Israel Imperfect

I happened to notice something in the news today. Israel has, it seems, been using a lot of cluster bombs in its recent conflict in Lebanon. They are perfectly legal under international law - but they are terribly indiscriminate. Lots of dead civilians.

Todays rant is not directed at Israel primarily though, but at the unthinking Israel-worshipers in the US. I am becoming annoyed with the way they - and much of both the US and Europe - turns a blind eye to Israel's many problems. Dodgy democracy, civil and human rights abuses, there are all sorts of things Israel could be very heavily criticised for. Their blatent disregard for the civilians in Lebanon is just the latest in a long series.

And yet... noone cares. Even when Amnesty International published its last report on Israel - a very negative report - noone cared. It seems Israel can get away with anything, because for a number of reasons noone wants to criticise them.

The first reason is that they are a primarily jewish country with a poor human rights record in the middle of an area of primarily muslim countries with appalling human rights records. They look like saints in comparison. In addition, they are always in an on-off war with those countries - and people pick sides. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

There is also some residual fear of anti-semitism and post-holocaust guilt. Israel's identity is The Jewish State. Noone wants to be seen attacking the Jews. It invites uncomfortable comparison to a certian dictator.

Besides, the Jews claim to have a legitimate historical claim to the land. I dont quite understand how this works, but it seems to hinge who the land going to whoever can show the earliest records of having owned it. This, to me, sounds distinctly racist: Jews get free stuff! Just like native americans in the US often get a share of gambling money, even though they have done absolutly nothing to earn it. Israel has even been using genetic tests on some applications for immigration - anyone who the test concludes is Jewish gets in. This is an openly racist policy - they are discriminating against non-Jews. If the UK were to decide only people with British ancestry may immigrate, can you imagine the fuss?

There is a religious side. Israel claims connections to the biblical Israel. Personally, I think this is a bit of a scam, because its not the biblical Israel. Its a country with the same name, in the same place. But its a claim that many believe, and surely the Holy Land deserves support? After all, God is refered to in the OT as the God of Israel many times.

The result of all this is that Israel has effectively a free hand. They can do whatever they want, and the international community will let them get away with it. Start a war? They are only 'defending their borders' or countering Islamic agression.


Now, what are the things that are being ignored.

1. Disregard for the civilians of other countries.
I mentioned earlier that Israel was using cluster bombs - I have an article on it, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5382192.stm - that claims its used a lot of bombs. Cluster bombs are not a lot of use if you are aiming to kill terrorists only. They are very good if you know a terrorist is in an area and want to kill everyone there. They also have a tendency to become effective mines, and every day now a few more civilians in Lebanon are killed or injured by unexploded bomblets.
Israel's war was with Hezbollah. And Hez are certinly an enemy worth attacking, and were the agresssors in this case. But Israel demonstrated that they didn't care of innocent non-Israeli civilians were caught in the crossfire - they are almost as bad as those they were fighting.
As well as this, Israel used a lot of high-explosive bombs. These didn't kill a great many civilians, because by that point the area was largely evacuated. But they did destroy many buildings. Worst, in my view - they attacked a power station, causing the release of a large quantity of oil and considerable enviromental damage. Israel's response to this? "Tough luck - Hez's fault, we arn't going to pay for it."
After the US invaded Iraq, they paid much of the cost of rebuilding. Israel doesn't even have the decency to do that.


2. Open racism.
If someone discriminates against Jews, they are branded anti-semitic and often draw comparisons with the nazis. But what do you call someone who discriminates against non-Jews? Israel does just this. Its immigration rules, for example - they are extremally complicated, with many references made to spouse, children, parents, locations of the various above, economic status, skills... but, are completly different for those who can demonstrate ethnic Jewish ancestry. Those who can do so, are citizens. There are exceptions to this rule, but its usually true. Further, this is not some semi-official bias. Its open policy. Its right there, in the government-passed legislation setting immigration policy. Because Israel is the Jewish State, allmost all Jews get in. There are some complications if the Jewish immigrant has married a non-Jew, but thats more or less how it works.
Think about this. They are a jewish state, yes. And they are trying to maintain that status. The way to do that is to be careful with immigration. Watch for ethnic group. In essence, maintain the racial purity... ah, something doesn't seem quite right here.

