There is a lot of talk lately about war crimes.
Mostly the talk is about war crimes allegedly committed by Israel in its aggression against Hamas.
As if war crimes were something new.
Certainly the United States never would commit war crimes. Nor would its loyal ally and former master, England. Or Russia, now or in the guise of the "Soviet Union."
The list can go on and on and on; hardly any nation is exempt.
How about the Federal's Gen. Sherman and his march across Georgia; his "scorched earth" policy. It might not have been a "war crime" then, but it would be now.
How about Germany. Slaughtering civilians - Romas, Jews, Communists, mentally disabled, homosexuals - that's counted as a "war crime."
Likewise bombing civilians in England; London was a prime target of the nazi's V-bombs; fortunately they were about as accurate as a Hamas rocket fired into Israel.
The U.S. and England retaliated and fire bombed the German city of Dresden. There are reports of mothers with babes in arms incinerated by the ally's bombs.
What Japan did to Koreans is not for "G-rated" blogs; but perhaps what the U.S. did to the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is likewise not stuff for a "G-rated" blog. War crimes?
Is it a "war crime" to bomb civilians?
If it is, then Hamas is guilty of war crimes.
Is it a "war crime" to deliberately put non-combatants into harms way?
If it is, then Hamas is guilty of war crimes.
Is it a "war crime" when civilians and traditionally non-military targets collateral damage when the aggressor places his weapons in highly populated areas and in hospitals and schools?
If it is, then Hamas is guilty of war crimes.
Is it a "war crime" when non-combatants are executed by beheadings broadcast for all the world to see?
If it is, then Muslims are guilty of war crimes.
Is it a "war crime" for military (e.g., the U.S. cavalry) and para-military (e.g., Cossacks) to attack villages and slaughter all the inhabitants simply "because." (Lest anyone forget, America's horse soldiers wiped out some 300 Sioux at Wounded Knee.)
Now reconsider Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
The U.S. dropped leaflets telling Japan that in "n" days a horrible weapon would descend upon it. Having warned the nation and having given it a chance to surrender and end the war in the Pacific, the Japanese government refused to end the war.
So who committed the "war crimes" that incinerated Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
Consider Israel and Gaza.
Israel is famous for calling non-combatants and warning them of an impending attack.
It drops leaflets.
It drops warning bombs.
If Hamas keeps the non-combatants in their homes and these people are injured or killed, who is guilty of "war crimes?"
U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt KNEW about the nazi's death camps. Despite people begging him to bomb the railroads taking people to the mostly-in-Poland death camps, FDR refused. Like Hitler, FDR would not "waste" resources on saving those headed to their deaths. (Hitler refused to relinquish his resources to the war effort, preferring to make his land "Jew free.") Was FDR guilty of "war crimes?" Was Hitler? Certainly the latter is a "no brainer."
If Israel would burn Gaza to the ground, a la Dresden, THEN Israel would commit a "war crime."
If Israel destroyed schools and hospitals not used as weapons depots or as launch sites for Hamas rockets and mortars, THEN Israel could commit a "war crime."
Given the number of pubic facilities - including the "neutral" UN buildings where Hamas weaponry has been discovered, and often admitted by Hamas or the UN - Israel MUST be given the benefit of the doubt; it's targeting enemy materials and launch sites, NOT public building per se. The "war crimes" lie at Hamas' feet, not Israel's.
Collateral damage happens, but it IS "collateral." Unlike Israel, Hamas fires its weapons at civilian targets in Israel. That is a war crime.
As much as Hamas, the PA, and their sponsor, Iran, might want to haul Israel before a world court for "war crimes," they cannot because they - Hamas, the PA, and Iran - have bloody hands from committing war crimes against others and their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment