Israel's Secret Field Hospital - For Syrians

[jbg]

Contrary to popular belief, based on this and other stories, Israel is a civilized country. The country takes a lot of flack for attempting to defend itself. Other powers in the area perch military facilities atop schools or hospitals and then emit grief-stricken shrieks for international media when Israel is forced to retaliate. Israel is not permitted, by world opinion, to defend itself effectually. It, even more so than other Western countries, fight with one, or two, hands tied between its back.

"Progressive" countries such as Iran, North Vietnam, China, Russia (or its USSR predecessor) persecuted minorties and/or seized territories. No outrage there. I would like it if someone showed me the field hospitals the Shi'ites and Sunnis run for each other in their endless internecine strife. Or like facilities the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt under Morsi ran for the Copts.

Israel, it must be said, gains nothing for running these hospitals. I don't thin the U.N. takes them into account when passing their endless array of one-sided resolutions. Article excerpts and link below.

IDF allows first peek into secret Golan Heights field hospital (link)

Facility has treated 700 Syrians, from children to old men, breaking down stereotypes about ‘the Zionists’ as clashes continue across the fence

On Friday evening, Channel 2 News aired footage of the fenced Golan Heights facility, which has treated over 700 Syrian patients since it was established less than a year ago.

The hospital, staffed by soldiers in uniform, includes an emergency room, an intensive care unit, an operating theater, a mobile laboratory, a pharmacy and an x-ray facility. It treats Syrian patients who cross the border regardless of creed – or of where their loyalties lie.

The once-sporadic treatment of Syrian nationals in Israel has, by now, become routine, the report made clear: the wounded cross the border, and IDF medical teams deployed in the Golan Heights give them preliminary treatment.

**********************

The patients also cross the border armed with gross misconceptions about Israel and its people.

“They say that before the previous week, before they came, they thought we were the Great Satan, the enemies, and looked for the tails between our legs,” Zoarets said.

*****************************

Another patient, Latif, said, “They taught us about the Zionist enemy, the Zionist oppressor. But when we saw the Zionists, [we realized] they were nothing like what we’d been told. They’re human beings just like us, human, and even more than that.”

Ahmed, who was also being treated at the hospital at the time of filming, said that in the aftermath of the uprising against Assad, “we came to understand who is an enemy and who is a friend.”

He said that as the fighting raged on, many Syrians began to doubt what they’d been taught about the countries across the border from their own.

A military hospital set up by the IDF in the Golan Heights in order to treat wounded Syrians. (photo credit: screen capture, Channel 2)

“The regime convinced us everyone around us is our enemy,” he said.

Col. Tarif Bader, commander of the hospital, said that while the decision to administer humanitarian aid to populations outside of Israel was always a dilemma, in this case, it was “the right choice” – one he was proud to be a part of.

He added that most patients suffered from “serious battle wounds.” Among them were men as old as 83, as well as young children, who another staff member described as strong and communicative. ”They don’t look frightened,” he said.

***************

I deleted this sentence since it could be seen as a personal attack.

Edited February 6, 2014 by jbg

[Bonam]

It's all part of Israel's evil plot. I'm sure we'll soon be hearing from our friendly neighbourhood CJPME representatives about how Israeli doctors are secretly infecting their victims with AIDS at these hospitals, or secretly sterilizing them, or secretly doing medical experiments.

[sharkman]

Yup, no doubt Bud and Hudson will be raising the alarm on the Jewish Zionist medical conspiracy.

[bleeding heart]

Where in the world does anyone get the idea that there is "no outrage" over the behavior of Iran, China, Russia? There is plenty of outrage, it's ubiquitous (and well-deserved, incidentally).

It's funny: erstwhile "defenders" of Israel, of the US, and many other countries sure like to whine about their reputational persecution. It's a nationalist hobby in France too, so I understand, and (at least among the political Right) in the UK, forever crying about the mean things people say about their favoured geopolitical entity.

And lest we forget, geopolitical entities is the actual subject here.

Nationalists simply do not like criticism...of forgodsakes countries, not even of themselves!