3. Poor, and very variable, human rights record.
Within the state and its occupied lands, there are a large number of Arabs and Palistinians living in places. All along the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These people have a rather odd legal status:

"One might also argue that Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are equal participants in the country's democratic social institutions were it not for certain serious problems such as the fact that nearly 70,000 Arab Israelis live in legal limbo: the more than 100 villages they live in within Israel are unrecognized by the government. As a result these residents pay taxes to the government but are "not eligible for government services...."

"Consequently, such villages have none of the infrastructure, such as electricity, water, and sewers, provided to recognized communities. The lack of basic services has caused difficulties for the villagers in regard to their education, health care, and employment opportunities. New building in the unrecognized villages is considered illegal and subject to demolition."
- Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2000 [CRHP 2000]: Israel, US State Department, February 2001.

Ohh, not good, right? Well, check out this one from the same source:

"Israeli security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses during the year.... Since the violence began, [September 2000] Israeli security units often used excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators. Israeli security forces sometimes exceeded their rules of engagement, which provide that live fire is only to be used when the lives of soldiers, police, or civilians are in imminent danger. ...Israeli security forces abused Palestinians in detention suspected of security offenses. ... There were numerous credible allegations that police beat persons in detention. Three Palestinian prisoners died in Israeli custody under ambiguous circumstances during the year. Prison conditions are poor. Prolonged detention, limits on due process, and infringements on privacy rights remained problems. Israeli security forces sometimes impeded the provision of medical assistance to Palestinian civilians. Israeli security forces destroyed Palestinian-owned agricultural land. Israeli authorities censored Palestinian publications, placed limits on freedom of assembly, and restricted freedom of movement for Palestinians."
- Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2000 [CRHP 2000]: Israel, US State Department, February 2001.

"... deeply concerned at the suffering of the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan due to the violation of their fundamental and human rights since the Israeli military occupation of 1967...[and] in this connection, deploring the Israeli settlement in the occupied Arab territories, including in the occupied Syrian Golan, and regretting Israel's constant refusal to cooperate with and to receive the Special Committee" - 2005 statement by the UN Committee on Human Rights.

"abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes, including unlawful killings; extensive and wanton destruction of property; obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel; torture; and the use of Palestinians as human shields."

"The Israeli army killed more than 700 Palestinians, including some 150 children. Most were killed unlawfully — in reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian residential areas; in extrajudicial executions; and as a result of excessive use of force."

"Most members of the Israeli army and security forces continued to enjoy impunity. Investigations, prosecutions and convictions for human rights violations were rare. In the overwhelming majority of the thousands of cases of unlawful killings and other grave human rights violations committed by Israeli soldiers in the previous four years, no investigations were known to have been carried out." - 2004 report, Amnesty International.

Conclusions from all this? Israel's record is not as bad as all those claim actually. In some places, its very good. Religious freedom and freedom of speech are not only in the law, but in practice. Its just inconsistant. Some places are as good as the best of Europe or the US, while others are as oppressive as any dictatorship. Last July, they even made some attempt to class Arab settlements as 'Class A development areas' so they could finally get utilities.

But my complaint is not that Israel is a human-rights abuser. It that its record is considerably less than perfect, and *noone cares* about it.


3. AID-sucking.

In 2002, Israel received $720,000,000 in economic support (allowing it to free up money for military expenditures), and $2,040,000,000 in foreign military aid from the US government. I havn't found numbers for newer years, but I imagine much the same. Wondered how they paid for that war in Lebanon? If you are a US citizen, they paid for it with your tax money.

Abortion Framework 1.

No political rants today. I have been doing that in another blog, and as a result determined that a lot of people have trouble understanding the moderate or pro-choice (The two differ in degree, but not underlying reasoning) positions on abortion. The issue has become rediculously polarised - two camps, neither of which is the slightest bit willing to understand the other. Instead they choose to fight caricatures.

