<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: El País, Pots And Kettles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.z-word.com/2010/02/el-pais-pots-and-kettles/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.z-word.com/2010/02/el-pais-pots-and-kettles/</link>
	<description>Commentary about Zionism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism and the conflict in the Middle East</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 20:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5-RC1.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://blog.z-word.com/2010/02/el-pais-pots-and-kettles/#comment-10012</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:41:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.z-word.com/?p=1533#comment-10012</guid>
		<description>I don't think you should conflate an El Pais editorial with the Spanish government.  Whether the Spanish government has blood on its hands (and indeed it does) is irrelevant to the position of an editorial expressing a valid critique of Israeli assassinations.  El Pais said it best:

"Además de legalmente condenable e inaceptable desde el punto de vista moral, la política de asesinatos selectivos o, dicho en otros términos, la guerra sucia sólo contribuye a prolongar el espejismo de que existen soluciones alternativas a la única que Israel tendrá que afrontar tarde o temprano: el fin de la ocupación y la apertura de negociaciones políticas con los palestinos sobre la base de la solución de los dos Estados. Cualquier otra vía sólo redundará en riesgos adicionales para su seguridad y en un mayor descrédito."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think you should conflate an El Pais editorial with the Spanish government.  Whether the Spanish government has blood on its hands (and indeed it does) is irrelevant to the position of an editorial expressing a valid critique of Israeli assassinations.  El Pais said it best:</p>
<p>&#8220;Además de legalmente condenable e inaceptable desde el punto de vista moral, la política de asesinatos selectivos o, dicho en otros términos, la guerra sucia sólo contribuye a prolongar el espejismo de que existen soluciones alternativas a la única que Israel tendrá que afrontar tarde o temprano: el fin de la ocupación y la apertura de negociaciones políticas con los palestinos sobre la base de la solución de los dos Estados. Cualquier otra vía sólo redundará en riesgos adicionales para su seguridad y en un mayor descrédito.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Miguel</title>
		<link>http://blog.z-word.com/2010/02/el-pais-pots-and-kettles/#comment-9989</link>
		<dc:creator>Miguel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.z-word.com/?p=1533#comment-9989</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100104/GLOBALBRIEFING/100109919/0/OPINION" rel="nofollow"&gt;The National&lt;/a&gt;:

&lt;i&gt;In 2009, 44 predator strikes carried out by the CIA in the tribal areas of Pakistan struck only five of their intended al Qa'eda and Taliban targets, but more than 700 innocent civilians also died, according to Pakistani authorities. A senior Taliban commander said a suicide bomb attack that killed seven CIA operatives in Afghanistan last week was an act of retaliation against the US drone attacks.

Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reported: "According to the statistics compiled by Pakistani authorities,the Afghanistan-based US drones killed 708 people in 44 predator attacks targeting the tribal areas between January 1 and December 31, 2009.

"For each al Qa'eda and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis also had to die. Over 90 per cent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes were civilians, claim authorities."

The Wall Street Journal said: "A senior commander connected to the Afghan Taliban and involved with the attack against the CIA that left eight people dead said on Saturday that the bombing was retaliation for US drone strikes in the Afghan-Pakistan border region.&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;a href="http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/targeted_killings_ok_for_us" rel="nofollow"&gt;Alan Dershowitz&lt;/a&gt;:

&lt;i&gt;1. Israel has used targeted killings to protect civilians against war crimes, from an enemy sworn to its destruction. The US is using a far broader form of targeted killing, thousands of miles away from its civilian population, against an enemy that poses no immediate threat to its civilian population.

2. Drug traffickers are not direct combatants, thereby making an attack on them far more questionable under international law.
 
3. International law requires that any attack must be intended and tend toward the military defeat of the enemy. Israel has targeted those known to be directing terrorist attacks, whereas here it is less than clear that killing a drug trafficker would tend towards a military defeat of the Taliban.

