Does the IDF target civilians?

[Mycroft]

Sorry about the thread drift. You know, I can debate when I feel like it, but I hate debating with partisan hacks. By the way Cleo, does the IDF deliberately target Palestinian civilians? ;)

You got an answer to this question before, didn't you like it?

Here, let me repeat:

It’s their policy not to. If you want to provide evidence to the contrary, go ahead, but those websites you linked to from HRW and Amnesty International only talk about Palestinians targeting civilians.

Examples:

”Palestinian armed groups fired rockets from areas of the Gaza Strip at Israeli civilian settlements and populated areas in Israel close to the border, and carried out seven suicide bombings inside Israel and four around Israeli army checkpoints in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).”

”While in 2004 the number of Palestinian suicide bombings and similar attacks targeting civilians inside Israel dropped considerably compared to immediately preceding years, neither the Palestinian Authority nor the armed groups responsible have taken any serious steps to act against those who ordered or organized such attacks.”

”The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups constituted crimes against humanity.”

”Sixty-seven Israeli civilians, including eight children, were killed by Palestinian armed groups in Israel and in the Occupied Territories. Forty-seven of the victims were killed in suicide bombings, the others were killed in shooting or mortar attacks. Most of the attacks were claimed by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an offshoot of Fatah, and by the armed wing of Hamas.”

”Chana Anya Bunders, Natalia Gamril, Dana Itach, Rose Bona and Anat Darom and six other Israelis were killed on 29 January when a Palestinian man blew himself up on a bus in Jerusalem. More than 50 other people were wounded in the attack. The suicide bombing was claimed by both the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the armed wing of Hamas.”

”Tali Hatuel, who was eight months pregnant, and her four young daughters, Hila, Hadar, Roni and Meirav, aged between two and 11, were shot dead in the Gaza Strip while travelling by car near the Gush Katif settlement block where they lived. They were shot at close range by Palestinian gunmen who had opened fire on their car and caused it to career off the road.”

”On 28 June, three-year-old Afik Zahavi and 49-year-old Mordechai Yosepov were the first victims of a rocket fired by Palestinian armed groups from the Gaza Strip into the nearby Israeli city of Sderot. On 29 September, four-year-old Yuval Abebeh and two-year-old Dorit Aniso were killed by another Palestinian rocket while playing outside their relatives’ home in Sderot.”


And just so nobody loses track of your information sources:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/isrlpa9806.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/isr-summary-eng

[Orwell]

I know perfectly well that Palestinian terrorists target Israeli civilians. Just read the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reposts I put up. Now, does the IDF target Palestinian civilians? I know they do. Amnesty International says so, Human Rights Watch says so, other humanitarian organisations say so, my local newspaper says so...

My point all along is that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap. Both sides, Mycroft. Your inability to take a balanced approach to this is what has caused me to repeatedly call you a partisan hack.

[Orwell]

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/isrlpa9806.htm
Unlawful Use of Force
The Israeli army and security forces carried out numerous attacks in Palestinian areas over the course of 2004. These were most intense and extensive in the Gaza Strip, and were often carried out in a manner that failed to demonstrate that the attackers had used all feasible measures to avoid or minimize harm to civilians and their property. Human Rights Watch documented serious violations of international humanitarian law in the course of the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) May 2004 assault in the southern Gaza town and refugee camp of Rafah, in which over two hundred homes, along with cultivated fields, roads, and other infrastructure, were razed without regard to military necessity. Israeli forces also continued to use lethal force in an excessive or indiscriminate manner. On May 19, 2004, for instance, during the Rafah incursions, an Israeli tank and helicopter gunship fired on a crowd of demonstrators, killing nine persons, including three children. In late September 2004, Israel launched a massive incursion into the northern Gaza Strip. Around 130 Palestinians were killed, more than a quarter of them children. One thirteen-year-old girl, Imam al-Hams, was shot twenty times by an Israeli officer. Several children were killed in their classrooms in other incidents.

There were also numerous instances in the West Bank of civilians killed by indiscriminate Israeli gunfire, such as the deaths in Nablus in June 2004 of Dr. Khaled Salah, a lecturer at Najah University, and his sixteen-year-old son. Israel has failed to investigate suspicious killings and serious injuries by its security forces, including killings of children, thus continuing to foster an atmosphere of impunity.

While in 2004 the number of Palestinian suicide bombings and similar attacks targeting civilians inside Israel dropped considerably compared to immediately preceding years, neither the Palestinian Authority nor the armed groups responsible have taken any serious steps to act against those who ordered or organized such attacks. Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip on numerous occasions fired so-called Qassam rockets, an inherently indiscriminate home-made weapon, at illegal Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip as well as at communities on the Israeli side of the border. Qassam rockets killed a man and a small child in the border town of Sderot in June, and in a separate incident killed two small children in the same town in September. In August 2004 gunmen apparently affiliated with the Hamas movement threw one or more grenades into a cellblock in a P.A.-run prison that housed alleged collaborators, and subsequently entered a Gaza City hospital to kill two of those who had been seriously wounded in the grenade attack. In July 2004 gunmen attempted to assassinate Palestine Legislative Council member Nabil Amr after he criticized PA President Yasir Arafat in a television appearance; Amr was gravely wounded and doctors had to amputate his leg.

[Mycroft]

Except your links don't support your claims. Neither of them ever say the IDF targets civilians.

[Orwell]

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/isr-summary-engThe 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. Palestinian armed groups killed 109 Israelis — 67 of them civilians and including eight children — in suicide bombings, shootings and mortar attacks. Stringent restrictions imposed by the Israeli army on the movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories caused widespread poverty and unemployment and hindered access to health and education facilities. The Israeli army destroyed several hundred Palestinian homes, large areas of agricultural land, and infrastructure networks. Israel continued to expand illegal settlements and to build a fence/wall through the West Bank, confining Palestinians in isolated enclaves cut off from their land and essential services in nearby towns and villages. Israeli settlers increased their attacks against Palestinians and their property and against international human rights workers. Certain 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 deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups constituted crimes against humanity.

[Orwell]

Except your links don't support your claims. Neither of them ever say the IDF targets civilians.

That's a pretty creative interpretation of what's on those reports... But I'm not surprised, it's typical of your way of debating this subject.

[Mycroft]

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/isrlpa9806.htm

Nowhere in that very lengthy quote does it say the IDF targets civilians.

[Mycroft]

That's a pretty creative interpretation of what's on those reports... But I'm not surprised, it's typical of your way of debating this subject.

You're free to draw attention to the portion that proves me wrong.

[CBL4]

Here are the quotes about harming civilians:
carried out in a manner that failed to demonstrate that the attackers had used all feasible measures to avoid or minimize harm to civilians and their property.The IDF failed to prevent harm. This is not targetting.

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. The IDF was reckless. This is not targetting.

In other words, the IDF targets militants and does not mind if civilians die. According to AI and HRW, these actions are illegal but this still does not mean the IDF targets civilians.

If the actions were part of a war, I believe they would be legal. Since Israel has not signed a peace treaty with its neighbors, they are in a state of war which, IMO, means the actions are legal. I am not saying they are proper (some are not) but I believe they are legal.

CBL

[Tmy]

The IDF was reckless. This is not targetting.

CBL

Whats the difference. They know the public is going to to get killed and they do it anyway.

Ask yourself this. If the IDF is chasing a terrorist and he runs into a crowd of Israelies, would the IDF react the same than if he ran into a crowd of Palistinians? Do they hunt terrorists the same inside the Israelie boarder vs outside of it??? I dont think they do. Therefore they ARE targeting the public.

[Orwell]

http://www.phrusa.org/research/forensics/israel/Israel_force_2.html
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The PHR team found that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) has used live ammunition and rubber bullets excessively and inappropriately to control demonstrators, and that based on the high number of documented injuries to the head and thighs, soldiers appear to be shooting to inflict harm, rather than solely in self-defense.

[Orwell]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2102081.stm
The BBC has obtained video footage which appears to show an incident in the West Bank city of Jenin two weeks ago in which two Palestinian children were killed by Israeli tank fire.

The Israeli army has apologised for causing the deaths of six-year-old Ahmad Abu Aziz and his 13-year-old brother Jamil, but said the tank crew opened fire to deter Palestinians breaking a curfew and approaching them.

However, the footage shows a tank firing the first of two shells, at close range, at a group of civilians who are running away.

[Orwell]

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/05/03/isrlpa3899.htmIn its forty-eight page report, "Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority Territories: Jenin: IDF Military Operations," Human Rights Watch identified fifty-two Palestinians who were killed during the operation, of whom twenty-two were civilians. Many of the civilians were killed willfully or unlawfully. Human Rights Watch also found that the IDF used Palestinian civilians as "human shields" and used indiscriminate and excessive force during the operation.

"The abuses we documented in Jenin are extremely serious, and in some cases appear to be war crimes," said Peter Bouckaert, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch and a member of the investigative team. "Criminal investigations are needed to ascertain individual responsibility for the most serious violations. Such investigations are first and foremost the duty of the Israeli government, but the international community needs to ensure that meaningful accountability occurs."

[Orwell]

I can find more if you wish...

[Mycroft]

Whats the difference. They know the public is going to to get killed and they do it anyway.

There have been a couple of high profile killings, such as Yassin, the spiritual founder of Hamas, where the IDF took the shot despite there being civilians present. This has been parlayed into propaganda that the IDF will always shoot the terrorist despite there being civilians about. For the average terrorist, they are much more cautious.

[Mycroft]

I can find more if you wish...

Can you find any that say the IDF targets civilians? You havn't yet.

[Giz]

Do they hunt terrorists the same inside the Israelie boarder vs outside of it??? I dont think they do.

You don't think that there might be practical reasons for that?

(I imagine Israeli police might be able to drive around Tel Aviv making arrests without getting lynched or finding themselves in running gun battles within densely populated areas.)

[Tmy]

Can you find any that say the IDF targets civilians? You havn't yet.

What are you looking for? A notorized document? Geez ya really think theres gonna be a papertrail. And with that document it just aint true?

By the way do you think the IDF would react the same in an Isrealie neighborhood vs a Palistianian one?

[Tmy]

You don't think that there might be practical reasons for that?

(I imagine Israeli police might be able to drive around Tel Aviv making arrests without getting lynched or finding themselves in running gun battles within densely populated areas.)

Its impractical cause killing Isrealies would cause a serious backlash wh the IDF's bosses.

[Mycroft]

What are you looking for? A notorized document?

Not at all. I'm just looking for the part where it says the IDF targets civilians.

Can you point it out?

[Tmy]

Not at all. I'm just looking for the part where it says the IDF targets civilians.

Can you point it out?

Sure, its right there inbettween the lines.

Its almost like saying that in say.... the 60's Blacks were not discriminated in our courts because the Constitution says you couldnt do so. Of course there was plenty of discrimination, even if it wasnt the law.

[Mycroft]

Sure, its right there inbettween the lines.

Its almost like saying that in say.... the 60's Blacks were not discriminated in our courts because the Constitution says you couldnt do so. Of course there was plenty of discrimination, even if it wasnt the law.

In the 60's there were plenty of examples of discrimination against blacks. Separate schools, for one.

Sorry Tmy, I'm more skeptical than that. If you want to claim the IDF, or anyone else, has a policy of targeting civilians, I want to see evidence. All these human rights organizations stop short of saying that for a reason, and the reason is there is no evidence.

Is there evidence to support excessive force? Sure, but "excessive" is subjective.

Is there evidence that individual soldiers may have acted way out of line? Sure, but that doesn't translate to a policy shared by the entire organization.

Is there evidence the IDF may have been reckless at times? Sure, but that's still not the same as targeting civilians.

If you're skeptical, you will look at the evidence and make the distinctions. If you just want to believe your predetermined opinions, then you won't.

[Orwell]

Can you find any that say the IDF targets civilians? You havn't yet.:rolleyes:You know Mycroft, this is the kind of attitude that qualifies you as a partisan hack...

[Tmy]

In the 60's there were plenty of examples of discrimination against blacks. Separate schools, for one.

Sorry Tmy, I'm more skeptical than that. If you want to claim the IDF, or anyone else, has a policy of targeting civilians, I want to see evidence. All these human rights organizations stop short of saying that for a reason, and the reason is there is no evidence.

Is there evidence to support excessive force? Sure, but "excessive" is subjective.

Is there evidence that individual soldiers may have acted way out of line? Sure, but that doesn't translate to a policy shared by the entire organization.

Is there evidence the IDF may have been reckless at times? Sure, but that's still not the same as targeting civilians.

If you're skeptical, you will look at the evidence and make the distinctions. If you just want to believe your predetermined opinions, then you won't.

By ignoring the problem you essientially condone it. Many companies have lost sexual harrasment suits, but NONE of them ever had written polices condoing the behavior.

[Orwell]

The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, B’Tselem, in a report dated March 14, 2002, titled “Shooting at Ambulances & IDF Impediments to medical treatment,” said:

Over the past two weeks (28 February - 13 March), the intentional attacks on medical teams and the prevention of medical teams from treating the sick and wounded have been almost unprecedented. IDF soldiers have fired at ambulances, killing five Palestinian medical personnel who were on duty, wounded several members of ambulance medical teams, and damaging the ambulances. In addition, the IDF prevented medical treatment to the sick and wounded, even leaving people to bleed to death. Hospitals have been unable to function because of the damage to the electricity, water, and telephone infrastructure, and the blocking of access to some of them. As a result, the hospitals are unable to receive the wounded and sick, or obtain food and medicine… These violations are an integral part of Israeli policy and are accompanied by other grave practices. The matters described in this report are another indication of the IDF's total loss of restraint.
Souce: http://www.btselem.org/Download/Ambulances_Eng.doc Ooops, link seems to not be working...

[Orwell]

From the beginning of the intifada, on 29 September 2000, until 30 June 2005, 3,185 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories, among them 645 minors (under the age of 18). At least 1,722 of those killed were not participating in fighting at the time. Thousands more have been wounded.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Firearms/

[Orwell]

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/07/06/isrlpa81.htm

The clashes between Israelis and Palestinians since October 2000 have been marked by systematic violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Civilians have been the main victims of the violence, and an immediate priority must be to bring such violations to an end. At least 470 Palestinians have been killed, most of them unlawfully by Israeli security forces when their lives and the lives of others were not in danger. More than 120 Israelis have been killed, most of them civilians deliberately targeted by armed groups and individuals. The death toll includes more than 130 children.

[Jocko]

If I could interrupt the mutual posturing here, I think it's quite simple.

Orwell, the IDF doesn't deliberately target civilians.

Mycroft, the IDF has shown a willingness to incur civilian casualties in pursuit of a non-civilian target.

Personally, I think the IDF shows decent restraint. If they were really in the business of actually targeting civilians, how many Palestinians would there be today? Still, the fact is that civilains die from IDF bullets - and that's a PR issue more than a tactical one. You can use that to prop up whatever spin you feel like applying, pro-IDF, pro-Hamas, whatever.

[Mycroft]

:rolleyes:You know Mycroft, this is the kind of attitude that qualifies you as a partisan hack...

If demanding proof of your claims before I change my mind makes me a "partisan hack", then I'm guilty and always will be. I freely admit I will not change my mind merely because you express a bad opinion of me for not doing so, but will instead demand sufficient evidence.

Skepticism is about proof. We do not "read between the lines" as Tmy would have us do, nor do we take assertion after assertion that because civilians become casualties, that they are targeted.

[Orwell]

If demanding proof of your claims before I change my mind makes me a "partisan hack", then I'm guilty and always will be. I freely admit I will not change my mind merely because you express a bad opinion of me for not doing so, but will instead demand sufficient evidence.

Skepticism is about proof. We do not "read between the lines" as Tmy would have us do, nor do we take assertion after assertion that because civilians become casualties, that they are targeted.

That's horse manure in this case and you know it. I gave you proof, but since you're a partisan hack, it isn't enough. But I know how it is with you, it's never enough...

Jocko: the IDF targets civilians, sometimes deliberately so. Read the damn links.

[webfusion]

Let's look at the IDF today, in what can only be called a 'shooting war' in the North -- here we have an unprovoked, cross-border assault, typical of the type that Syria routinely engaged in prior to the outbreak of the Six Day War in 1967.
Now, let's look at the facts:
Is the IDF targeting civilians in retaliation for it's own defensive forces being blasted and the innocent civilians in quiet rural communities coming under violent attack? It would be a simple matter for Israel to target anything that moves on the other side, completely blanketing entire villages with a hail of fire as retaliation. It would be a proper and understandable reaction by any nation on Earth. It is exactly what most people would predict an Army might do under the circumstances.

Monday's attacks were the heaviest Hezbollah has carried out since the IDF withdrew from south Lebanon five years ago. The militant group fired a heavy barrage of rockets and missiles at IDF positions along the border area, prompting Israeli retaliation with warplanes and artillery. Eleven Israelis - seven soldiers and four civilians - were wounded in the clashes.

IDF warplanes and artillery. Sounds terrible.... Hmmmmmmmm, there must be a few hundred Lebanese civilians dead, targeted by the IDF.
Can anyone point to any Lebanese civilians dead?

http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2005/06/hizbollah_strik.php

Oh, sorry, that was an article reporting the same type of thing back in June.
"No reports of Lebanese casualties" is how it's phrased in that news piece.

How about a current body count as a result of the "IDF targeting civilians" in this recent flare-up? Certainly, those Human Rights groups can point to a few innocent Arab civilians caught in the crossfire? No? How strange... it doesn't seem possible that the IDF can send sorties of jets to bomb targets and fire out barrages of artillery shells at targets, and yet, no civilians are targeted.
Makes no sense, if the IDF is in the business of targeting civilians.


Meanwhile, turnspeak continues unabated:
Hezbollah blamed Israel yesterday for the escalation.

[Tmy]

When Hezzbola targets a military post or boarder crossing are they not terrorists?? Since they aint targeting civillians?

[webfusion]

Huh? Could you rephrase that, TMY, so it makes sense?

[Tmy]

Huh? Could you rephrase that, TMY, so it makes sense?


Well the definition of terrorists is that they attack civillians. So if their target is a military post, is that action NOT terrorism?

[webfusion]

Huh? Could you say what you mean, TMY, in more precise terms so we know what you're indicating?

[Tmy]

I would like to know what proof would be needed in order to show that IDF targets civillians.

Do ya'll not agree with the notion that an organization can created an atmosphere that condones somthing. They condone the action by deciding not to do anything to correct the action.