So, I am going to attempt, in the clearest possible way, to explain my own views on abortion. I will start with a term: 'pro-life.'

This is the name for those who believe that abortion is justified either never, or very rarely. The name does raise an issue though - for whatever it is they are pro- for, it is not life.

Consider a cow. Or, if you wish, a pig. Or a chicken. For now, assume its a cow. There is no doubt that this is alive. But the moral consensus says that its rights are none to minimal. It has one purpose: To be slaughtered and eaten. It is fair to say that pro-lifeers, typicly, wouldn't object to the slaughter of cows for food. Nor would society in general. There are a few vegetarians, but not a great many compared to the population collectively.

So its not life that is considered sacred. The terminology is not strictly accurate. If the pro-life supporters are asked to be more specific though, they can - with almost no exceptions, they will answer that it is *human* life they are supporting. Thats better.

Which raises the next question: Why humans? It is agreed by almost everyone that killing a cow (without inflicting unnessicary pain) is, at worst, a slightly immoral act. While killing a human (for simplicities sake, lets call it an adult human for now) is an extremally immoral act.

Therefor, there must be something the human has that makes it worthy of protection. Something in it, or a property of it, which the cow lacks. At this point, I often hear people explaining that humans are inherently valuable. This is the first of the brick walls to thought in my article: It must be accepted that humans are just another animal. You cant just declare them a magic exception - if they are to have any special status, then it must be justified.

And the first difficult question - if humans have a special status as a protected, no-killing-allowed animal, then how is this status justified? Answer this one, and abortion becomes a much easier question to consider, because it becomes possible to abandon the extreme positions grabed by reflex and come to a reasoned, fully-consistant conclusion.

Putting it more simply: Once you know what makes humans special, you can decide when they aquire it.

Ive heard quite a number of proposals here: The more abstract ones like 'sentience' sound good, but are far too vague for practical purposes. 'Memory' is another. 'Mind' is a little better than sentience. 'Individuality' can be good too, but again is hard to define or measure. The religious may choose 'soul,' which is completly unsuitable as its impossible to observe even if it does exist. But all these speculations achieve little - none are of practical use. For now, im going to leave it and attempt to invite comments (If I have any readers yet) - when I have seen a few, I shall continue.

Politics.

Politics sickens me. It is that field by which important decisions are made, and usually made badly, because even in the best political system there is so much going on behind the scenes. Games. Power struggles. Campaigns. And campaign contributions. "You'll vote for my bill if I vote for yours?" Riders. Paragraphs snuck in here and there, and often not even noticed until they are law.

And today, the FRC - yes, its the organisation that makes the source for the majority of my ranting here - brings me a double-supply of political rants.

Two U.S. Senators have publicly vowed to block the nomination of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach from becoming commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. One of the Senators, freshman David Vitter (R-La), is planning to block the nomination on the issue of drug importation. Fellow freshman Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) sees the bigger issue of the need to remove the abortion drug RU-486 from the market.

Ok... Vitter, I cant comment on. I dont understand the issue of drug importation well enough to take a position on this, so I can neither agree nor disagree with him. But DeMint...

Since 2000 there have been ten known deaths resulting from the abortifacient. In a 2005 study, two obstetrician-gynecologists, Peggy Gary and Dona Harrison, analyzed 607 RU-486 adverse event reports, obtained from the FDA. Gary and Harrison recorded 237 cases of hemorrhage. The doctors also found 66 infection cases in their review - some of these infections occurred in girls under 17 years old.

Ok, we have LIES! While subtle misuse of language is good, this isn't so subtle. Its outright, undisputable misstateing of the facts.

Firstly, RU-486 is not the correct name. RU-486 was its numberical identifier used during its testing, from theory to animal-models to human trials. It was just a unique identifier for use in FDA paperwork. The correct name for the drug is actually mifepristone. I dont know why drugs companies insist on such odd names, but thats the one.

Secondly, it actually has a very good safety record... outside the US. It was developed by a French company, and has been in use in much of Europe for many years with few incidents and no contriversy. None of our regulatory agencies (we have many) have shown any concern at all over it.

