Al Jazeera: Why Can’t Arab Armies Be More Humane, Like Israel?

[Mosby]

An Al Jazeera Arabic anchor recently asked his audience why Arab armies, and, in particular, the regime of Bashar al-Assad, in Syria, can’t behave more humanely towards civilians, like the Israeli and French armies do?

In a clip uploaded to YouTube this week and flagged by Mideast Media Analyst Tom Gross, the anchor asks, “Why don’t they learn from the Israeli army which tries, through great efforts, to avoid shelling areas populated by civilians in Lebanon and Palestine? Didn’t Hezbollah take shelter in areas populated by civilians because it knows that Israeli Air Force doesn’t bomb those areas? Why doesn’t the Syrian army respect premises of universities, schools or inhabited neighborhoods? Why does it shell even the areas of its supporters?”

“I will also give you the example of France. All Syrians remember that the French forces, when they occupied Syria tried to avoid, when rebels entered mosques or schools, they stopped. The people would prefer that France come back! For God’s sake, if a referendum were to be held… if people were to be asked, who would you prefer the current regime or the French, I swear by God they would have preferred the French.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/01/17/al-jazeera-host-asks-why-cant-arab-armies-be-more-humane-like-israel-video/

Great question.

[The Magistrate]

1. This, Sir, Is Going To Be Fun....

[AngryAmish]

4. what this guy said

[malaise]

2. It's not a great question

It only shows the ignorance of the journalist.
He/she might read some history. Maybe he should interview some Palestinian parents or some of the elders in what was once French Africa or even Vietnam.

[kelliekat44]

10. +++1,000 nt

[1000words]

15. A veiwing of "The Battle of Algiers," might provide some perspective

Agreed. The journalist is a hack.

[LittleBlue]

3. He should read about the Lebanon War

where entire apartment complexes were leveled by Israel on the mere suspicion that Yasser Arafat was inside. He wasn't, but of course the ones who paid for that mistake were the innocent civilians.

There is nothing remotely humane about war, that's a fallacy. It's only a question of how much brutality you're willing to inflict.

[Mosby]

6. Uh huh

any comment about Arab violence in the ME?

The Assad regime has killed 125,000 people or so, the Egyptian military has killed 100s of innocent protestors including Africans trying to flee violence in their home countries, there are suicide bombers every day in Iraq and Afghanistan killing hundreds of innocent worshipers and shoppers, and the Kuwaitis have killed dozens in an effort to stop the protests.

Oh and 13 Palestinians died last year in their violent struggle against Israel.

eta - why don't you look up Nahr al Bared, if you want to read about completely unrestrained RECENT violence meted out on innocent Palestinians.

let me help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Lebanon_conflict
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/moe-ali-nayel/video-nahr-al-bared-refugee-camp-residents-describe-life-under-lebanese-army

[LittleBlue]

7. The amount of violence someone is willing to commit

is in proportion to the level of threat they feel. Assad feels an existential threat, therefore he is willing to commit a nearly unlimited amount of violence to stay in power.

Israel's policy is the Sampson Option, meaning the nuclear eradication of the Middle East (or as much as their nuclear arsenal will permit if all launched at once) should their existence be threatened regardless of whether those countries are actually responsible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Read up and become educated before making ignorant statement.

[Mosby]

8. All you're doing is making excuses

disgusting little "theory" of yours.

[LittleBlue]

11. This isn't a theory

If you aren't even aware that the Samson Option is Israel's policy, there isn't much point in discussing this topic in depth if you're new to it.

Go check out some books at the library on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or something.

[Mosby]

14. I wasn't referring to the "samson option" with my comment of a "disgusting little theory".

Though you bringing that up is a rather poor attempt at deflection imo.

I was referring to your assertion that "The amount of violence someone is willing to commit...is in proportion to the level of threat they feel" which is true I guess if one has no values or morals. Which is exactly the point that the Al Jazeera host was making, that the Israelis demonstrate concern for civilians no matter what the circumstances are while the other countries in the region show no concern or restraint for innocents.

eta - in case I wasn't clear enough the samson option is a HYPOTHETICAL theory about what Israel MIGHT do, it's quite different than the 100s of thousands of actual DEAD people killed by immoral Arab regimes.

[WatermelonRat]

16. The "Samson Option" is a hypothetical described by commentators, not policy

Israel's precise nuclear strategy is unknowable. It's safe to assume that, if Israel were in genuine danger of destruction, the country would resort to a nuclear response rather than allow a second holocaust to occur, but whether that would entail tactical use against invading armies or massive retaliation is uncertain. It would likely depend on the nature of the situation.

[former9thward]

12. Oh, B.S.

Israel always knew where Arafat was. They could have killed him a thousand times if that was their desire.

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. This guy apparently has some gaps in his memory, like the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war.

Israel bombed the hell out of south Beirut.

[dipsydoodle]

9. The anchor is something that rhymes with that.

.

[Skittles]

13. why can't they ALL stop acting like a bunch of assholes?