[Tmy]

Huh? Could you say what you mean, TMY, in more precise terms so we know what you're indicating?

I thought the last one was clear. Its just everyone seems to be so tied to the literal definitions of "targets". If you hang with literal defininations then terrorist are only terrorists when only targeting civilians.

[webfusion]

From News Reports yesterday: "The Hezbollah shelling continued throughout the afternoon, as a large number of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells fell in Kiryat Shmona, Metulla and other northern Israel communities."

Are you trying to say that this attack on Israeli towns was not terrorism? Just curious, TMY, where you are coming from on this.

The IDF does not target civilians. No orders are given to do so, no strategy exists to do so, no political doctrine exists that they do so, no soldiers have come forward to say they have been asked to do so. As a military organization involved in an active combat role, with live fire directed against its members RIGHT NOW (http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=47491.EN) even as we are sitting here typing these words, I see nothing anywhere to indicate that the IDF perpetrates harming civilians as a goal or objective.

[Orwell]

Well, here we go again... This thread was about the IDF. And now the thread is becoming about Hezbollah. Whenever the subject of Israeli abuses comes up, one of the Israel apologists inevitably lures the thread away from Israeli abuses and starts talking about something or other that the enemies of Israel did, luring people away from the initial subject... (sigh)

[WildCat]

the IDF targets civilians, sometimes deliberately so. Read the damn links.
Now I see your confusion. You are claiming unintentional targeting of civilians, that's a non-sequitor isn't it? Unless, of course, you're re-defining what "target" means to suit your agenda. Much like the Kansas school board re-defining science to include the supernatural.

[webfusion]

Did Orwell say something useful? I missed it... (I really enjoy 'ignore', such a clever feature).

Israelis are attacked by rockets, mortars, bazookas, machine-gun fire, anti-tank rounds, TNT, suicide bombers, whatever.... Attacks are deliberately directed against innocent civilians.
IDF responds by precision targeting and carefully avoiding civilian casualties.

This thread is about INTENTIONAL and DIRECTED targeting by the IDF of non-combatants anywhere within shouting distance of the entire conflict (from Damascus to Natanz to Gaza to Ramallah).

Now, if somebody here can produce an example of the IDF going forward as a matter of doctrine to kill civilians, then such information would likely be of some importance to the discussion.

[Cleon]

Israelis are attacked by rockets, mortars, bazookas, machine-gun fire, anti-tank rounds, TNT, suicide bombers, whatever.... Attacks are deliberately directed against innocent civilians.
IDF responds by precision targeting and carefully avoiding civilian casualties.

Makes you wonder, then, how it is that the IDF winds up killing more civilians than the Palestinians do.

[webfusion]

I don't wonder at all ----
http://www.jafariyanews.com/2k3_news/august/23pales.jpg
GAZA CITY: Shouting revenge, an estimated 100,000 Palestinians took to the streets of Gaza City to march in a funeral procession for a Hamas top leader Ismael Abu Shaneb. As his green Hamas flag-shrouded body was carried aloft, a loudspeaker blared: “Abu Shaneb, rest in peace. Our armies will go forward. We are the men of the dark night.”
Ismael Abu Shaneb was killed along with two of his bodyguards on Thursday when Israeli helicopters fired missiles into their car in Gaza City.

Dark nights indeed.
Show your proof, Cleon.
We are waiting...

[Tmy]

From News Reports yesterday: "The Hezbollah shelling continued throughout the afternoon, as a large number of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells fell in Kiryat Shmona, Metulla and other northern Israel communities."

Are you trying to say that this attack on Israeli towns was not terrorism? Just curious, TMY, where you are coming from on this.
.

No. Of course its terrorism. Just as its a terror attack to blow up some checkpoint. But technically its not, since its a military checkpoint. Hell guess you can argue the plane crashing into the Pentagon was not a terror attack since it was a direct assault on a military institution. Do you think the people on that plane were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[webfusion]

Do us all a favor, TMY, and stop posting absurd questions which show even you have no idea what you mean by them.

[Tmy]

Do us all a favor, TMY, and stop posting absurd questions which show even you have no idea what you mean by them.

Ummmmm...........OK, but only if you stop excusing bad behavior by pointing out worse behavior by others.

Theres a fine line between reckless and deliberate. Thats all Im sayin.

[Orwell]

Now I see your confusion. You are claiming unintentional targeting of civilians, that's a non-sequitor isn't it? Unless, of course, you're re-defining what "target" means to suit your agenda. Much like the Kansas school board re-defining science to include the supernatural.

Deliberate: done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional.

It is possible to target civilians without doing so deliberately, like when a IDF soldier shoots at a kid who just threw a rock at him.

Deliberately so as in planned, like when the IDF levels homes with bulldozers. Nice try tough.

[Orwell]

http://qumsiyeh.org/targetingcivilians/
In an interview with Ha'aretz reporter Amira Hass, an Israeli sniper described the commands he receives from his superiors: "Twelve and up, you're allowed to shoot. That's what they tell us," he said. "So," responded the reporter "according to the IDF, (the appropriate minimum age group at which to shoot) is 12?" the soldier replied, "According to what the IDF says to its soldiers. I don't know if this is what the IDF says to the media."

Moshe Nissim, who operated a bulldozer for 75 straight hours in Jenin was quoted in Yediot Ahoronot:
"No one refused an order to take down a house. When they told me to destroy a house I exploited that in order to destroy a few more homes. On the loudspeaker (the Palestinian residents) were warned to get out before I came in. But I didn't give a chance to anyone. I didn't wait. I'm sure that people died inside of those houses. From my perspective we left them a football field, they should play there. The 100x100 was our present to the camp. Jenin will not return to be what it was." (Yedioth Ahronot, Friday 31 May 2002, translated by Alternative Information Center).

[Orwell]

New York Times journalist Chris Hedges stated: " And it was--I mean, I've seen kids shot in Sarajevo. I mean, snipers would shoot kids in Sarajevo. I've seen death squads kill families in Algeria or El Salvador. But I'd never seen soldiers bait or taunt kids like this and then shoot them for sport. It was--I just--even now, I find it almost inconceivable. And I went back every day, and every day it was the same." Full transcript: http://64.226.129.19/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=487

[Orwell]

http://hrw.org/press/2002/10/gaza1024.htm
At least 20 people were injured, nine of them children, when the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) prevented residents from evacuating their home while the IDF was demolishing the next-door house in Gaza, Human Rights Watch said in reporting eyewitness testimony today. The IDF actions violated provisions in international law against collective punishment, the destruction of private property, and the use of force against civilians, Human Rights Watch said.

[webfusion]

OK, but only if you stop excusing bad behavior by pointing out worse behavior by others.

I am not excusing IDF 'bad behavior', no sir, I am saying, in plain English, there is no targeted killing of civilians by the IDF and great pains are taken to avoid civilian deaths. I know of no other Armed Force anywhere that trains and deploys its troops in the manner of professionalism and responsibility as the IDF.

The 'bad behavior of others" (as you coyly put it) is actually beyond reprehensible and outside the bounds of civilized behavior as it is commonly defined on this planet. You just mentioned the actions of an Islamic Suicide group acting in unison on 9-11-01, and asked if it could perhaps be argued because the Pentagon got hit that it wasn't really terrorism, but a legitimate military operation? Isn't that what you asked? I cannot for the life of me see how you can use that example in the same thread with a discussion about the way the IDF acts. That's just unacceptable.

And a word for Orwell, who I just happened to notice (while I wasn't logged-in and the ignore was disabled) is now offering IDF bulldozing of vacant homes as evidence of how the Israeli Army targets civilians.
The IDF plans to avoid any casualties in those operations. Jenin was a war zone, 100% free-fire zone (and the "massacre" reported there was not as some described in their exaggerations, like Amira Hass, a Palestinian propogandist par-excellance). Our discussion here is about targeted KILLINGS of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, as a rule from the top down, as a matter of policy, as a matter of training, as a matter of intent, as a matter of purposeful action to go out together as a combat unit and intentionally murder innocent non-violent, non-rioting, unarmed, sitting around doing nothing, Palestinians.

That's what we are truly discussing, as far as I know, Orwell.
You don't want to, fine, continue being ignored by me, as you wish.

[Elind]

I know perfectly well that Palestinian terrorists target Israeli civilians. Just read the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reposts I put up. Now, does the IDF target Palestinian civilians? I know they do. Amnesty International says so, Human Rights Watch says so, other humanitarian organisations say so, my local newspaper says so...

My point all along is that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap. Both sides, Mycroft. Your inability to take a balanced approach to t
his is what has caused me to repeatedly call you a partisan hack.

And you are which kind of hack?

The kind that takes whatever crap is dished out without thought, or the kind with a deliberate agenda.

I've watched this sorry story for longer than you have and I know what so called "reports" to take at face value and which ones to piss on.

I hate to repeat the obvious, yet again, and again, but if you think what you stated is an accurate representation of anything you must truly be a young earth creationist.

You changed your sig from juvenile to pretend intellectual. Do you not realize it takes more to grow up?

Here we go sweety:covereyes

[Orwell]

I am not excusing IDF 'bad behavior', no sir, I am saying, in plain English, there is no targeted killing of civilians by the IDF and great pains are taken to avoid civilian deaths. I know of no other Armed Force anywhere that trains and deploys its troops in the manner of professionalism and responsibility as the IDF.