And let's also not forget that nationalism is grotesque, even a form of cowardice. To be avoided like other bad habits and cultural weaknesses.

[PIK]

I am sure hudson is right now building a story that says they are harvesting organs, and selling them to the chinese.

[jbg]

I am sure hudson is right now building a story that says they are harvesting organs, and selling them to the chinese.

I deleted this sentence since it could be seen as flaming.

Edited February 6, 2014 by jbg

[PIK]

Or that the Jews are using their babies' blood in Passover Matzohs.

I forgot about that one.

[Rue]

1-Where in the world does anyone get the idea that there is "no outrage" over the behavior of Iran, China, Russia? There is plenty of outrage, it's ubiquitous (and well-deserved, incidentally).

2-Nationalists simply do not like criticism...of forgodsakes countries, not even of themselves!

3-And let's also not forget that nationalism is grotesque, even a form of cowardice. To be avoided like other bad habits and cultural weaknesses.

In regards to 1 I can only speak to my impression of that because I never see any discussions on this forum from Bud or Hudson Jones on any country but Israel so I criticize the two of them for that. In regards to world politics, surely you have noticed there is a double standard as to who the UN criticizes and who in the UN criticizing are engaging in the very same things they accuse others of.

Yes I admit, me personally I defend US foreign policy and Israel state policies a lot because I think they are unfairly held to a standard other countries are not. Yes of course its a subjective impression but my impression of the UN is that it is partisan and no longer a fair neutral mediator. I do believe it has the capacity to be neutral and therefore a genuine mediator of world affairs. But that is my opinion and I tried best to explain it. I feel that way because of the type of resolutions it has passed and which countries it proved unable to help, in particular Biafra/Nigeria, Sudan, Rwanda/Malawi, Zimbabwe, Felashies in Ethiopia, Jews in the Arab League nations, Bahaiis , Zoroastreans, Buddists,and/or Christians in Muslim nations or controlled areas, Tibet, East Timor. Those events as well as its abandoning of Jews after WW2 have led me to this impression. In fact only Elenor Roosevelt of the UN is the only person I would admire and refer to repeatedly for her role on taking on the world on behalf of holocaust survivors and insisting we be allowed a nation.

In regards to 2 and 3, you make a sweeping generalization. I for one do not believe all forms of nationalism are the same, so I can't go the next step and stereotype them all as bad. I would concede extreme nationalist pride, i.e., chauvenism as history has shown us has often led to wars if that is your point, yes.

In an ideal world it would be nice not to have to have political nationalities. However if you push that concept, I am sure someone will accuse you of being with the illuminati and pushing for one world government.

Who knows maybe one day we as humans evolve past politics and using borders and national identities but we are far from there at this point.

[Rue]

JBG I am proud that this hospital was built and provides its services. If that pride is "excessive Jewish ultra natonalist tribalism" uh so so be it.

[bleeding heart]

I appreciate your post here, Rue, but I have a point of contention:

I was talking of general, public criticisms; you brought up the UN.

that is a good discussion ton have too, of course, and I can even take your point regarding Israel...but the US?

How does the UN hold the US to a standard it does not apply to other countries? If anything, the UN is too lenient, no doubt because of America's immense power and influence.

The US gets practically a free rise from all powerful entities, including the UN...which frequiently is in collusion with violent American policy.

Hell;, the Americans can intentionally and materially help mass terrorists, as they did with the Indonesian pseudo-fascists....and the UN remains toothless and mostly silent.

[Hudson Jones]

I think it is wonderful that Israel is doing this. Israel also sent in some help to Haiti during the devastating earthquake.

There is no question that there are good deeds that are done by Israel and its people. However, these good deeds do not cancel out their policies towards the Palestinians and the land they continue to annex, as we speak.

If Israel is going to be a close ally of the West and be held to Western standards, then Israel and its apologists should not be asking why it's receiving this kind of attention when there are countries with low expectation and who are not allies of the West committing human rights violations. Not to say I agree that the focus on Israel is unfair and unbalanced. This is not true, at all. I mean, just take a look at the policies and the double standard that the West has when it comes to treating Israel and Iran and their nuclear technology. Iran has signed onto the NPT and doesn't even have nuclear weapons. Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on hundreds of nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the NPT and allow any inspections of its facilities.

