[Dempsey]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1116938.html


The Allies were also wrong

By Tom Segev

Sun., September 27, 2009


I was uncomfortable when I watched Netanyahu's rhetorical use of World War II documents to prove to the world that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was lying and that the Holocaust indeed occurred. It was unnecessary and embarrassing. In presenting documents from Wannsee and Auschwitz, he was engaging in dialogue with Holocaust deniers.


When Allied forces were bombing German cities, it was argued more than once that they were bombing military facilities such as bases and munitions factories. In this respect, there might be room for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's comparison between Israel and the Americans and British. That's what they argued then, and this is what Israel says now.

Over the years, it became apparent that most of the German cities were bombed to break the German population's support for Hitler, and in many cases, they were leveled to their foundations out of wartime vindictiveness. Several reports on the bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead also show that in many cases, there is no foundation to the claim that Israel did enough to avoid hitting civilians. In this respect, too, there is room for comparison between Israel and Britain.


Winston Churchill, whom Netanyahu mentioned so many times in his speech, was not tried as a war criminal. That was because war crimes were clearly defined only after World War II, but more importantly, because Britain won the war and Germany was defeated.

But over the years, opposition to the bombing of German cities, including Dresden, became more vocal. These acts were called war crimes and even crimes against humanity, and rightly so. In a similar manner, fair people today condemn the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Since World War II, many cities have been bombed, and it cannot be justified: not in Hanoi and not in Dubrovnik, not in Tel Aviv and not in Gaza.






Israel's PM at UN assembly 25/09/2009: “Yesterday the President of Iran…, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

“But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? “

[redcarpet]

he was engaging in dialogue with Holocaust deniers

ROFL. That's exaggeration. 'Dialogue' would be sharing a stage and debating with them one on one.

[Ombrageux]

Israel's P.W. Botha speaks. At least we will be able to say that there were good Israelis who saw evil, and spoke. The same cannot be said in the United States, the media is too constrained.

[redcarpet]

Israel's P.W.

What do you mean by P.W?

[Dempsey]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_Willem_Botha

[danholo]

I really don't see parallels between Gaza and Dresden. First of all, Dresden is one city in a huge country, while Gaza is, well, Gaza, the base of operations. I think this guy should read up on his history.

Several reports on the bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead also show that in many cases, there is no foundation to the claim that Israel did enough to avoid hitting civilians. In this respect, too, there is room for comparison between Israel and Britain.

His books might be readable but as a journalist this isn't serious stuff.

Emotional hyperbole, based on dubious reports, garnering the supporters of the "opponents of evil" TM.

[redcarpet]

dubious reports

Which reports are dubious?

[danholo]

The Goldstone report is vague and does not equate to a complete report to which we can make conclusions out of. A historian would not take it seriously, except mention it probably, and a lawyer would simply laugh. Segev presents Gaza being bombed like Dresden and that just amounts to stupidity or is being intellectually dishonest, which is extremely and only cruel to the soldiers and forces who fought for Israel in the last operation. Frankly, I don't even know why Dempsey bothered to post this. This board has members who are more insightful on such matters. If you see Gaza and Dresden in the same box, well, there is no helping you when it comes to rationale and logic.

[RonPaulalways]

Danholo, I thought you were going to embrace the Goldstone report. I am so surprised you have come out against it.

[bp-open]

Both are war crimes, having nothing else in common.

The Goldstone report is vague and does not equate to a complete report to which we can make conclusions out of.

It is true that the report is not complete. It is sad that much is kept military or intelligence secrets.
But the report confirms some of the war crimes committed by the Israeli military in Gaza. Although
Israel will never admit his war crimes.

[Dempsey]

bp-open

Both are war crimes, having nothing else in common.

The Israeli author criticises the Israeli MP who believes that if he'll compare himself to Churchill and Israel's war against Gaza to Britain's war agains Nazi Germany he is vindicating himself. As if the allies war in WWII is the paradigm of all that is good and just in warfare.

There is another body of opinion in Israel that like to compare Israel's war with that of allies excessive use in force during WWII to shame any critisim against Israel as "hypocritical", this is not the case of the OP.

The carpet-bombing campaign of the great democracies

By Ze'ev Schiff

Haaretz - Israel



In March of 1940, after the Germans bombed an
English target from the air for the first time and
killed some troops and civilians, the British
government asked its air force for a list of
possible targets for bombing in Germany. The first
target on the list was a German naval base. But
when it turned out there were six German civilians
living on the base, the proposal was rejected. A
few months later, in a parliamentary debate,
Churchill rejected a proposal to bomb a variety of
targets in Germany. He said it was a military war,
not a war against civilians.