The 'bad behavior of others" (as you coyly put it) is actually beyond reprehensible and outside the bounds of civilized behavior as it is commonly defined on this planet. You just mentioned the actions of an Islamic Suicide group acting in unison on 9-11-01, and asked if it could perhaps be argued because the Pentagon got hit that it wasn't really terrorism, but a legitimate military operation? Isn't that what you asked? I cannot for the life of me see how you can use that example in the same thread with a discussion about the way the IDF acts. That's just unacceptable.

And a word for Orwell, who I just happened to notice (while I wasn't logged-in and the ignore was disabled) is now offering IDF bulldozing of vacant homes as evidence of how the Israeli Army targets civilians.
The IDF plans to avoid any casualties in those operations, Orwell, wouldn't you agree? Our discussion here is about targeted KILLINGS of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, as a rule from the top down, as a matter of policy, as a matter of training, as a matter of intent, as a matter of purposeful action to go out together as a combat unit and intentionally murder innocent non-violent, non-rioting, unarmed, sitting around doing nothing, Palestinians.

That's what we are truly discussing, as far as I know, Orwell.
You don't want to, fine, continue being ignored by me, as you wish.

This one has to be preserved for posterity.

[Mycroft]

It is possible to target civilians without doing so deliberately, like when a IDF soldier shoots at a kid who just threw a rock at him.

Can you cite an instance of this happening?

[Orwell]

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/mena.html
In an eighty-two page report, Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District, published in April, Human Rights Watch documented excessive use of force and unlawful killings by Israeli forces, Palestinian targeting of Israeli civilians, and a systematic policy of Israeli blockades and curfews that amounted to collective punishment. The report also brought to light a disturbing pattern of violence committed by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians in and around Hebron, often committed with the knowledge of Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers in the area. We urged the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority to take immediate steps to stop abuses by the forces under their control, and called for an independent, international monitoring presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to monitor and report on Israeli and Palestinian abuses.

[a_unique_person]

I am not excusing IDF 'bad behavior', no sir, I am saying, in plain English, there is no targeted killing of civilians by the IDF and great pains are taken to avoid civilian deaths. I know of no other Armed Force anywhere that trains and deploys its troops in the manner of professionalism and responsibility as the IDF.


As I have said before, you know the rules, and I believe you would follow them. However, when no-one is held responsible for the death of incidents like the young girl who was not just shot, but had a whole magazine emptied into her, in Gaza, then the IDF should be held responsible. As an organisation, it is not enforcing it's own rules of conduct.

[webfusion]

"So," responded the reporter "according to the IDF, (the appropriate minimum age group at which to shoot) is 12?" the soldier replied, "According to what the IDF says to its soldiers.

In the experience of the IDF, a 12-year-old is perfectly capable of joining in armed combat. (see: RPG kids, Lebanon War) In fact, just in the past few weeks, the IDF confronted some 12-year-old kids and SHOT THEM, even though they were holding toy weapons.

Tragic? Yep.
IDF targeting 12-year olds? Yep.
Armed 12-year olds.

[Orwell]

Israeli soldiers tell of indiscriminate killings by army and a culture of impunity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1563255,00.html)

"The reason why I am telling you this is that I want the army to think about what they are asking us to do, shooting unarmed people. I don't think it's legal."

Assaf is not alone. In recent months dozens of soldiers, including the son of an an Israeli general, all recently discharged, have come forward to share their stories of how they were ordered in briefings to shoot to kill unarmed people without fear of reprimand.

[Orwell]

Nine-year-old Abdel Salam Sumerin was killed yesterday when Israel Defense Forces troops used live fire to disperse a crowd of school children challenging the army's attempt to impose a curfew on the El Amari refugee camp, in El Bireh.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=210531&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

[Orwell]

Phil Reeves, The Independent, 30 August 2002
Salah al-Hajeen was one of at least six people blown up by a shell packed with some 3,000 inch-long arrows fired by an Israeli tank into a fruit-pickers' encampment in the orchards of Gaza.

Full article http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=328703

[Orwell]

2004 Amnesty International summary for the region. Sounds depressingly like 2005's report. I'm including all of it for the sake of fairness.

The Israeli army killed around 600 Palestinians, including more than 100 children. Most were killed unlawfully – in reckless shooting, shelling and bombing in civilian residential areas, in extrajudicial executions and through excessive use of force. Palestinian armed groups killed around 200 Israelis, at least 130 of them civilians and including 21 children, in suicide bombings and other deliberate attacks. Increasing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians imposed by the Israeli army throughout the Occupied Territories caused unprecedented poverty, unemployment and health problems. The Israeli army demolished several hundred Palestinian homes and destroyed large areas of cultivated land and hundreds of commercial and other properties. Israel stepped up the construction of a fence/wall, most of which cut deep into the West Bank. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were confined in enclaves and cut off from their land and essential services in nearby towns and villages. Israel’s expansion of illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories continued, further depriving Palestinians of natural resources such as land and water. Thousands of Palestinians were detained by the Israeli army. Most were released without charge, hundreds were charged with security offences against Israel and at least 1,500 were held in administrative detention without charge or trial. Trials before military courts did not meet international standards. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian detainees were widespread and Israeli soldiers used Palestinians as “human shields” during military operations. Certain abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted war crimes, including unlawful killings, obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel, extensive and wanton destruction of property, torture and the use of “human shields”. The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups constituted crimes against humanity. Scores of Israeli conscientious objectors who refused to perform military service were imprisoned and some were court-martialled.
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/isr-summary-eng

[webfusion]

As I have said before, you know the rules, and I believe you would follow them. However, when no-one is held responsible for the death of incidents like the young girl who was not just shot, but had a whole magazine emptied into her, in Gaza, then the IDF should be held responsible. As an organisation, it is not enforcing it's own rules of conduct.

The officer was arrested and put on trial. That is defined as 'enforcement'. He faced a proper and comprehensive Courts Martial, as do many other IDF soldiers for various breaches of the rules of combat and engagement. http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2004/israel/05/0405041021.html

Sure, he didn't receive the verdict you prefer. However, his acquittal was part of the system of justice, which sometimes frustrates us in the judgements issued. (see: OJ and BLAKE).

[Orwell]

"We, Air Force pilots who were raised on the values of Zionism, sacrifice, and contributing to the state of Israel, have always served on the front lines, willing to carry out any mission, whether small or large, to defend and strengthen the state of Israel.

We, veteran and active pilots alike, who served and still serve the state of Israel for long weeks every year, are opposed to carrying out attack orders that are illegal and immoral of the type the state of Israel has been conducting in the territories.

We, who were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise, refuse to take part in Air Force attacks on civilian population centers. We, for whom the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force are an inalienable part of ourselves, refuse to continue to harm innocent civilians.

These actions are illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society. Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength.

We who serve as active pilots - fighters, leaders, and instructors of the next generation of pilots -- hereby declare that we shall continue to serve in the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force for every mission in defense of the state of Israel."

Signed: Brigadier General Yiftah Spector, Colonel Yigal Shohat, Colonel Ran, Lieutenant Colonel Yoel Piterberg, Lieutenant Colonel David Yisraeli, Lieutenant Colonel Adam Netzer, Lieutenant Colonel Avner Ra'anan, Lieutenant Colonel Gideon Shaham, Major Haggai Tamir, Major Amir Massad, Major Gideon Dror, Major David Marcus, Major Professor Motti Peri, Major Yotam, Major Zeev Reshef, Major Reuven, Captain Assaf, Captain Tomer, Captain Ron, Captain Yonatan, Captain Allon, Captain Amnon"http://www.jfjfp.org/BackgroundW/refusenik_pilots.htm

[Orwell]

'We're air force pilots, not mafia. We don't take revenge' Israel's F-16 and Black Hawk refuseniks say why they could not obey illegal orders and kill innocent Palestinians. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1098456,00.html)
The line was crossed for most of the pilots with the dropping of the one-tonne bomb last year on the home of a Hamas military leader, Salah Shehade, killing him and 14 of his family, mostly children.

One captain described the bombing as deliberate killing, murder even. Another called it state terrorism, though some colleagues swiftly stomped on that interpretation. But they all agreed that the attack sowed the doubts that resulted a year later in the letter that sent shockwaves through the Israeli military.[...]"You don't have to be a genius to know that the destruction from a one-tonne bomb is massive, so someone up there made a decision to drop it knowing it would destroy buildings," he said. "Someone took the decision to kill innocent people. This is us being terrorists. This is vengeance."

[webfusion]

Yeah, some IDF soldiers & officers aren't thrilled with the tasks of war.
They are telling the reporters and the public that their missions to defend the state against insiduous and brutal terrorism is not to their liking. They may prefer to engage in air-to-air dogfights against other pilots flying similar jets. That is their training.

But dropping huge '****** bombs from way up in the air onto whatever happens to be on the ground is really quite normal for air force pilots.
(see: Enola Gay)

I cannot even imagine an IAF pilot saying:
"Nope, an operation to Natanz (IRAN) is out of the question, that facility has a school and a lot of homes around it, I decline to bomb the main target."

Go fly the mission, ace.

[Orwell]

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast.htmlThe Mounting Toll: Civilian Victims in the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Intensified and brutal clashes between Israeli military forces and Palestinian armed groups, and the abject failure of the relevant parties and the international community to ensure the protection of civilians, cast a long shadow over efforts to instill greater respect for international human rights and humanitarian law throughout the region. In 2002 three separate Human Rights Watch reports, summarized at the end of this overview, addressed the deteriorating conditions.

