Congress Defends Gaza Assault 404-1

Today Congress passed a resolution (HR 951) condemning Palestinian rocket attacks that include a strident defense of recent Israeli tactics in the Gaza Strip. The resolution also condemned Iran and Syria for “sponsoring terror attacks,” and demanded that Saudi Arabia publicly condemn Palestinian actions.

The resolution was originally introduced in January, but contains new language including a passage saying that that “those responsible for launching rocket attacks against Israel routinely embed their production facilities and launch sites amongst the Palestinian civilian population, utilizing them as human shields” and “the inadvertent inflicting of civilian casualties as a result of defensive military operations aimed at military targets, while deeply regrettable, is not at all morally equivalent to the deliberate targeting of civilian populations as practiced by Hamas and other Gaza-based terrorist groups.”

Although 23 Congressman abstained or voted “present,” only one bravely voted no: Rep. Ron Paul.

One thought on “Congress Defends Gaza Assault 404-1”

  1. what the Zionists did (ethnic cleansing through terror), can’t ultimately be seen as all that wrong, if one has no qualms with what happened in Europe after WWII ended.

    Look at what was done with all the German civilians in the territories annexed by the USSR & Poland, as well as in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, etc. No one feels that to be wrong.

    Or look at the ethnic cleansing of Poles by the USSR from western Ukraine, Byelorussia.

    Or any of the cleansings done in the Balkans in the last 15 years, the last being the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs BY THE Albanians in Kosovo under the blind eye of the UN.

    And of course there is Tibet.

    All are the same, so Israel has no obligation to change, so long as the West refuses to talk about the above and to condemn it.

    As to the Balfour declaration, if you google it enough, you will see that the Declaration was payback for getting the US (despite overwhelming popular opposition) into WWI. GB and France were about finished in 1917, and only the US entry saved their hide. For that, for the GB to give away something they did not own in the first place (Ottoman Empire territory), was a small prive to pay.

  2. Any one out there who can explain what Mr.Chris is saying would be much apperciated.

    1. Pingback by Devaluing Palestinian Life : Bryan Farrell .com

      …..while deeply regrettable, is not at all morally equivalent to the deliberate targeting of civilian populations as practiced by Hamas and other Gaza-based terrorist groups.” ..

      In effect, Congress has given the green light to kill innocent people, so long as it’s not intentional. But as historian Howard Zinn has pointed out, this is really just a false distinction.

      If a bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the grounds that a “suspected terrorist” is inside (note the frequent use of the word suspected as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), the resulting deaths of women and children may not be intentional. But neither are they accidental. The proper description is “inevitable.” So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a deliberate attack on civilians.

  3. “The Five-Day war in Gaza (as a Hamas leader called it) was but another short chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. This bloody monster is never satisfied; its appetite just grows with the eating.

    This chapter started with the “targeted liquidation” of five senior militants inside the Gaza Strip. The “response” was a salvo of rockets, and this time not only on Sderot, but also on Ashkelon and Netivot. The “response” to the “response” was the army’s incursion and the wholesale killing.

    The stated aim was, as always, to stop the launching of the rockets. The means: killing a maximum of Palestinians, in order to teach them a lesson. The decision was based on the traditional Israeli concept: hit the civilian population again and again, until it overthrows its leaders. This has been tried hundreds of times and has failed hundreds of times.”

  4. This is one of teh many times Ron Paul is the only NO vote. They call him Dr. No for a reason. Even if you don’t agree with the guy on everything he surely is the anti-war candidate and he is very honest and principled.

Comments are closed.