But things developed
differently. By the time the
world war drew to a close, it
turned out the major
democracies, Britain and the
United States, deliberately
destroyed a fifth of the homes
in Germany. Some 7.5 million
Germans lost their homes. But
their fate was better than some

one million German civilians who were killed or
gravely wounded in the "carpet bombing" of
their country. These figures come from official
studies conducted by Britain and the U.S., and
were summarized in a document called "Churchill
and the moral problem of carpet bombing in
WWII," published in 1991 by the U.S. Naval
College in Newport, Rhode Island. The document
examines Churchill's moral, political and
military considerations.

Churchill, who originally opposed attacking
civilian targets, later gave the order to
strike at the German civilian population, for
strategic reasons. The deterioration took place
in stages. At first it was British retaliation,
even revenge, for what the German air force
bombed. British public opinion demanded
revenge. Later, attacking the German civilian
population became part of an overall strategy.
On the other hand, Churchill rejected a
proposal to bomb Roman civilians. And he wanted
to avoid bombing civilians in France, though
the Americans demanded he step up the bombings
of transportation centers ahead of the landing
at Normandy. About 10,000 French civilians were
casualties of those bombings.

At first the bombings in Germany focused on
targets like factories, shipyards, fuel depots
and transportation centers. The next stage in
British strategy was to try to undermine German
morale by bombing civilian populations.
Churchill saw that as inevitable in a just war.
He told Stalin that damaging German morale had
become a military goal and that Britain would
show no mercy. "When there is a grave danger of
evil, unusual action is justified," he
explained. "If we don't win, Britain will cease
to exist."

When his scientific advisers told him that the
British bombardiers were exhausted and many
crewmen were being killed and in any case the
bombing was not very accurate, the British
decided to bomb German cities at night and from
great heights, to protect the bombers. The
military explanation was that the goal was
"dehousing" the workers in the German
military-industrial complex. If the worker's
family was hurt, they wouldn't go to work that
day.

The carpet bombing of civilian targets went on
for three years, even after improvements in
navigation technology, the accuracy of the
bombardiers improved, and there was no doubt
that Germany would be defeated in the near
future. In 1945, the British undertook 36 major
bombing raids against Germany cities, including
"death verdicts" against the city of Dresden in
February 1945, even though there was no
military industry in the city, just railroad
junctions. There was no public criticism of
this ruthless strategy during the three years
it was employed. Only after the war was there
some cautious expression of differing views
about the matter.

When comparing the indiscriminate bombing of the
civilian populations by the greatest of the
democracies, Israel's conduct of its war
against the Palestinian terror organizations
that conduct suicide bombings against civilians
appears to be saintly.

[bp-open]

The Israeli author criticises the Israeli MP who believe that if he'll comare himself to Churchill and Israel's war against Gaza to Britain's war agains Nazi Germany he is vindicating himself. As if the allies war in WWII is the paradigm of all that is good and just in warfare.

This is nonsense. Crazy.
There are extreme technology, strategic and background differences between WWII and Gaza.
There never was good and just in warfare in any war. And comparing the overturn of Hitler Germany
with the war in Gaza, it is insane, even from the point of view believing in good and just warfare.

[Dempsey]

As I said there is another school in Israel "What army in the world has better rules of engagement? The Americans? The Egyptians? The Indians? The French? Or the Russians and Turks? All of them could learn from the IDF about how to comply with the orders. But when it comes to Israel, they even complain about the rubber-coated bullets the IDF fires."

It is no secret that in international relations, wars included, what
is permitted to large and strong countries is forbidden to small
countries. But the hypocrisy reaches its peak when criticism and
chastisement are added to the prohibition. The State Department's
report on human rights has often accused Israel of using "undue force"
in its war on terror. The Russians, too, have often expressed
criticism of Israel for this.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/502510.html

Don't learn from the Americans



By Ze'ev Schiff


Even before the bloody battle in Falluja, when the Americans began
using combat aircraft in Baghdad, a city that bustles with civilian
life, I had the opportunity to deliver a lecture at an American
university. During the lecture, I asked if anyone knew how many people
were killed or injured in the previous day's bombing. No one knew. Nor
did they know about the casualties in another bombing. The American
press does not draw as much attention to certain aspects of this
conflict as it does to certain aspects of other people's conflicts.
Since then, the bombing and shelling of population centers in Iraq has
taken on larger proportions. It should be hoped that after the tough
battle in Falluja is over, and the Americans have a chance to draw
lessons, they will reach the conclusion that it would be best to end
the practice of preaching morality to the whole world, for instance
through practices like the release of an annual report on the human
rights situation in the occupied territories.


These reports long ago became detached from reality, and are powerful
evidence of the hypocrisy that makes it permissible for the Americans,
and other strong nations, to do that that is forbidden to others. If
the war on international terror means that they will be engaging in
hard-hitting combat, they should at least not be preaching morality to
others.