By November 2002, some 2,500 Palestinians and over 650 Israelis, many of them civilians, had been killed since violence erupted in September 2000. At least twenty-one thousand Palestinians and two thousand Israelis were injured, including individuals maimed for life. Both Israeli security forces and Palestinian armed groups committed grave breaches of the rules of war in deliberately attacking civilians or displaying serious and systematic disregard for innocent civilian lives. While old abuses continued and intensified, new ones appeared.[...]A major concern was the culture of impunity that had taken hold. Israeli authorities repeatedly failed to conduct timely or credible investigations into numerous IDF abuses, including unlawful or willful killings of Palestinian civilians. Where such investigations did occur, the results were rarely made public. The Palestinian Authority, in turn, failed to bring to justice those responsible for planning and carrying out suicide bombings or other attacks against Israeli civilians while it had capacity to do so. Both sides justified their violations of international law by pointing to the other side's repeated abuses of these very standards.

[Orwell]

Can you cite an instance of this happening?

Mr. HEDGES: Well, every afternoon--you know, you could almost time
it--around 3 or 4, the Palestinian kids, who have nowhere to play, would play--would go out on the dunes and they'd have kites or rag balls and this kind of stuff. And I remember--I heard it the first day. And I speak Arabic, so I'm listening over the loudspeaker to the worst curse words in Arabic, and phrases like, you know, 'All the Palestinians who live in Khan Yunis are dogs,' which is calling an Arab a dog is particularly insulting. And I couldn't--I just couldn't believe what I heard.

And I walked out towards the dunes and they were--the--over the
loudspeaker from an Israeli army Jeep on the other side of the electric fence they were taunting these kids. And these kids started to throw rocks. And most of these kids were 10, 11, 12 years old. And, first of all, the rocks were the size of a fist. They were being hurled towards a Jeep that was armor-plated. I doubt they could even hit the Jeep. And then I watched the soldiers open fire. And it was--I mean, I've seen kids shot in Sarajevo. I mean, snipers would shoot kids in Sarajevo. I've seen death squads kill families in Algeria or El Salvador. But I'd never seen soldiers bait or taunt kids like this and then shoot them for sport. It was--I just--even now, I find it almost inconceivable. And I went back every day, and every day it was the same.
http://64.226.129.19/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=487

[webfusion]

Abuses are well-known to occur. Nobody is even making an assertation that such problems do not exist and that no tragic deaths have happened as the result of various IDF missions and operations, Orwell.

You are posting frantically trying to show that people are dying as a result of the IDF operationally and sytematically targeting civilians, but that spurious claim of yours is not supported by anything you have brought forward.

Let's just take one case, at random, since you're throwing so many instances out there and not even taking the time to evaluate the circumstances and whether there is an objective to kill innocent civilians.

Nine-year-old Abdel Salam Sumerin was killed yesterday when Israel Defense Forces troops used live fire to disperse a crowd of school children challenging the army's attempt to impose a curfew on the El Amari refugee camp, in El Bireh.
------ Live fire.
Against nine-year old school kids. Wow. That's really brutal, the IDF is obviously intent on murdering those kids, firing right at them, mowing them down like they deserve.
Wait a sec. How many bullets were fired? Hundreds? Thousands? Point-blank with automatic weapons in the hands of trained IDF troops, and one kid is killed? How come? These troops must really be bad shots!
------ Curfew.
Why did the Army wish to impose a curfew? What was going on in the district? Was the IDF Military Commander just in the mood to punish everyone in ElAmari, for the heck of it? Maybe it seemed like a good way to keep his men busy, and that detachment was sent up to the school with their orders, "shoot the kids"
------- Challenging.
How were these little kids any threat to a fully-equipped IDF patrol? It seems almost absurd to think of how a group of children could even provoke an armed fighting unit to open live fire. Yet they did, somehow.

(Note to Orwell: I've seen it happen, if you want a description of that situation from the perspective of an IDF veteran like myself ::::::: two or three hundred 'schoolkids' aged 8-17 all suddenly surround your unit of maybe 5 guys, throwing rocks and bottles and iron bars, many using slingshots which can send decent-sized stones flying at missile velocity right at your face, and sometimes even supported by gunmen shooting from behind the mob, using the civilian melee/riot for cover. The noise is incredible, shouts of "Kill the Jews, Kill the Bastards" erupts in unison, barrages of debris raining down on you, and you're thinking one thing and one thing only, "I have 28 rounds in the clip and the only way we'll get outta of here alive is to stick close with my buddies and fire into that crowd to keep the mob at bay from swarming over us")

I'm here to relate...

[Orwell]

I'm not franticly posting, Webfusion... The kind of stuff I'm linking is widely available on the web. Just google for it. I'm just acknowledging that it is pointless to argue about these things with you, so I just let the facts speak for themselves. By the way, I don't claim that all Palestinians are poor innocent victims of Israeli oppression. But as I said before, both sides are guilty of a lot of crap. Any balanced assessment of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict must start with that.

And while you waste your time trying to explain away the inexcusable, I'll just keep happily posting these links away...

[Orwell]

http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/200505_Take_No_Prisoners.asp
According to B’Tselem’s figures, since the beginning of 2004, Israelis security forces have killed eighty-nine Palestinians during operations that the defense establishment refers to as arrest operations. At least seventeen of the persons killed were not wanted by Israel, but were civilians who were not suspected by Israel of having committed any offense. In addition, at least forty-three of those killed were unarmed, or were not attempting to use their arms against Israeli security forces at the time they were killed. None of these cases were investigated by the Military Police investigation unit.

[Art Vandelay]

Ah, Orwell. Yet again you live up to your name. You redefine terms, then call people "partisan hacks" when they refuse to accept your Newspeak.


Ask yourself this. If the IDF is chasing a terrorist and he runs into a crowd of Israelies, would the IDF react the same than if he ran into a crowd of Palistinians?Ask yourself this: if a terrorist runs into a crowd of Israelies, would the crowd react the same as if the terrorist ran into a crowd of Palestinians? In the latter case, the IDF probably wouldn't have to give chase; the terrorist would be dead before they got there. It's really stretching the word "civilian" to apply it to someone who is helping a terrorist escape by providing their body as a shield.


Cleon
Makes you wonder, then, how it is that the IDF winds up killing more civilians than the Palestinians do. Because anti-Israelis call pretty anyone the IDF kills a "civilian"? Technically, since Palestine isn't an official state, they don't have an official army, so every Palestinian can be considered a "civilian", making the term rather meaningless.

If the IDF really is so ruthless in attacking Palestinian mobs, why are Palestinians so eager to join mobs? Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that the IDF kills demonstrators. Isn't it therefore reasonable to suspect that one of the purposes of demostrations is to supply more "martyrs"? Given how people like you keep repeating this "point" like it means that Palestinians are the victims, there's clearly a strong motivation for Palestinians to encourage these killings.

Palestinians should have a pretty good idea by now what will get them killed. So why do they keep doing it? When they're in a demonstration, and they see someone throwing rocks at the IDF, why don't they either grab the rocks away from the guy, or run away? As far as I'm concerned, anyone who voluntarily stands between the IDF and a combatant is a combatant. If you're on the field, you're part of the team, even if you never touch the ball.

[a_unique_person]

The officer was arrested and put on trial. That is defined as 'enforcement'. He faced a proper and comprehensive Courts Martial, as do many other IDF soldiers for various breaches of the rules of combat and engagement. http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2004/israel/05/0405041021.html

Sure, he didn't receive the verdict you prefer. However, his acquittal was part of the system of justice, which sometimes frustrates us in the judgements issued. (see: OJ and BLAKE).

A girl was shot, in pretty simple circumstances. It was only a member of the IDF who did it, and there were only a few people at the scene who could have committed the act. In the OJ case, there were no eye witnesses, even if it was pretty clear that he did do it. In this case, there were eye witnesses. Apparently they were accused of framing the accused man. Of what, I don't know, because if he didn't do it, then one of them must have. But the radio communications makes clear who did it.

I have been on jury duty. The judge made it clear what the rules of evidence are. Even if you don't see it happen, if you can place the accused at the scene, and someone is killed, and no-one else could have done it, then it must have been the accused. I have read of some people being shot in Gaza, that it could have been anyone. In this case, there was never any question that it could have been anyone else.

[Mycroft]

I have been on jury duty. The judge made it clear what the rules of evidence are. Even if you don't see it happen, if you can place the accused at the scene, and someone is killed, and no-one else could have done it, then it must have been the accused.


Good god, you're a master propagandist. You know damned well the issue isn't if he was there or not, nobody disputes that he shot the girl, yet you still print this. Have you no shame?

[Mycroft]

I'm not franticly posting, Webfusion...

Your claim is that the IDF targets civilians. When asked to support that claim, you post link after link, twenty-three of them, which are apparently just random links from Google all of which are critical of Israel.

Do any of those links claim the IDF targets civilians?

Well, to be fair to you, two of them do. One a claim from B’tselem that claims the IDF targeted some ambulances, and another article written by Chris Hedges that was never corroborated and thoroughly debunked by Honest Reporting years ago.