So what about all those supposed deaths? 'Clutching at straws' comes to mind here. In this case, due to political motivations, a number of organisations such as the FRC have been trying to blame mifepristone for every death they can.

Take, for example, Holly Patterson - the poster-child of the anti-mifepristone campaigns, this poor young woman who was killed by the evil drug. She is the most often-cited case of a mifepristone-related fatality, and given as the greatest possible human reason to suspend or remove its FDA approval. However, Holly's death was not caused by mifepristone at all. A mifepristone abortion is a two-stage, two-drug procedure. First, the mifepristone. Then, a while later, a dose of misoprostol. A rather usful drug - but, in both Holly's case and those other three - and possibly more - the misoprostol was administed vaginally when it should have been given orally. This was due to a repeated medical error. I dont see how someone could make a mistake like that, but that is what happened.

But, misoprostol is not a contriversial drug. Its used mostly to treat stomach ulcers, and to induce labor, as well as the second part of the mifepristone abortion procedure. So, for *purely political* reasons, Holly's death was blamed by pro-life groups on mifepristone.

And what about the 2005 report? Ive been trying to look that one up. However, a google search turns up only three related pages. Two of these are the FRC's own news articles. And the others are in the Board of Directors list of the AAPLOG - the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Now, this is an abortifant drug. And the only research the FRC could find that looked like it was coming from qualified, serious researchers came from two directors of a pro-life organisation. I sense that this may have been rather a bias. Also, I wonder... if I cant find the paper itsself, might that be because it never passed peer-review?

Ok, back to the article.

This information has seemingly been ignored by the FDA under Dr. von Eschenbach despite the information coming from the FDA itself.

No, the FDA ignored all that information because said information is a pack of lies, misrepresentations of events, and extremally biased uncredible research.

As I have reported before, FRC is adamantly opposed to both RU-486 and Dr. von Eschenbach's nomination and reserve the right to score any vote on his confirmation in our annual scorecard. Please contact your Senator to oppose this nomination. And to all the South Carolinians who read the Update - congratulations on having a courageous Senator who cares about women's lives.

Oh, its always about women's lives. That is, feel smug, and talk as though you are campaigning to save women. As I have just pointed out so well, the fact that you claim to be protecting women does not mean you are. You are exactly what I see you to be - moral stuck-ups, determined to feel better than everyone else, able to see only one side of the issue.

I will leave the other article asside for now. Ive had quite enough of it. Also, my mother came in the room five minutes ago and I spent ten minutes nearly shouting at her about this because I just had to get out my anger that anyone could be so willfully ignorant that would believe such utter *crap*.

Oh, I can just imagine the response of the intended audience: "Ohh, these researchers say RU-486 is deadly! And they have MDs, they must be right! And the FRC endorses them!" - no attempt to check the facts. No attempt to think about it. Because this is the confirmation bias - the extremally strong tendency of humans to believe unquestioningly news which agrees with positions they already hold, and to be extremally skeptical of news which does not.

Ten Commandments.

With all the fuss I keep seeing over the various church-state seperation cases, one particular claim is starting to become more irritating each time I hear it. This claim is that the legal system and law - specificly US law - is based upon the Ten Commandments.

This claim is false. Not one of the Ten is involved in defining current law. Yet many people, when they hear this claim, will immediately believe it without even thinking. This is the confirmation bias in a religious context: The desire of people to believe positive things about their religion, and their desire not to believe negative things.

Unlike those who make this claim, I can think. So I am going to do my best to lay it to rest by explaining each of those commandments:

1. You shall worship no gods other than God.
Nope, not in law. Explicitly not in the law even - this commandment is the exact opposite of freedom of religion, something that is written in the most authorative document in US law, the Constitution.

2. No false idols.
Im not even quite sure what this one means. Some people consider it to mean idols of other gods, some consider it a warning against worshiping things (Such as giant concrete crosses) rather than the God they should represent. But, either way, its perfectly legal.

3. Do not take God's name in vain.
Nope again, perfectly legal. Well, there may be a tiny trace of this one in some broadcast regulations, but not much - and there, its incidential, as the main purpose of the regulation is to prevent other words being broadcast.