4. Compounding this, the ratio of terrorist to civilian deaths for the Israel Air Force is better than 1:30 (Amos Harel, "Pinpointed IAF Attacks in Gaza More Precise, Hurt Fewer Civilians," Haaretz, December 30, 2007.) - that is, 30 terrorists killed for every civilian, whereas that for the US is 1:14 (The UN Special Rapporteur on unlawful executions, Philip Alston, reported that as of 3 June 2009).&lt;/i&gt;

“El País” are hypocrites.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100104/GLOBALBRIEFING/100109919/0/OPINION" rel="nofollow">The National</a>:</p>
<p><i>In 2009, 44 predator strikes carried out by the CIA in the tribal areas of Pakistan struck only five of their intended al Qa&#8217;eda and Taliban targets, but more than 700 innocent civilians also died, according to Pakistani authorities. A senior Taliban commander said a suicide bomb attack that killed seven CIA operatives in Afghanistan last week was an act of retaliation against the US drone attacks.</p>
<p>Pakistan&#8217;s Dawn newspaper reported: &#8220;According to the statistics compiled by Pakistani authorities,the Afghanistan-based US drones killed 708 people in 44 predator attacks targeting the tribal areas between January 1 and December 31, 2009.</p>
<p>&#8220;For each al Qa&#8217;eda and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis also had to die. Over 90 per cent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes were civilians, claim authorities.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Wall Street Journal said: &#8220;A senior commander connected to the Afghan Taliban and involved with the attack against the CIA that left eight people dead said on Saturday that the bombing was retaliation for US drone strikes in the Afghan-Pakistan border region.</i></p>
<p><a href="http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/targeted_killings_ok_for_us" rel="nofollow">Alan Dershowitz</a>:</p>
<p><i>1. Israel has used targeted killings to protect civilians against war crimes, from an enemy sworn to its destruction. The US is using a far broader form of targeted killing, thousands of miles away from its civilian population, against an enemy that poses no immediate threat to its civilian population.</p>
<p>2. Drug traffickers are not direct combatants, thereby making an attack on them far more questionable under international law.</p>
<p>3. International law requires that any attack must be intended and tend toward the military defeat of the enemy. Israel has targeted those known to be directing terrorist attacks, whereas here it is less than clear that killing a drug trafficker would tend towards a military defeat of the Taliban.</p>
<p>4. Compounding this, the ratio of terrorist to civilian deaths for the Israel Air Force is better than 1:30 (Amos Harel, &#8220;Pinpointed IAF Attacks in Gaza More Precise, Hurt Fewer Civilians,&#8221; Haaretz, December 30, 2007.) - that is, 30 terrorists killed for every civilian, whereas that for the US is 1:14 (The UN Special Rapporteur on unlawful executions, Philip Alston, reported that as of 3 June 2009).</i></p>
<p>“El País” are hypocrites.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lynne T</title>
		<link>http://blog.z-word.com/2010/02/el-pais-pots-and-kettles/#comment-9979</link>
		<dc:creator>Lynne T</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:57:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.z-word.com/?p=1533#comment-9979</guid>
		<description>If they weren't obsessed "anti-Zionists", El Pais might also be a trifle worried that HAMAS is schooling the kiddies to be committed to jihad to reclaim Al Andalus as holy Islamic soil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If they weren&#8217;t obsessed &#8220;anti-Zionists&#8221;, El Pais might also be a trifle worried that HAMAS is schooling the kiddies to be committed to jihad to reclaim Al Andalus as holy Islamic soil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ganselmi</title>
		<link>http://blog.z-word.com/2010/02/el-pais-pots-and-kettles/#comment-9965</link>
		<dc:creator>ganselmi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:16:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.z-word.com/?p=1533#comment-9965</guid>
		<description>The ETA analogy is particularly appropriate. And wasn't Spain a fascist state until the late 70s? Shouldn't El Pais be more concerned with the implications of this legacy rather attacking Israel daily?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The ETA analogy is particularly appropriate. And wasn&#8217;t Spain a fascist state until the late 70s? Shouldn&#8217;t El Pais be more concerned with the implications of this legacy rather attacking Israel daily?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

