One delegate selected by Kofi Anan was Cornelio Sommaruga, former head of the ICRC. The ICRC has long refused to let Israel’s equivalent organization join the ICRC on spurious grounds. But, Sommaruga goes beyond the anti-Israel prejudice normally associated with the ICRC.
So, one of the selected inspectors is someone who considers Israel comparable to Nazi Germany.
The UN gave Israel a deck stacked against them. Israel was right to refuse. Let’s see if the UN comes up with an appropriate, unbiased delegation of inspectors.
[sub]I wonder if Cornelio Sommaruga knows about Godwin’s Law?[/sub]
"If we’re going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the swastika?"
The only person who has publicly attributed the above statement to Sommaruga has the unlikely name of Charles Krauthammer.
Despite Krauthammer’s claim of there being “several witnesses” to the statement, no one else seems to have found it worthy of mention. Maybe they’re all anti-semites ? :rolleyes:
Or, could it be that Mr. Krauthammer and friends are playing fast and loose with the facts ?
And of course they had no military experts on the team either. How do you expect to decide if Israel pursued a reasonable course of action when you only have political experts with no military background? I agree with Israel in objecting to the proposed UN team.
Of course they have General Nash and Peter Fitzgerald on the team as security advisors, but it appears that they don’t have any input into the findings of the team.
Krauthammer is a long-time, columnist for the Washington Post. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 1987.
Of course, the story really depends on Bernadine Healy. She’s a medical doctor, who has served as President of the American Red Cross, headed the National Institutes of Health, and dean of the College of Medicine and professor of Internal Medicine at Ohio State University.
Krauthammer is a long-time columnist for the Washington Post. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 1987.
Of course, the story really depends on Bernadine Healy. She’s a medical doctor, who has served as President of the American Red Cross, headed the National Institutes of Health, and dean of the College of Medicine and professor of Internal Medicine at Ohio State University.
I don’t know exactly what motivates Israel in delaying ANY entry by the UN to Jenin. No matter what grounds they say they have, they can dispute finding if they feel they are wrong or incomplete, but let people in. They either have something to hide, or they are handling this the wrong way.
Well, from the sound of it, individuals on the panel who have openly declared their animosity to Israel in the past, the lack of experts with the knowledge to judge what might be a military/counter-terrorist motivation for a particular set of findings, it seems like the UN may as well have the whole thing held in Australia …ie it sounds like a kangaroo court. (No offense to our Aussie members, and where does that phrase come from anyway?)
And, Oh, Tamerlane, Thanks for the link. Yes, I understand that it can be difficult to be truly “neutral” … but what I react to is not a single day’s slight but consistent biases. And of course to the oft repeated charge that the media is pro-Israeli, when I see the opposite as more often true. Maybe you are right, it goes by what is more likely to get people to pick up the paper and stay tuned. “Massacre by Israelis” is “sexy”. I, personally believe this is so partly because of some subtle, occult antisemitism … people like to see that the perrenial “victim” of the last two thousand years is capable of the same horrific behavior that the rest of humanity is … and partly because of some subtle anti-Arab beliefs … it just isn’t new or different to hear about another example of horrible behavior by Arabs … boring! … turn the channel.
The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Alan Baker, Legal Advisor of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was present at the time of Sommaruga made the allegedly anti-semitic remark.
Baker claimed recently:
further:
Krauthammer implies in his article that Bernadine Healy agrees with him, yet there is no evidence that that’s the case. Do you have some ?
Barring actual reports from others present, I find the Israeli official’s claim that Krauthammer is being vile, manipulative, and destructive to be more credible than the accusations against Sommaruga.
OK Squink, so you now acknowledge that the quote is accurate. That’s something, at least.
Now let’s see if Baker’s interpretation passes the sniff test. What Sommaruga referred to as the Shield of David is actually called a Star of David. The necessity of adding another symbol (in addition to the red cross) is a long-standing, bogus excuse for excluding Israel from the ICRC. We know it’s bogus, because they already accept the Red Crescent.
“Having the Shield (sic) of David” really meant admitting Israel into the ICRC. How would it be parallel to have the symbol of somes old American Indian tribe? The historic tribe wouldn’t be joining the ICRC. And, why in the world would a European leader be thinking of the swastika in terms of American Indians, rather than Nazis?
At the very least, Sommaruga showed remarkable insensitivity, especially since he some of those present were Jewish. Would you not agree?
No december I don’t acknowledge that the quote is accurate. For Krauthammer’s use of the quote to be accurate, he would have had to acknowledge the context in which it was made rather than just make up some outrageous bull so he can score points with his readers.
It’s good to see that now you’ve been given a nudge you’re at least trying to figure out what the context may have been. You might be a bit less confused if you broaden your definition of Indian to include not just native americans, but also the residents of the Indian sub-continent. They used swastikas too you know; and in a context that might look nice on the side of an ambulance.
Huh? I know that some American Indian tribes used swastikas because none other than Cecil Adams wrote a column about it. I never heard of Asian Indians using that symbol.
It’s irrelevant anyhow which type of Indians were being referred to. Comparing the Star of David to a swastika in front of Jewish people was remarkably insensitive, under any possible interpretation. I’m quite sure you would never say such a thing.
First, I think you’re changing an isolated quote without any kind of context. “If we’re going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the swastika?” How about in the context of two groups demanding representation and one is trying to explain a policy of not allowing such representation because of the precedent it would set. Or when defending free speech? I remember the Klan receiving permits and being allowed to march during the 1984 democratic national convention as part of the American exercise of freedom of assembly and expression. They had a police escort to defend those rights and prevent the KKK members from being physically attacked.
Whether that quote was insensitive, since there isn’t a complete transcript I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the president of the ICRC. More so if English is not his native language, as the “Shield of David” might suggest.
Getting even farther afield from the original topic … Why did Magen David Adom even want to part of the ICRC? Especially at a time when Red Cross complicity with the Nazis during WWII was finally being proven and admitted to?
And whatthehell was the point “in context”? That the cross and the crescent (Christianity and Islam) are “mainstream” enough to count and that the Star (Judaism) is like an ancient irrevelancy? That if they recognized the Star they have to recognize every other small irrelevant faith as being “worthy” like Christianity and Islam? (This is actually a fairly good portrayal of his position made clear in other statements) Not much better than making the Nazi comparison in my book … and whythehell use the friggin swastika as the example?
Let’s be generous: maybe the cross originally wasn’t intended as a religious icon but as two BandAids but it offended Muslims so they had to accept the crescent too, and now they are stuck with two evocative religious symbols for an agency that claims to be a neutral entity. To state that Muslim sensibilties are worth respecting but that Jewish ones are not, evinces a preconception, a bias, that you’d not want in someone who is supposed to be a neutral investigator of the facts. This, at best, is Sommaruga’s status.
The Palestinians are now admitting that only 56 people were killed in Jenin, most of whom were young men assumed to be actively resisting the Israelis.
Considering the Israelis lost 33 soldiers, it would seem to me that they took *extraordinary efforts to limit casualties.
But of course, the U.N. still wants a biased ‘fact finding’ commission to go there.
Anyone willing to admit now tha the claims of a massacre were pure propaganda?