This same conclusion is relevant regarding actions taken by the French
in the Ivory Coast in recent days. They came to rescue citizens of
France and other states from the fury of a wild mob and, in the course
of their mission, killed local civilians without restraint. The
extensive harm done to civilians in both instances did not even come
in response to an attack - neither by Iraqis nor Africans - against
population centers in the U.S. or France. Neither case may be compared
to the Palestinians, who intentionally strike at civilians, which they
began to do even before the occupation in 1967.


As the Americans were announcing that they had occupied approximately
80 percent of Falluja, representatives of the Red Crescent were
reporting that a humanitarian catastrophe was unfolding among the
city's civilians. Many of the wounded, including children, are
bleeding to death because it is impossible to evacuate them to
hospitals. No one is even talking about the destroyed homes and
property damage.


The method employed by the Americans calls for using warplanes and
artillery in urban areas. This did not start in Falluja. The American
armored division that was deployed in Baghdad used the same method.
The Americans found themselves in trouble after failing to quell the
insurgents in several cities as the date of Iraqi elections drew
nearer. Their answer: using an "iron fist" in populated areas. When
the Russians did this in Chechnya, President Clinton sharply
criticized them. The Iraqi insurgents, who include many foreigners,
also show little compassion for the civilians. They have killed more
Iraqi civilians than have the Americans.


The strong do not generally torment themselves with moral quandaries
during wartime, apparently because they do not feel that they have to
gain the legitimization of the international public opinion. An
intense dispute broke out in Israel following the deaths of 13
civilians from a bomb dropped by an Israel Air Force jet with the aim
of liquidating arch-murderer Salah Shehada, who was responsible for
the deaths of many Israeli civilians. The Shehada case became a
formative event for the IDF, especially its air force.


In its wake, numerous technical and procedural actions were taken.
There has been increased recognition of the fact that this is not
World War II and not the War of Independence, that the State of Israel
requires legitimacy in Israeli public opinion, too, for its military
actions, even when it feels that it is facing an existential war.


This quiet quest for legitimacy led the defense industries in Israel
to develop special warheads for missiles fired from helicopters -
mainly in "targeted assassinations" - which cause a minimum of
collateral damage outside the vehicles. The Israel Air Force graphs
show a steady decline in the number of casualties not involved in
terrorism. Indeed, the majority of Palestinian civilians that have
been killed or wounded in recent months were hit by gunfire from
ground troops. Israel is at least trying to correct the situation and
does not preach to others how to behave on the battlefield.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/413074.html

Israel is not allowed to defend itself


By Ze'ev Schiff


A few days after the publication of the report in which the Europeans
admit anti-Semitism has worsened there, Europe took another step from
which the same stench rises. The European parliament effectively
redefined Israel's self-defense against terror as an "act of terror,"
because Palestinian civilians are hurt in the war.


The background to the decision was the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed
Yassin - the person who effectively invented and encouraged the
suicide terror, and who recently allowed women to conduct suicide
terror missions. Nothing was said, for example, about the latest
suicide terror attack in Ashdod port, in which 10 Israelis were
killed, and which preceded the Yassin assassination. That is the same
self-righteous Europe with air forces that bombed Yugoslavia for 73
days, even though no European state was threatened by any existential
danger.


The problem did not begin with Yassin's assassination, about which
there is a debate in Israel. From the minute the current round of
conflict broke out, there have been waves of criticism of Israeli
actions, whether offensively or defensively.


First there was criticism of the use of pinpoint snipers by the Israel
Defense Forces. In the critics' eyes, it apparently would have been
preferable if the army used machine guns, which later came under
criticism. The initial use of combat helicopters prompted a wave of
complaints. Then there was the ruckus over Israel using F-16s to drop
bombs. The criticism also came from the American side, which a few
years later used planes to attack targets in Baghdad, even after the
American army was in control of all of Iraq.


When the IDF began bombing, as a punitive action, the homes of
Palestinians involved in murder and sending suicide attackers, once
again the accusations were directed at Israel. Israel did not know how
to deter suicide terrorists whose families received financial grants
(including from Saddam Hussein) for the dead Israelis killed by their
relative. The idea that the bomber's family be expelled was raised,
but even when the proposal was to move the family to Gaza from the
West Bank, the hue and cry against Israel rose once again.


"Pinpoint prevention" provoked a tsunami of complaints, as if this
wasn't a war in which one side, the Palestinian side, deliberately
strikes at civilians - on buses, in restaurants and malls - filling
the explosives belts with large amounts of nails to make sure as much
human damage as possible takes place. That is targeted killing of
Israelis. But in the eyes of the critics, the pursuit of terrorists
appeared to be a criminal act, not hostilities during warfare. The
criticism was even leveled at the size of the bombs used buy the air
force. And there were complaints against the IDF's rules of
engagement. What army in the world has better rules of engagement? The
Americans? The Egyptians? The Indians? The French? Or the Russians and
Turks? All of them could learn from the IDF about how to comply with
the orders. But when it comes to Israel, they even complain about the
rubber-coated bullets the IDF fires. Nearly every Israeli statement is
greeted with mockery. The Israeli legal system has also been mocked.