You apparently weren’t even looking for anything that shows the IDF targets civilians, you think it’s enough to show that civilians are killed or that Palestinians suffer in the conflict.

Twenty-three links, and only two of them said anything close to what you are claiming.

I don’t believe any one negative thing said about Israel proves any other negative thing said about Israel. That seems like common sense to me, but apparently it’s not so obvious to many on the other side of the argument. If someone claims that the IDF targets civilians, I expect to see links that show the IDF targeting civilians as proof. I do not expect to see links that show that Israel closing their border causes financial hardship for the Palestinians or links that show checkpoints making it difficult for Palestinians to get to school or work, or even links that show how many Palestinian civilians died in the conflict. These are all very real issues, quite worth discussing, but they are also different issues from the IDF targeting civilians.

That’s not a difficult concept to understand, or at least it shouldn’t be. How come you have so much trouble with it?

[Cleopatra]

Orwell my boy.

First of all I thought that the comment in the other thread was posted in a tongue in cheek manner and you don't deserve to be chased for that but it turns out that this thread demonstrates how people form their views regarding Israel.

You will have great difficulty in proving that IDF deliberately targets civilians. Posting articles that demonstrate collateral damages doesn't constitute proof of your claim.

IDF knows that International Media that have the worse of intentions towards the country and its Army scrutinize everything that happens and they ready to report the minor incident.

IDF themselves scrutinize every report of unnecessary violence towards civilians but keep in your mind that IDF's soliders are people like you,they have nothing in common with the soldiers in Abu Graib for example.

Imagine yourself chased by "poor kids" with petrol bombs in their hands, or fighting with people that don't hesitate to use Red Cross' ambulancies for their terrorists acts and you will feel surprized by the very low amount of accidents caused by IDF.

[a_unique_person]

There are two documented cases that come to mind. The IS british citizen who was shot, and the small girl in Gaza. I am not making any claims as to the extent of the issue, but these two cases do appear to be clear.

The only reason the death of the british citizen was brought to a conclusion was because of the ability of his parents to bring diplomatic pressure to bear.

[Chaos]

Assuming these two cases are genuine (I´m not familiar with them) - are these cases of soldiers spontaneously targeting civilians, or an IDF policy for targeting civilians? The latter seems extremely unlikely due to the low number for a period of almost 60 years, even if these are only the cases documented beyond doubt.

[a_unique_person]

According to Webfusion, and I have no reason to doubt him, it is not IDF policiy to target civilians. However, it does not appear, to me, to be be policy to control those who do, which is tantamount to unofficial endorsement of such acts.

[WildCat]

Imagine a shooting competition where Orwell makes the rules. Everyone would get a perfect score, because even a complete miss is a perfect hit by his rules, because the target isn't defined by what you're shooting at but by wherever the bullet hits.

Orwell, over at the paranormal part of this forum Kilik was fond of "proving" his points by posting link after link without any comment. He proved nothing in the end, and neither have you. Either you have a complete inability to comprehend what's being asked of you (find a link that claims IDF targets civilians) or you're being deliberately evasive. Mycroft gave a crystal clear example with ”The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups constituted crimes against humanity.” You have not given a single such example, nor a shred of evidence.

[zenith-nadir]

Ask yourself this: if a terrorist runs into a crowd of Israelies, would the crowd react the same as if the terrorist ran into a crowd of Palestinians?No.

Word's are great JREFers but let's see some pictures to illustrate why Palestinian civilians get killed in this conflict much too often.

http://backspin.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/kids_1.JPG

(img courtesy of typepad.com)... Look at the Palestinian civilians behind the islamist gunman in the foreground. Who's likely to get hit in a firefight with the IDF?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39442000/jpg/_39442994_gunman.jpg

(img courtesy of BBC)... Look at the Palestinian civilian children behind the islamist RPG militant in the foreground. Who's likely to get hit in a firefight with the IDF?

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050411/capt.sge.fxe66.110405160533.photo02.photo.default-384x262.jpg

(img courtesy of Yahoo)... Look at the Palestinian civilians cowering behind the islamist gunmen. Who's likely to get hit in a firefight with the IDF?

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/images/Gunmen-Gaza-20040511.jpg

(img courtesy of science.co.il)... Look at the Palestinian civilians and children behind the islamist gunmen. Who's likely to get hit in a firefight with the IDF?

http://www.detnews.com/pix/2002/03/10/a05mideast1.jpg

(img courtesy of detnews.com)... Look at the Palestinian civilians and children behind the islamist gunmen firing recklessly into the air. Who's likely to get hit in a firefight with the IDF?

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/rafah-killers-with%20kids.jpg

(img courtesy of mac.com)... Look at the Palestinian civilian teens behind the islamist gunmen. Who's likely to get hit in a firefight with the IDF?

http://www.israelactivism.com/hrcampus/images/gaza_gunman_in_crowd.jpg

(img courtesy of israelactivism.com)... Look at the Palestinian civilians surrounding the islamist gunmen with their bodies. Who's likely to get hit in a firefight with the IDF?

http://www.intelligence.org.il/sp/sib3_04/images/k_11t.jpg

(img courtesy of intelligence.org.il)... Look at the Palestinian civilians cowering behind the islamist gunmen. Who's likely to get hit in a firefight with the IDF? They are hiding from something... and the gunmen are firing at something... I bet it's the IDF.

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/images/Rocket-Launcher-2-Gaza-20040511.jpg

(img courtesy of science.co.il)... Look at the Palestinian civilian children walking near the islamist rocket squad. Who's likely to get hit in a firefight with the IDF? Where are the Palestinian Authority police? How come armed rocket squads are allowed to roam feely on Palestinian streets amongst civilians?

I could literally post hundreds of examples where Islamist Palestinian terrorists use noncombatant Palestinian civilians for cover and concealment.

Now tell me when you read those human rights reports about Palestinian civilian casualties did they say anything about these civilians surrounding the combatants? Nope. Do the human rights reports clearly say in a preamble that said Palestinian combatants use Palestinian civilian areas to hide in and operate from? Nope. Do the human rights reports clearly tackle the very real and serious problem the IDF faces every single day whereby armed Palestinian rocket squads/gunmen/militants/suicide bombers are allowed to roam freely on Palestinian streets by the Palestinian Authority? Nope.

Am I lying? Nope. Are your eyes lying to you? Nope. Did I photoshop all those images just to make it look like Islamist Palestinian terrorists use noncombatant Palestinian civilians for cover? Nope.

So then who's responsibility is it to protect Palestinian civilians Orwell? The IDF? The Palestinian Authority? Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Syria? Iran? Who's responsibility is it in your country to seperate armed terrorists from your noncombatant civilian population JREfers? Your government? Another government? The armed terrorists? Spiderman? Batman?

And this is why reading human rights reports do not always paint a complete picture. Yes Palestinian civilians get killed, yes there are abuses by the IDF - they are only human after all and not emotionless superbeings.

Sadly in this war the Palestinian Authority DOESN'T LIFT A FINGER to seperate the militant Palestinian combatants from the civilian Palestinian non-combatants. The civilian Palestinian non-combatants are used as cover and concealment by the militant Palestinian combatants from the IDF. And I just proved it repeatedly in pictures. Hell, these islamist militants don't even have the guts to wear proper uniforms with a fixed symbol recognizable at a distance, they often are dressed like noncombatant civilians! The picutres prove it.

Firefights between militant Palestinian combatants and the IDF it causes many civilian deaths. Does that mean the IDF has a doctrine to kill civilians? Nope.

[Orwell]

You will have great difficulty in proving that IDF deliberately targets civilians. Posting articles that demonstrate collateral damages doesn't constitute proof of your claim.

IDF knows that International Media that have the worse of intentions towards the country and its Army scrutinize everything that happens and they ready to report the minor incident.

IDF themselves scrutinize every report of unnecessary violence towards civilians but keep in your mind that IDF's soliders are people like you,they have nothing in common with the soldiers in Abu Graib for example.

Imagine yourself chased by "poor kids" with petrol bombs in their hands, or fighting with people that don't hesitate to use Red Cross' ambulancies for their terrorists acts and you will feel surprized by the very low amount of accidents caused by IDF.

Cleo, my dear,

I don't feel like having a debate on semantics. If you drop one-tonne bombs on a residential neighbourhood, it is inevitable that you are going to kill civilians. If you destroy bulldozed residential homes without giving warning to the people inside, you are going to kill civilians. If you shoot at a manifestation with live ammo, you are going to kill civilians, if you use bystanders as human shields, there's a good chance that they gonna get wacked. It's predictible, it can be very easily anticipated. Considering this, I really don't think a discussion of what the word "deliberate" means is necessary.

Also, I'm sure that there have been occasions were there were "poor kids" with cocktail molotovs, but see, I posted an eye-witness account (link here:http://64.226.129.19/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=487) where the journalist describes an incident that didn't involve cocktail molotovs.

Yes, I guess there must have been many cases were the IDF has investigated abuses, but all the human rights organisations talk of a "culture of impunity" in the IDF, and they mention that this got much worse in the last 5 years.

Now, I acknowledge that there can be media bias against the IDF, but you must consider that I also included reposts from three different human rights organisations, and some of my links included reports from a couple of Israeli newspapers. I even linked to people who are in the IDF and who don't agree with IDF practices.

