« Surrender or Die! | Main | Lather, Rinse... Repeat »

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Rhetorical Questions*

1.  If the deliberate targeting of civilians is defined as a war crime under international law, why hasn't the International Court of Justice indicted the leaders of Hamas (who are the legally elected representatives of the Palestinians) for doing so?

2.   If the deliberate use of civilians as human shields is defined as a war crime under international law, why hasn't the International Court of Justice indicted the leaders of Hamas (who are the legally elected representatives of the Palestinians) for launching missiles from within residential neighborhoods, and for the use of mosques, schools and residential/commercial buildings as weapons storage facilities, military training centers and launch facilities (classic examples of using civilians as human shields)?

3.  If the US and other world leaders truly support Israel's inherent right to defend its population (as they say), why are they pressuring Israel to unilaterally 'de-escallate' the conflict while its population is still under full attack?

4.  If a country or diplomatic body refuses to define Hamas as a terrorist organization (or removes Hamas from their list of groups considered to be terrorists), why are they not holding Hamas to accepted standards of conduct under International Law as would be expected if Hamas was any governmental or semi-governmental body?

5.  Why is only Israel expected to employ pin-point intelligence, precision weapons systems and surgical strikes in all military conflicts while its opponents incur no international censure or penalty for the deliberate use of un-aimed weapons that are designed to paralize and target the largest possible civilian population?

6.  On what basis should Israel be expected to begin negotiating a cease-fire while Hamas continues to repeat the Casus Belli  which sparked the conflict in the first place (e.g. launch missiles at Israel's civilians).  Doesn't that seem a lot like surrendering?

7.  If Gaza has no army and therefore no 'legitimate' military targets or soldiers (as defined by the Geneva Conventions), and all aggression against Israel is being carried out by non-uniformed civilians, shouldn't Israel be allowed to pursue satisfaction as a purely criminal or sovereignty matter without the interference from, or need to explain to, uninterested parties (i.e. the rest of the world)?

8.  If the Geneva Conventions define "anyone who breaches the laws or customs of war" (whihch Hamas , Islamic Jihad, et al obviously have) as an 'unprivileged combatant' (i.e. not entitled to the protections outlined in the conventions), why are world leaders and the media requiring Israel to afford such 'unprivileged combatants' the same protections that a uniformed army or militia would be entitled to?

9.  If Israel's response to the most recent attacks is expected (required!) to be proportional, why isn't Israel allowed to fire short-medium  range missiles in the general direction of Gaza's civilian population?  That would be exactly proportional.

10.  Why is Egypt - a country whose leader has not only publicly come out in support of one side in the current conflict, but also condemned the other side as 'deserving of destruction' - being allowed to act as a mediator?  Wouldn't a country that has not expressed public support for one of the sides be a more honest mediator acceptable to both sides?

*  A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply.   If these questions related to any country other than Israel, they would be asked at the highest levels of international diplomacy... and answers would be demanded! 

But because it is 'only' related Israel (or more likely, because it is 'only' related to a country which has attacked Israel), these questions remain in the realm of rhetoric and the answers are of no interest to anyone.

Posted by David Bogner on November 21, 2012 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef017ee578352e970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rhetorical Questions*:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You are so right on all counts. Double standards, to say the least.

Posted by: Yaron | Nov 21, 2012 2:13:42 PM

treppenwitz for rosh memshala.

Posted by: tayqoo | Nov 21, 2012 2:56:31 PM

Excellent questions David! I've shared this with my network on the other side of the pond. And again, I strongly suggest you run for PM - you have my vote.

Posted by: Tehillah Hessler | Nov 21, 2012 3:01:59 PM

Praying for a safe Israel and keeping your family in our thoughts and prayers.

Posted by: Alice | Nov 21, 2012 3:37:45 PM

Powerful David!

Posted by: jaime | Nov 21, 2012 4:28:18 PM

Sorry for replying to a rhetorical question, however the answer is quite simple:

Because we are Jews.

Posted by: Gregory Titievsky | Nov 21, 2012 4:58:16 PM

David you are my bright light int these dark days.voice of reason
go IDF go you are all in my prayers
What cease fire bomb attack on TA bus+more rockets

Suggestion to Egypt we offer you of no charge your MB of Gaza

Posted by: iva | Nov 21, 2012 6:49:46 PM

BTW I am sharing your insights with friends in UK

Posted by: iva | Nov 21, 2012 6:55:02 PM

Well put! And why does Israel repeatedly back down instead of asserting its sovereignty? Frankly, what's in it for Israel by restoring the status quo instead of protecting its citizens? Since when has negotiating with terrorists brought about a better world? I'm not a political animal but the illogic seems inescapable. I just don't get it. When will it be enough?

Posted by: BarefootJewess | Nov 21, 2012 7:55:47 PM

BarefootJewess, we need to see what deals are involved in this gamble with the US State Department and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. If it puts Iran back in the crosshairs, I'd be fine with it. It's certainly better to bring the war there than to fight it here.
About not negotiating with Hamas: this red line is already void since she Shalit deal. Let's not fool ourselves: The reality has become quite harsh and Israel is still struggling to adjust to an extremely hostile environment.

Posted by: Rashaba | Nov 21, 2012 8:54:46 PM

I'd like to thank Iva for bringing your insights to my attention, it is needed as those who live in the UK, as I do, have limited information about the situation and what we have is biased to say the least.

Posted by: Gerald | Nov 21, 2012 9:07:23 PM

Well said, David, as usual.

One day, probably within my lifetime, the world will be forced to drop the "peace through diplomacy" facade and go back to the "peace through victory" doctrine. I just have to wonder how many people will suffer and die before the good, decent, civilized citizens of the world will stand up to evil and combat it face-to-face. How many?


My thoughts and prayers are with the Israelis and the IDF.

Posted by: ProphetJoe | Nov 21, 2012 9:25:31 PM

11. why do all news outlets universally report that there have been "8 days of fighting," when the shellings have been going on for years?

G-d be with Israel.

Posted by: Wry Mouth | Nov 22, 2012 1:11:04 AM

My friend (who I think reads this blog also) showed me this article http://bit.ly/URxXmq.

Posted by: TRS | Nov 22, 2012 1:23:16 AM

Keeping you and yours, and all of Israel, in my prayers David.

Posted by: Amanda | Nov 22, 2012 12:08:00 PM

Well said.
G-d be with Israel.

Posted by: acairfearann | Nov 22, 2012 5:37:44 PM

Post a comment