Let's be honest about where the unbalanced and unfair focus and attention is.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Hudson Jones

[Bob Macadoo]

I think it is wonderful that Israel is doing this. Israel also sent in some help to Haiti during the devastating earthquake.

Let's be honest about where the unbalanced and unfair focus and attention is.

Yep who are the zealots, hyperbolists, and sensationalists again? Oh yeah see above.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Hell;, the Americans can intentionally and materially help mass terrorists, as they did with the Indonesian pseudo-fascists....and the UN remains toothless and mostly silent.

Big deal...even the not so powerful and influential nations like Canada get away with the same thing. Don't confuse policy with scale/scope.

Edited February 4, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

Big deal...even the not so powerful and influential nations like Canada get away with the same thing. Don't confuse policy with scale/scope.

We are powerful enough in Canada to not have such people on our payroll such as, and this is just a short list off the top of my head. Manuel Noriega, Saddam Husein, and then the big boy Usama Bib Laden. Now there is some policy and scope for you to consider.

[bush_cheney2004]

We are powerful enough in Canada to not have such people on our payroll

But not powerful enough to stay off the U.S. payroll.....see you at the next "human rights" or "responsibility to protect" celebration in a foreign country.

[On Guard for Thee]

But not powerful enough to stay off the U.S. payroll.....see you at the next "human rights" or "responsibility to protect" celebration in a foreign country.

I guess you have ignored my post, I can understand why, hard to admit to payrolling such people, and so now I will ignore yours.

[Rue]

Bleeding Heart sorry I just read your question. I think it is a good one and we could have a good discussion about it and you are right to question it yes. I hope I am not hijacking the thread responding to it a bit but you deserve an answer because you are rightfully questioning a subjective opinion.

So I will answer it this way and keep in mind I concede my answer is partisan and subjective and therefore only that and you know that and concede you have of course an argument the other way.

I know the US has been criticized for not paying its UN dues and is seen as a world bully by many of the nations in the UN and therefore worthy of criticism.

I get that but here is why I said what I did. I believe the United States Navy, which costs US taxpayers a fortune each year to finance has saved thousands on the high seas of many nations and is probably the most important life savings institution in the world. When has any nation thanked the US for its navy and the thousands of sailors its saved?

That fortune in money spent to keep the US Navy operating has benefitted the world and not a peep.

Where was the world when Hussein was terrorizing his people? No I am not giving a blanket endorsement to what Haliburton did and what the private mercenary army in Iraq has done I am talking about the US Army that put its lives on the line on the ground trying to prevent massacres by Muslims against other Muslims? Everyone criticizes the US but what about that inter Muslim civil war they tried to stop?

I grew up where the US was lambasted in world affairs over Vietnam but while the UN did not ever discuss what happened with the Russians in Europe.

I grew up where the UN remained silent on Mao Tse Tung killing 20 million people but never missed a chance to piss on the US.

I jave lived through a time when the UN failed miserably to stop mass murder in Biafra, East Timor, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Mail, Ivory Coast, Chad, Spanish Sahara, Syria, Iraq, Kurd areas of Iraq, Turkey and Iran, within Iran,Sudan.

I lived through an era where the Soviets kept all of Eastern Europe under a repressive police state and crushed mercilessly political opposition and was applauded openly in the UN. I live at a time when the UN is run by nations that engage in internal human rights violations but single out the US and Israel.

I have witnessed the US spend a fortune and be held hostage by its oil industry placating Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States but being called devils for refusing to abandon Israel.

I see the US and now Stephen Harper in Canada, as being not afraid to take on criticism of the world to defend Israel and even fight with it.

I may disagree with certain US foreign policies on Iran and Israel today, but name me one other country trying to genuinely help. The US could have just sat back and said,let the Sunnis and Shiites blow each other up and to hell with Israel they have no oil anyways.

They have not.

