Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Informed Comments
There are two commenters here, Treeplanter, and Angus, who often go to the trouble to reply with irrefutable documentation to some of the lies proferred by Zionists and their apologists that unfortunately proliferate Palestinian blogs. The Zionists, who have taken to occupying Palestinian blogs with a passion of late, hope that we'll just be too tired to refute their misinformation and disinformation, and sometimes I am...and I am always so grateful to the tireless Treeplanter and Angus, the cadillac commenters.
Here is a comment from Angus regarding recent posts on Rachel Corrie:
Please visit this site: Rachel's Words "I had the good fortune to attend this remarkable event," he says and continues:
It's unfortunate seeing the tunnel canard still repeated. corrie was protecting the home of a pharmacist and his family. the IDF never claimed the pharmacist harbored terrorists, and no tunnel was found under the house. (the IDF eventually demolished it.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/corrie03172006.html
While the U.S. Government is on record stating that the report of the Israeli military investigation into Rachel's killing did not meet the standard of "thorough, credible, or transparent," the U.S. has taken no steps to investigate this killing of an American citizen by a foreign military.
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/mediocrity/displayCall.asp?essayID=340
In their October 2004 report Razing Rafah:Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch noted:
Sixteen thousand people, more than ten percent of Rafah's population, have lost their homes, most of them refugees, many of whom were dispossessed for a second or third time.
The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law. In most of the cases Human Rights Watch found the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity?
Under international law, the IDF has the right to close smuggling tunnels, to respond to attacks on its forces, and to take preventive measures to avoid further attacks. But such measures are strictly regulated by the provisions of international humanitarian law, which balance the interests of the Occupying Power against those of the civilian population. In the case of Rafah, it is difficult to reconcile the IDF's stated rationales with the widespread destruction that has taken place. On the contrary, the manner and pattern of destruction appears to be consistent with the plan to clear Palestinians from the border area, irrespective of specific threats....
The IDF has failed to explain why non-destructive means for detecting and neutralizing tunnels employed in places like the Mexico-United States border and the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) cannot be used along the Rafah border. Moreover, it has at times dealt with tunnels in a puzzlingly ineffective manner that is inconsistent with the supposed gravity of this longstanding threat.
Here is a comment from Angus regarding recent posts on Rachel Corrie:
Please visit this site: Rachel's Words "I had the good fortune to attend this remarkable event," he says and continues:
It's unfortunate seeing the tunnel canard still repeated. corrie was protecting the home of a pharmacist and his family. the IDF never claimed the pharmacist harbored terrorists, and no tunnel was found under the house. (the IDF eventually demolished it.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/corrie03172006.html
While the U.S. Government is on record stating that the report of the Israeli military investigation into Rachel's killing did not meet the standard of "thorough, credible, or transparent," the U.S. has taken no steps to investigate this killing of an American citizen by a foreign military.
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/mediocrity/displayCall.asp?essayID=340
In their October 2004 report Razing Rafah:Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch noted:
Sixteen thousand people, more than ten percent of Rafah's population, have lost their homes, most of them refugees, many of whom were dispossessed for a second or third time.
The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law. In most of the cases Human Rights Watch found the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity?
Under international law, the IDF has the right to close smuggling tunnels, to respond to attacks on its forces, and to take preventive measures to avoid further attacks. But such measures are strictly regulated by the provisions of international humanitarian law, which balance the interests of the Occupying Power against those of the civilian population. In the case of Rafah, it is difficult to reconcile the IDF's stated rationales with the widespread destruction that has taken place. On the contrary, the manner and pattern of destruction appears to be consistent with the plan to clear Palestinians from the border area, irrespective of specific threats....
The IDF has failed to explain why non-destructive means for detecting and neutralizing tunnels employed in places like the Mexico-United States border and the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) cannot be used along the Rafah border. Moreover, it has at times dealt with tunnels in a puzzlingly ineffective manner that is inconsistent with the supposed gravity of this longstanding threat.
