When journalists are a legitimate target?
In an earlier post, I reported that two 'journalists' who were killed in an Israeli air strike during Operation Pillar of Defense were
not journalists, but terrorists. But what if they had been journalists? Would they have been legitimate targets? According to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and NATO,
the answer to that question could be yes (if Israel were not involved). This is from 1999.
Nato leaders yesterday scrambled to justify the bombing of Serbia's
state television station in an attack which killed a number of civilian
workers and marked a further widening in the scope of targets now
considered legitimate.
The attack on the building in the centre of
Belgrade - which contradicted an apparent assurance by Nato this month
that only transmitters would be hit - was condemned by international
journalists' organisations, representing both employers and unions.
...
Tony Blair, in Washington for Nato's 50th anniversary summit,
insisted that bombing television stations was 'entirely justified' since
they were part of the 'apparatus of dictatorship and power of
Milosevic'. He added: 'The responsibility for every single part of this
action lies with the man who has engaged in this policy of ethnic
cleansing and must be stopped.'
At a heated press briefing at the
Ministry of Defence, Clare Short, the international development
secretary, said: 'This is a war, this is a serious conflict, untold
horrors are being done. The propaganda machine is prolonging the war and
it's a legitimate target.'
Admiral Sir Ian Garnett, chief of
joint operations at the ministry of defence, said Mr Milosevic's
'propaganda machine consists of transmitters but also the studios from
which the information is transmitted. That makes it part of the overall
military structure. Both elements have to be attacked.'
Nato's
military spokesman, Air Commodore David Wilby, two weeks ago described
RTS, the Serbian state broadcasting station, as a 'legitimate target
which filled the airways with hate and with lies over the years'.
Read the whole thing.
By this standard, we should have destroyed al-Aqsa television completely regardless of who was inside, and during the next war with Lebanon, we should target Hezbullah's al-Manar network. Hmmm. Is the IDF listening?
Labels: Gaza, Hamas, Hezbullah, Lebanon, media outlets, Operation Pillar of Defense, Serbia
Arab and Islamic countries willing to bribe Security Council members for votes
The 'Palestinian news service,' WAFA, is reporting that Arab and Muslim countries are
willing to pay bribes to wavering members of the UN Security Council in order to secure their votes for 'Palestinian statehood.'
Minister of Foreign Affairs Riyad al-Malki said the Palestinian Authority is making continuous efforts to gain the ninth vote in the United Nations Security Council.
He told Voice of Palestine that he will be visiting Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to guarantee their votes in favor of the Palestinian application to the Security Council.
He said all Palestinian and Islamic diplomatic means will be used to in order to support the Palestinian bid, as it is the only Palestinian option.
Al-Malki explained that these means include Arab and Islamic investments in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Russian and Serbian influence to support the bid.
Our problem is that we are too nice and continue to provide aid and technology to countries that take every opportunity to condemn us at the UN.
Labels: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Riyad al-Malki, Serbia, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), United Nations Security Council
Why not an anti-Turkey alliance?
Writing at Huffington Post, Sigurd Neubauer discusses
Israel's booming alliances with Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus and other Balkan countries. Neubauer attributes those ties to Israel's poor relations with Turkey that have forced it to seek alternatives. At the end, he comes up with this (Hat Tip:
Joshua I).
While improved relations with Athens and Nicosia should be considered a significant foreign policy victory for Netanyahu, it remains unclear whether an alliance with Cyprus and the Balkan states can fully substitute for Israel's former strategic military partnership with Turkey. Given Greece's significant financial problems and Israel's own budgetary restraints, it remains also doubtful whether any of the two countries can "afford" prolonged military tensions presented by an (potentially) adversarial inclined Turkey. Additionally, unless a political solution is found to the 2010 Gaza-Flotilla, the Greek-Israeli military partnership could easily escalate into regional instability as maritime tensions in the eastern Mediterranean with Turkey could become inevitable. For those reasons, coupled with the current regional turmoil presented by the "Arab Spring," Netanyahu's diplomatic outreach to the Balkans and Cyprus should aim to maximize economic and military relations well short of establishing an "anti-Turkish" alliance.
Let's get this straight: Israel's relations with Turkey are over unless and until there is a significant change in the Turkish government away from Islamism and back towards secularism. At the moment, that is most unlikely for the foreseeable future. Israel must assume that its rift with Turkey is permanent, not temporary, and it must act accordingly. If forming an anti-Turkish alliance will keep Turkey in check, then by all means, let's do it. Maybe if Greece were not under constant threat from Turkey, it would not be such an economic basket case (admittedly, cleaning up Greece's taxation system would also help).
We have nothing to lose and everything to gain from entering into alliances with others who are the subjects of Turkish threats.
Labels: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, Turkish obsession with Israel