I don't see the US getting credit for spending a fortune to be the only world power trying to help countries.

What I see is the US portrayed as a colonialist empire but not a peep about China having used fixed predatory pricing to manipulate world markets and create huge trade imbalances. I hear not a peep about Putin's fascist regime by the UN.

So yes I think the US has received inconsistent treatment. Do I think they are angels, no of course not and not withstanding our trade wars with them and there attempts to engage in predatory pricing or dominate our fishing waters they are great neighbours. They invest heavily in Canada and employ thousands.

Just being next door to them means our politicians have let our armed forces diminish to the point of embarassement. We have saved billions in military expenditures precisely because we can live next door to the US and not worry.

Fair is fair. The same US criticized as being imperialist is a leader in keeping this world safe from terrorists. Who knows how many lives they have saved preventing terrorist attacks.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Rue

[bud]

from setting up a hosptial for syrians, to lobbying another country to go to war for their cause

[Rue]

Bud you just exhibited once again when someone responds to a point you don't agree with, you will suddenly switch the topic by simply posting an entirely different matter that conveys the same partisan message that you keep repeating in every response about Israel.

You also demonstrate that in threads about Israel you will depict Jews outside Israel not just Israelis in a negative hateful way.

I could of course immediately sent back a film of the latest PA meetings just a week ago where they call for a holy war to be redirected from Syria to Israel with Mr.Abbas openly applauding but that is I suppose exactly what you want-to hijack yet another thread into name calling.

Hatred comes about when people become entrenched in their views and can't see past them.

I finish this response back to the original premises of this thread which is this-Israel is not a demon nation and it does not hate Arabs or Palestinians.

It set up this hospital as it has done many other beneficial services-precisely because it was not created to hate Arabs or welcome their death.

It is also interesting because as this thread was started a parallel incident arose which I believe provides a lesson and can shed light on this thread and the responses to it.

There is a plant in the West Bank actress Scarlett Johansen endorsed. She was immediately then removed as spokesperson for Oxfam for so doing. That plant, employs over 400 Palestinians who openly welcome the employment and their union head stated they are treated with respect and dignity. It is a blatant and open example of how Israelis and Palestinians can and do work together and respect one another message I have repeated on this forum continuously stating this stereotype that Israelis all hate Palestinians or vice versa is a crock and is often advanced by people with their own political agenda who sit in their living rooms and have never been to the Middle East let alone have a clue what a Jew, Israeli, Arab or Palestinian is but think they do because they once spoke to some guy with a tan at a 7-11 with a big nose and could not understand his accent.

Oxfam wants to boycott that plant simply because its Israeli. They have done what you do-get so caught up in the partisan poitical rhetoric they missed the very basic point-the very reason Oxfam was created and now fails to achieve because its blinded by a narrow partisan view of the world.

Oxfam was created to build grass root projects to employ people to give them dignity. Now they condemn that very thing because they are so blinded for their hate of anything Israel, they now call for the boycotting of that plant.

Scarlett Johansen is the very young Jew you and Hudson Jones in his attempt to suggest the only good young Jews are anti Zionist will not admit exist and I doubt you can admit exist.

They carry on where I left off and as Zionists believe Palestinians and Israelis can achieve together and work together in peaceful harmony and we see that as the future vision of the two states.

There are more where she and I came from and we are not just Jews, we are Christians, Muslims and everything else. We believe in peace and dignity for both peoples and all peoples.

I will use the gift of free speech on this forum as she has to counter any messages that Israel and Israelis or Zionists hate Palestinians or Arabs. We will find a way to work and live peacefully side by side despite what you or others might state.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Rue

[bud]

Bud you just exhibited once again when someone responds to a point you don't agree with, you will suddenly switch the topic by simply posting an entirely different matter that conveys the same partisan message that you keep repeating in every response about Israel.

no rue. the original post was made by jbg to delegitimize the criticism of israel. the occasional good israel does will not cancel out the many wicked policies and actions it takes.

just to show how my comment is related to jbg's message, here is how jbg started the post:

Contrary to popular belief, based on this and other stories, Israel is a civilized country.

