put them under.

This is exactly what has happened since 2001. In the case of detainee abuse, the meaning of what had been clear laws and rules was deliberately muddied, which created a nebulous environment in which young and sometimes inexperienced soldiers were left without firm guidance in very stressful circumstances in which they were required to make decisions which they had not been trained to make.

December 2002-“Dr. Michael Gelles, the chief psychologist at the [Naval Criminal Investigative Service], spoke with Alberto J. Mora, the Navy’s general counsel, saying that, in his professional opinion, “abusive techniques” and “coercive psychological procedures” were being used on Qahtani at Guantánamo. Gelles warned of a phenomenon known as “force drift,” in which interrogators encountering resistance begin to lose the ability to restrain themselves.” [9]

December 26, 2002 - Washington Post publishes “U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations; 'Stress and Duress' Tactics Used on Terrorism Suspects Held in Secret Overseas Facilities” by Dana Priest and Barton Gellman, “alleging that C.I.A. personnel were mistreating prisoners at the Bagram military base, in Afghanistan. Kenneth Roth, the director of Human Rights Watch, warned that if this was true U.S. officials who knew about it could be criminally liable, under the doctrine of command responsibility. The specific allegations closely paralleled what Mora had seen authorized at Guantánamo.” (O)

March 14, 2003- “Mr. Yoo’s opinion, had been requested by Mr. Haynes at the initiation of the [OLC] Working Group process, and repeated much of what the first Bybee memo had said six months earlier. [August 1, 2002] […] [It stated that] criminal laws, such as the federal torture statute, would not apply to certain military interrogations, and that interrogators could not be prosecuted by the Justice Department for using interrogation methods that would otherwise violate the law.” (DD)

Mid August, 2003 - an email from staff at Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7) headquarters in Iraq requested that subordinate units provide input for a wish list of interrogation techniques, stated that the gloves are coming off, and said we want these detainees broken. (DD)

Three responses of “subordinate” American “interrogation elements”: [11]

1] “Sounds crazy, but we’re just passing this on.” [Name redacted]

2] “[…] Other techniques would include […] and a litany of harsher fear-up approaches…fear of dogs and snakes appear to work nicely. I firmly agree that the gloves need to come off.” [Name redacted]

3] “[…] BOTTOM LINE: We are American soldiers, heirs of a long tradition of staying on the high ground. We need to stay there.” [Name redacted] Psalm 24:3-8

September 30, 2003-Col. Thomas Pappas [head of Intelligence at Abu Ghraib] survives a mortar attack at the prison, and may suffer from PTSD. There are questions of whether he was capable of fulfilling the duties of his job. Also, locating a prison in a war zone is a violation of the GC and US Military doctrine stresses that prison guards should not also be in combat situations. [13]

July 7, 2004- Alberto J. Mora, the general counsel of the United States Navy, […] argued that a refusal to outlaw cruelty toward U.S.-held terrorist suspects was an implicit invitation to abuse. Mora […] described as “unlawful,” “dangerous,” and “erroneous” novel legal theories granting the President the right to authorize abuse. Mora warned that these precepts could leave U.S. personnel open to criminal prosecution. (O)

Spring 2005-[…] In a second secret opinion, Mr. Bradbury finds that even the CIA’s harshest tactics are not “cruel, inhuman or degrading,” the restriction soon to be imposed by Congress.” (AA) (W)

June 2005-Pentagon issues a “Medical Program Principles and Procedures for the Protection and Treatment of Detainees in the Custody of the Armed Forces of the United States” by Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr., the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. The guideline stresses the importance of upholding “the humane treatment of detainees” but contains a loophole in addressing only “health-care personnel charged with the medical care of detainees”. “Leonard Rubenstein, of Physicians for Human Rights, argues that “the Administration has basically given a green light for medical personnel to participate in abuse.” [9]

January 19, 2006- Scott McClellan, was asked about a Human Rights Watch report that the Administration had made a “deliberate policy choice” to abuse detainees. He answered that the organization had hurt its credibility by making unfounded accusations. (O)

February 2006-The United Nations Human Rights Commission called for the U.S. to shut down the detention center at Guantánamo, where it said, some practices “must be assessed as amounting to torture.” The U.N. report, which the White House dismissed, described “the confusion with regard to authorized and unauthorized interrogation techniques” as “particularly alarming.” (O)

July 2006-Human Rights Watch issues “a fifty-three-page report on the “serious mistreatment” of detainees at Camp Nama and two other sites, largely based on witness accounts from Special Forces interrogators and others who served there.” (Q)

The Sources are listed here: http://www.webdsi.com/jebbie/ttpage18.html