Lift the blockades and checkpoints, shouted the critics. True, the
checkpoints harass the innocent, but the critics did not take into
account that the breaches through which the murderers come must be
blocked. At first the intent was to prevent car bombs from making
their way - including ambulances carrying weapons. And the idea of the
separation fence was hated from the start. It was beyond the pale even
before it began to go up and its route was determined.


The criticism is also fed from inside Israel. The threats to put IDF
officers on trial at the international court of law did not only come
from Belgium. Now there are complaints that Israeli representatives
are going to newspaper editors to complain about distorted reports.


Presumably if we were to defend ourselves in this war of terror by
throwing rocks, the world would still complain. Most critics don't
believe Israel has a right to self-defense. Israel, therefore, should
in most cases ignore the critics. We should be the ones to criticize
what is happening on our side and around us.

[Huntster]

So does this mean that when somebody illegally bombs a civilian target in an act of terrorism that the government can carpet bomb the area of the offending terrorist group in an act of "tit for tat"?

After all, if it's all illegal, why should there only be one criminal side to the equation?

Is this war or not?

If not, who and where are the police?

[Boondock Saint]

When Allied forces were bombing German cities, it was argued more than once that they were bombing military facilities such as bases and munitions factories.

Cold War revisionism. When the bombings were happening everyone knew why it was being done and what effects it would have. No one really bothered with the kind of thinking that we have now, there was no reason to avoid carpet bombing the city of an aggressor nation. Afterall, that is pretty much all that the technology of the time would allow anyway.

Personally I feel total war is the correct route to victory, just look at the two greatest aggressors of the 20th century - Japan and Germany. Where is their will to fight? Where are their armies? Where is that German fighting spirit? Where is the spirit of the samurai?

Dead. Destroyed. Bombed to oblivion.

Now the Germans and Japanese muddle about with economics, terrified of the consequences that being a military power could bring down on them.

Why?

Total war.


With that said, what the Isreali's are doing is nothing compared to what the Allies did. The Isrealis are not carpet bombing, no one does that anymore. If Isreal carpet bombed Gaza the world would be schocked and alot more than a few hundred Palistinians would die.

many cities have been bombed, and it cannot be justified

Opinion, nothing more.

[redcarpet]

Personally I feel total war is the correct route to victory, just look at the two greatest aggressors of the 20th century - Japan and Germany. Where is their will to fight? Where are their armies? Where is that German fighting spirit? Where is the spirit of the samurai?

Dead. Destroyed. Bombed to oblivion.

Now the Germans and Japanese muddle about with economics, terrified of the consequences that being a military power could bring down on them.

Why?

Total war.

Wrong. Because the US post-1945 has not allowed them them to rearm as independent military powers. In return they were allowed to become economic powers instead.

Oh and Dempsey, your two url links don't work

[Huntster]

the US post-1945 has not allowed them them to rearm as independent military powers

Neither did the Treaty of Versailles "allow" Germany to rearm after WWI.

The difference?:

The total surrender to the U.S. (as a result of the total war waged against them) was enforced by an occupying force.

[redcarpet]

The total surrender to the U.S. (as a result of the total war waged against them) was enforced by an occupying force.

Lol, the Germans surrendered to the US because they didn't want to be occupied by the Russians. And they didn't get a chance to firebomb German cities so....your argument is false

[Huntster]

The total surrender to the U.S. (as a result of the total war waged against them) was enforced by an occupying force.

Lol, the Germans surrendered to the US because they didn't want to be occupied by the Russians.

1) Actually, the total surrender was to the Allies, including the Soviet Union

2) Actually, they were occupied by the Soviets; in East Berlin and East Germany

And they didn't get a chance to firebomb German cities so....your argument is false

1) Total war includes much more than firebombing cities

2) The Soviets certainly waged total warfare against Germany

3) The arguments remain; total war usually delivers total defeat, it works, and enforcing the terms of surrender is paramount to ultimate success

[redcarpet]

Actually, the total surrender was to the Allies, including the Soviet Union

To the exclusion of the USSR. The fact that a few German divisions here and there surrendered is different from the German General Staffs and Hitler's successor is pretty blatant.

Actually, they were occupied by the Soviets; in East Berlin and East Germany

That's because Truman broke the Potsdam agreement.

The Soviets certainly waged total warfare against Germany

Against German military forces on the way to Berlin, yes. As well as against pro-Fascist collaborators they came across in western Russia, Ukraine, Poland and Hungary