[bud]

There is a plant in the West Bank actress Scarlett Johansen endorsed. She was immediately then removed as spokesperson for Oxfam for so doing.

you are misinformed and are spreading misinformation. let me correct you:

Scarlett Johansson has ended her relationship with Oxfam after receiving criticism for her support of SodaStream, which has a factory in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

The actress's spokesman said the 29-year-old, who was an ambassador for the charity, has "a fundamental difference of opinion" with the humanitarian group which opposes all trade from Israeli settlements.

Oxfam says the settlements are illegal and deny Palestinian rights.

link

Oxfam wants to boycott that plant simply because its Israeli. They have done what you do-get so caught up in the partisan poitical rhetoric they missed the very basic point-the very reason Oxfam was created and now fails to achieve because its blinded by a narrow partisan view of the world.

as stated above, the company is not in israel. it's on a settlement and it violates international law. you need to comprehend the simple point that legally, as accepted by all of the world (except for israel) that the settlements are illegal.

again, oxfam has no problems with companies inside israel. it's companies in the occupied territories that people have a problem with.

i figured you would get into the 'benefit a few hundred palestinians receive", so i'm posting part of an article that shows the superficial and ignorant argument defending sodastream:

The latest Orwellian Newspeak is about an occupation that benefits Palestinians. In defending SodaStream, and later Johansson, there was much talk about the equal benefits Palestinian workers in the factory receive. If the factory was to suffer, the logic goes, those Palestinians will be the first to get hurt. I hope nobody who makes this argument seriously believes that equality exists when one party is completely dependent on the other’s good will. When a worker is deprived of political representation and can find himself in a military court following any controversy or problem, is he really equal? Does he get his freedom to travel along with his paycheck? His right to due process? This seems more like a “our n*****s are perfectly happy” line than serious reasoning. And this also should be said: Palestinians might very well do better or worse following the end of the occupation, but that cannot serve as an argument against giving them their rights.

Nothing exists outside its political context. If Israel annexes the area in which the SodaStream factory is located as part of a peace deal, as some think it will, then the Palestinian society will benefit from land and other compensation it would get in return. Palestinian employees will have a serious representative body to fight and advocate for them, and maybe SodaStream will pay road tolls to the Palestinian state, and so on. In other words, this would be a completely different reality. Right now, the factory operates in a very specific context of the occupation, and it can only be judged in that context.

link

[bush_cheney2004]

...you need to comprehend the simple point that legally, as accepted by all of the world (except for israel) that the settlements are illegal.

False, as several nations support Israel's position, most recently and notably Australia, which abstained from UN votes condemning the settlements, while several other nations voted no on the resolution, including Canada. There is not 100% consensus that the settlements are illegal, not for the Geneva Convention, other UN resolutions, or anything else.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/tony-abbott-quietly-shifts-un-position-to-support-israeli-settlements-upsetting-palestinians-20131124-2y434.html

[bud]

False, as several nations support Israel's position, most recently and notably Australia, which abstained from UN votes condemning the settlements, while several other nations voted no on the resolution, including Canada. There is not 100% consensus that the settlements are illegal, not for the Geneva Convention, other UN resolutions, or anything else.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/tony-abbott-quietly-shifts-un-position-to-support-israeli-settlements-upsetting-palestinians-20131124-2y434.html

what does abstaining mean? it does not mean no. also, the resolution was about condemning the settlements. even though canada voted "no", their official stance is still that the israeli settlements are illegal and violate international law:

you are wrong about canada's stance. here is canada's official stance:

Occupied Territories and Settlements

Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

link

[bush_cheney2004]

you are wrong about canada's stance. here is canada's official stance:

Canada is not the 'all of the world'....your claim that 'all of the world' considers the settlements to be illegal is false. That was easy....next !

[Hudson Jones]

Canada is not the 'all of the world'....your claim that 'all of the world' considers the settlements to be illegal is false. That was easy....next !

So far you have not shown any country who rejects international law. You tried to say that Canada rejects international law and accepts the settlements, but bud showed you that they don't.

Next.