4. Keep the Sabbath holy.
Not any more. In the US, this one *was* put in state laws once. Doing certian things on Sunday was actually a criminal offense, and punished with fines. But these laws have long since been either repealed or struck down. And, well, I notice that the US hasn't been smitten yet.
Interestingly, this is by far the most mentioned law in the OT. Im of the view that this was for cultural identity. Just about all religious have their equivilents of the other commandments, but a holy day? That was unique to the jews, and to their identity, so they repeated it often.

5. Honor your parents.
While doing so it probably polite, and a good idea, its not anywhere in the law.

6. Do not Murder.
At last, a commandment that is clearly made a law! Surely, this shows the influence of the ten commandments on the legal system. Well, no... this shows that common sense can define laws. A prohibition against murder is essential for a stable society: The fact that it appears in both the ten commandments and in US law does not mean one influenced the other. As evidence for this, notice that even religions unrelated to Christianity or Judaeism will usually frown on murder.

7. Do not commit adultary.
Yes, this one is in law. Civil law only though - not criminal. Adultery doesn't get anyone fines or jail-time, only a messy and expensive divorce. But then, it could be argued that having a legal process of divorce at all is itsself in violation of this law. Later in the bible, in the NT, Jesus explicitly said that remarriage is equivilent to adultery. And, again, notice that other cultures tend to include similar commandments.

8. Do not steal.
See the law on murder. Exactly the same situation.

9. Do not lie.
Nope! Nothing here either. The only mention of lying in law is lying under oath in court, but this is unrelated to the commandments. Besides, it would be completly unenforceable.

10. Do not covert.
Not in law. And, again, unenforceable. You cant regulate people's thoughts, and even if you could that would probably be found to violate one right or another.

Statistical abuses.

A welcome change today - I will not be grumbling about my normal targets, but a fellow blogger and his abuse of statistics. Todays rant is a result of that great christnut Richard Evans - im sure I will rant more on him in future.

The post in question is long, covering a variety of topics. If you want to read, it is at http://nathanbradfield.blogspot.com/2006/08/stop-aclu-blogburst.html - but I will only be covering one of the many claims he makes.

He presents these statistics in support of abstinance-only education:
- 96% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that abstinence is the best approach to sex.
- 93% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that having sex leads to disease and pregnancy.
- 85 % of American parents with children under 17 want abstinence to be taught with at least equal emphasis as contraception receives.
- 79% of American parents with children under 17 want their kids taught that teen sex leads to harmful psychological and physical effects.


From my time as a cynical internet user and a one-year course on statistics, I have an alarm in the back of my mind that starts to sound when I sense dodgy numbers around. Specificly, I noticed that not one of those statistics is the simple 'percentage of parents wanting abstinance-only taught.' An ommision like that makes me suspicious, so I followed the cited source to check for myself.

Sure enough, I found that some other statistics from the same source are *not* quoted:
- 41% of parents believe that abstinence and contraception should be given equal emphasis.
- 8% of parents believe that teaching about contraception is more important than teaching about abstinence.
Between those, it gives an almost-majority who are strongly against abstinance-only programs. But, it goes on. Because the remaining 51% are those who think that abstinance is more important than contraception. That does not mean they want contraception ommited entirely.

Overall, there is one vital statistic. If Nathan has any interest in properly interpreting the numbers, he would have immediately presented just this single number:
- 75 percent of parents want both abstinence and contraception taught to teens.

After considering these, it is clear that Nathan is doing his best to deliberately cause these statistics to be misinterpreted. Note, for example, his consolidation of numbers in his claim that '85 % of American parents with children under 17 want abstinence to be taught with at least equal emphasis as contraception receives.' This distortion makes it appear that the vast majority of parents want abstinance taught with greater-then-equal emphesis. While, as my less-distorted analysis shows, the majority of that 85% are supporters of equal emphesis.

What these statistics actually show is hard to extract. It appears to be that a typical parent would much rather their teen remained abstinant (no surprise), but still considers it importat they are taught about contraception. Just in case. Besides, even if they remain abstinant until marriage, they will need to know how to use contraception then.