[Orwell]

From the first day, those killed or wounded in Jenin and Nablus could not be buried or receive medical treatment. Bodies remained in the street as residents who ventured outside to attend to the dead or injured were fired on. Tanks travelling through narrow streets ruthlessly sliced off the outer walls of houses; much destruction of property by tanks was wanton and unnecessary. In one appalling and extensive operation, the IDF demolished, destroyed by explosives or flattened by army bulldozers a large residential area of Jenin refugee camp, much of it after the fighting had apparently ended.

In the four months between 27 February and the end of June 2002 - the period of the two major IDF offensives and the reoccupation of the West Bank - the IDF killed nearly 500 Palestinians. Although many Palestinians died during armed confrontations, many of these IDF killings appeared to be unlawful and more than 70 of the victims were children. Over 8,000 Palestinians detained in mass round-ups during the same period were routinely ill-treated and more than 3,000 Palestinian homes were demolished.

The number of Israelis killed by Palestinian armed groups and individuals also increased: in the four months up to the end of June more than 250 Israelis were killed, including 164 civilians; 32 of those killed were children.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE151492002

[Cleopatra]

Instead of starting chasing my tail here the way Diasy does let me try to get this straight.

Orwel, do you seriously suggest that IDF deliberately targets civilians?

I hope that you will show some respect to the old lady here and you won't put her in the position to explain you why "dropping bombs" in urban areas doesn't equate to " targeting civilians deliberately".

I hope that everybody here understands that this claim is really serious.

[zenith-nadir]

Cleo, my dear, I don't feel like having a debate on semantics. If you drop one-tonne bombs on a residential neighbourhood, it is inevitable that you are going to kill civilians.Obviously you are refering to the assasination of the combatant Salah Shehadeh. Salah Shehadeh was the leader of Hamas’ military wing, Iz Adin al-Kassam, which he helped to found in 1987. He wasn't some low-level operative or a flunky, Shehadeh was the leader of Hamas’ military wing and directly responsible for dozens of attacks against both Israeli military personnel and civilians. Hundreds of people were killed, maimed for life or wounded because of Salah Shehadeh. On July 22, 2002 Israel dropped a one-ton bomb on an apartment in Gaza City, killing Hamas military wing leader Salah Shehadeh, 16 civilians were also killed.

Do I think it was ok that Palestinian civilians were killed in the "retirement" of a combatant who happened to be the leader of Hamas’ military wing? Nope. Do most Israelis?...nope. Did you know Orwell that the apartment Salah Shehadeh was in at the time of the bombing was an operational hideout and a Hamas safe house? I bet you had no idea.

Is that Israel's fault that the Palestinian Authority allows militant groups to use civilians areas - such as this apartment - for bases of operation? Nope. Should Israel just have arrested him? Why yes. In fact that was tried and tried again, but you know what Orwell?, Salah Shehadeh spent lots of his time hiding underground, he was protected by Hamas because he knew and they knew the IDF wanted to arrest him for murder and terrorism. And the Palestinian Authority never lifted a finger to arrest or detain Salah Shehadeh. They never lift a finger to seperate Palestinian combatants from noncombatant Palestinians.

Previous failures by Israel to arrest Shehadeh had disastrous results for Israelis, many many deaths...after all Orwell, Salah Shehadeh was the leader of Hamas’ military wing - a terrorist and a combatant.

Israel's dilemma is it must deal with murderers like Salah Shehadeh and the non-performance of the Palestinian Authority. Now the debate can be made - and it has - that the Israelis target civilians. You give this event as one example. Yet not targeting Salah Shehadeh - when Israel found out exactly where he was - would have meant more terror and death for Israelis. But that side of the issue is moot, since the bombing of the the leader of Hamas’ military wing, Iz Adin al-Kassam in a Hamas safe house is being used as proof that Israelis target civilians.

[Orwell]

Cleo, the line between negligence and deliberation is a mighty fine one, and very hard to place. What you may call collateral damage easily blurs into deliberate targeting. Read the links.

[Orwell]

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/06/26/isrlpa925.htm
Human Rights Watch today called upon Israel to halt indiscriminate and reprisal attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Lebanon. The organization also called upon Hizballah to refrain from carrying out indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians in Qiryat Shemona and other communities in northern Israel. Since Thursday, the attacks have claimed the lives of two Israeli civilians and at least eight Lebanese civilians. Israeli officials explicitly stated that the attacks were reprisals against the Lebanese civilian population. Internal Security Minister Avigdor Kahalani said that he wanted "all the inhabitants of Lebanon feel what all of Israel feels." Reprisals, when aimed at civilians or civilian objects, violate international humanitarian law.

[Orwell]

ZN, if the IDF is willing to kill innocent bystanders in order to get the bad guys, then the IDF is effectively saying that the ends justify the means. The IDF is, therefore, effectively abdicating any claims of moral superiority: Palestinian extremists too don't shy away from killing civilians in order to achieve their ends.

[Jocko]

ZN, if you're willing to kill civilians and innocent bystanders in order to get the bad guys, then you are effectively saying that the ends justify the means. You are effectively abdicating any claims of moral superiority relative to your enemies. In this case, they too don't shy away from killing civilians in order to achieve their ends.

Perhaps - but he's NOT effectively saying they "target civilians," which was your reason for even starting this thread. If you'd begun with the post above, this would have turned out very differently, no?

So are you going to concede that you overstated your case?

[Orwell]

Perhaps - but he's NOT effectively saying they "target civilians," which was your reason for even starting this thread. If you'd begun with the post above, this would have turned out very differently, no?

So are you going to concede that you overstated your case?

I didn't start this thread, Mycroft did. I didn't overstated my case. A few posters overstated my case, probably in order to build a straw man. All I've said is that the IDF targets civilians, sometimes deliberately. I have provided many links that support this.

As I repeatedly said, all I'm trying to show is that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap. Any discussion of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that doesn't take this into account is one sided. The inability of Mycrofty, Webfusion, Zenith-Nadir, amongst others, to take a balanced approach to this is what has caused me to repeatedly call them partisan hacks, and it also what has prompted me to start posting these links away.

[Orwell]

Also, if the IDF drops a bomb to kill in order to kill a particular person, knowing that innocent bystanders are going to get killed, then the IDF is effectively deliberately targeting civilians (along with the alleged bad guy).

[Orwell]

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/gaza/Over the past four years, the Israeli military has demolished over 2,500 Palestinian houses in the occupied Gaza Strip.3 Nearly two-thirds of these homes were in Rafah, a densely populated refugee camp and city at the southern end of the Gaza Strip on the border with Egypt. Sixteen thousand people — more than ten percent of Rafah’s population — have lost their homes, most of them refugees, many of whom were dispossessed for a second or third time. [...]This report documents these and other illegal demolitions. Based on extensive research in Rafah, Israel, and Egypt, it places many of the IDF’s justifications for the destruction, including smugglers’ tunnels and threats to its forces on the border, in serious doubt. The pattern of destruction, it concludes, is consistent with the goal of having a wide and empty border area to facilitate long-term control over the Gaza Strip. Such a goal would entail the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods, regardless of whether the homes in them pose a specific threat to the IDF, and would greatly exceed the IDF’s security needs. It is based on the assumption that every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber and every home a potential base for attack. Such a mindset is incompatible with two of the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian law (IHL): the duty to distinguish combatants from civilians and the responsibility of an Occupying Power to protect the civilian population under its control.

[Jocko]

I didn't start this thread, Mycroft did. I didn't overstated my case. A few posters overstated my case, probably in order to build a straw man. All I've said is that the IDF targets civilians, sometimes deliberately. I have provided many links that support this.

Apologies, I meant the your quote was the reason for starting this thread. However, the "deliberate targeting" you insist occurs hasn't been borne out in your examples, and a lot of people are telling you this.

As I repeatedly said, I'll I'm trying to show is that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap. Any discussion of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that doesn't take this into account is one sided. The inability of Mycrofty, Webfusion, Zenith-Nadir, amongst others, to take a balanced approach to this is what has caused me to repeatedly call them partisan hacks, and it also what has prompted me to start posting these links away.

Well, when you insist the IDF is basically in the murder business, can you be surprised when they don't take you seriously? Just like you don't take them seriously because of their bias?

Like I said... your evidence makes a case that the IDF may be too willing to incur civilian casualties - an important question in itself - but not that they "deliberately target" them. Your definition is so loose as to be worthless; it applies to every nation that ever fielded a soldier. Civilian casualties happen, but there's a different standard to meet if you want to say they're being targeted.

[Cleopatra]

Cleo, the line between negligence and deliberation is a mighty fine one, and very hard to place. What you may call collateral damage easily blurs into deliberate targeting. Read the links.

Orwell if you knew me better, you would know that the statement above is the safest way to drive me crazy. I don't aknowledge the existence of fine lines. I mean that I do see them but their existence has never prevented me from having the courage to form and opinion and express it. I am not hiding behind " fine lines".

If you believe that your claim has been exaggerated just say it so. You behave like an adolescent now, maybe you are I don't know but this is what my gut feeling says.

I am here for 2,5 years and this is the worse accusation I have seen on line against IDF>

Do you have any idea what it means to suggest that an Army deliberately attacks civilians?
I am certain that you don't know what it means. You need huge quantities of evidence to support this claim and please, don't take me wrong but if this evidence existed ,human rights watch dogs, news wires , human rights organizations,et cetera wouldn't expect you to come with your revelations,they would already know it.

What upsets me though is that your ego is more precious that your ratio. Just say that you exaggerated and let's move on.

[Mycroft]

Also, if the IDF drops a bomb to kill in order to kill a particular person, knowing that innocent bystanders are going to get killed, then the IDF is effectively deliberately targeting civilians (along with the alleged bad guy).

No.

If you target the bad guy and civilians get killed, it's still the bad-guy that was targeted, not the civilians.

When the United States killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, they dropped a large bomb on the restaurant where they were. Presumably, this also killed their entourage plus the cooks, waiters and any other staff on duty at the time.

But these other people were not the targets, Uday and Qusay were.

In 1944 when Von Stauffenberg planted a bomb to assassinate Hitler, he knew damned well the bomb would also kill other high ranking Nazis, but the target was Hitler, not the others.

You make “effectively” into a weasel word. When you use it, it means ”not really, but in my opinion the difference is unimportant.”

[Orwell]

Palestinian suicide bomber: we are targeting this Israeli bus. The target is the bus, not the civilians inside the bus. It is the bus that is being targeted, not the people inside the bus. The fact that we are going to target the bus in a place and time where the bus will be filled with innocent bystanders is just an accident of circumstances, collateral damage, if you will. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

[Orwell]

You people obviously having been reading the links (I am being charitable here)...

[Jocko]

You people obviously having been reading the links (I am being charitable here)...

Orwell, you overplayed your hand. Please acknowledge it and move on. There's no point in you proving over and over again that civilians die, and pretending that others can't see the difference between targeted and collateral damage.

We can, and I'm sure you can too.

[Orwell]

:rolleyes:

[Orwell]

http://hrw.org/reports/1996/Israel.htmMoreover, although the first stage of Operation Accountability was marked by a number of precision attacks by the IDF on purported guerrilla targets, the IDF engaged in wide-scale shelling during the rest of the operation. The damage done during the shelling was then justified as necessary as a deterrent.18 One express aim of Operation Accountability was to punish the inhabitants ofsouthern Lebanon for Hizballah's activities. The extensive nature of the damage sustained in numerous southern Lebanese villages confirms this stated intent.19 Human Rights Watch has found that in addition to the large number of civilian homes damaged, the basic infrastructure of many villages had been targeted and destroyed. By the end of Operation Accountability, conservative damage estimates suggested that some 1,000 houses had been totally destroyed, 1,500 houses had been partially destroyed, and 15,000 houses had sustained light damage.20 Israeli forces cut civilian water and electricity supplies, damaged schools, mosques and churches, and targeted a number of cemeteries with shell fire.

[Mycroft]

Palestinian suicide bomber: we are targeting this Israeli bus. The target is the bus, not the civilians inside the bus. It is the bus that is being targeted, not the people inside the bus. The fact that we are going to target the bus in a place and time where the bus will be filled with innocent bystanders is just an accident of circumstances, collateral damage, if you will. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Except it's the other way around. The target is the people inside the bus, the bus itself is not the target. If it were, it would be easy to just set it on fire, along with a bunch of other busses, back at the bus yard when it's parked for the night.

When you have to create alternate definitions for words to make your point, all you do is demonstrate extreme narrow mindedness that can't be touched by any new information or rational debate. I guess it's probably satisfying from your point of view, but it's not exactly honest.

[zenith-nadir]

ZN, if you're willing to kill civilians and innocent bystanders in order to get the bad guys, then you are effectively saying that the ends justify the means, and you are abdicating any claims of moral superiority relative to your enemies. They too don't shy away from killing civilians in order to achieve their ends.No. Wrong.

What I am saying is this is. The combatants on the Palestinian side disguise themselves as noncombatants. When they strike inside Israel they also disguise themselves as noncombatants. The combatants on the Palestinian side hide amongst Palestinian noncombatants using noncombatant Palestinian buildings and civilian areas for cover and concealment. The Palestinian Authority makes no effort and takes no responsibility for separating the Palestinian combatants from the Palestinian noncombatants.

You say Israel targets civilians, I say the use of Palestinian noncombatants to shelter Palestinian combatants makes the Palestinian noncombatants the targets of retaliation. Big difference. Likewise it is extremely difficult for the IDF when you have a co-mingled population - that is, when you have gun-toting combatants dressed like, and mixed with, Palestinian noncombatants.

I know beyond any doubt in my mind that 99.95% of all Israelis would love to abdicate the responsibility to arrest, detain and even kill the combatants of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. I know it as a certainty. The Israelis would like the Palestinian Authority to take the responsibility to arrest, detain and kill the combatants of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades...Per their obligations in the following agreements that they signed:


Israel-PLO Recognition, September 9-10, 1993
Israel-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, (Oslo 1) September 13, 1993
Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, May 4, 1994
Agreement on the Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities (Israel-PLO), August 29, 1994.
Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, September 28, 1995
Agreement on Temporary International Presence in Hebron, May 9, 1996
Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron, January 17, 1997
The Wye River Plantation Agreement (1998)
The Sharm el Sheikh Agreement (1999)
Palestinian-Israeli Security Implementation Work Plan (Tenet Plan) June 15 2001
The Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict April 30, 2003


Unfortunately Orwell so far not one of those treaties the PA signed has convinced the PA to act on it's obligations.

I do not condone Palestinian noncombatant deaths, I merely have enough grey matter to realize why it happens. It is not because "the IDF target civilians" it is because the Palestinian combatants are allowed by the Palestinian Authority to disguise themselves and hide amongst Palestinian noncombatants.

If you are such a fanatic about Palestinian noncombatant deaths don't you ever ask yourself why the people responsible for protecting the Palestinian people - the Palestinian Authority - has never taken serious and tangible actions against the combatants?

Think about it for just a second then you can go back hating the IDF.., the Palestinian Authority knowingly allows Palestinian combatants to dress like, and hide amongst, Palestinian noncombatants. This inaction by the PA to stop combatants - per the several treaties above - results in Palestinian noncombatants being killed in combat on Palestinian streets. It's cruel and inhumane to allow your own people to be used by the combatants this way.

And frankly, to know beyond any doubt that Palestinian combatants are endangering the lives of Palestinian noncombatants and Israelis while doing nothing concrete about it shows gross negligence.

For instance:

Sept. 23, 2005 - http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/12721950.htm

A truck filled with masked militants and homemade weapons exploded at a Hamas rally Friday, killing at least 15 Palestinians and wounding 80 - including children - bringing a grisly and terrifying end to one of the last gatherings by armed groups celebrating Israel's Gaza pullout.
So what did Hamas say about it?Hamas swiftly claimed Israeli aircraft had targeted the militants with a missile. "We will avenge the blood of our martyrs," said Nizar Rayan, a Hamas leader.What did the Palestinian Authority do about it?Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, struggling to combat the chaos and the public display of arms in Gaza, wrested a pledge from militant groups to stop holding military-style parades with weapons after Saturday.Nothing. The Palestinian Authority arrested no one for mass murder nor did they ban Hamas from operating in Gaza for mass murder. All Abbas did was to "wrest a pledge from militant groups to stop holding military-style parades".

Welcome to Israel's decades-old dilemma.

[Jocko]

http://hrw.org/reports/1996/Israel.htm

Why not include the citation, Orwell?

18 A senior IDF commander, Maj.-Gen. Me'ir Dagan, declared that "Katyushas are easy to conceal and launch, and hard to detect, thus necessitating an ongoing operation to damage the Hizballah infrastructure which would then have a deterrent effect on the organization's willingness to fire Katyushas at Israeli settlements." "IDF Deputy Operations Branch Head on Lebanon," Educational Television Network, July 26, 1993, in FBIS-NES-93-141, July 26, 1993, p. 29.

Gee, sounds reasonable to me. Amazing what happens when you include context. What's really funny is that you accuse others of not reading your links.

[zenith-nadir]

Gee, sounds reasonable to me. Many things sound reasonable when you put them in context. For instance much has been made about Israeli checkpoints, how it humiliates Palestinians, hurts their economy and is a form of collective punishment.

When put into context the necessity for Israeli checkpoints was created by the Palestinian combatants - who the PA refuses to stop.

On Wednesday, soldiers caught a 16-year-old Palestinian boy wearing a suicide bomb belt at a busy checkpoint in the West Bank.

25 Mar 2004 - http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/24/world/hamas20040324


A 14 year old Palestinian boy was arrested at the Hawara checkpoint from the city of Nablus, this Sunday. Authorities say he was carrying a belt which contained two pipe bombs and a lighter, which he planned to use on the checkpoint.

May 24, 2005 - http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2233897244

A woman on a suicide bombing mission who was caught at an Israeli checkpoint had 20lbs of high explosives hidden in her underwear.

June 22, 2005 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/22/wbomb22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/22/ixnewstop.html

Those are just some recent examples. By pursuing a violent terror campaign against Israeli civilians, the Palestinian combatants - which the Palestinian Authority refuses to disarm - have forced Israel to set up barriers to make it as difficult as possible for combatants to enter Israel or to travel through the territories. This causes great hardships for noncombatant Palestinians, but what should Israel do if the Palestinian Authority refuses to act against Palestinian combatants?

Ironically when I cross the border in the US there are checkpoints to prevent people from illegally entering the US. I could sit there for an hour, even two hours sometimes crossing by car into Canada or Mexico. I can go to any airport in the world and pass through several checkpoints before I ever reach my plane. Sometimes I spend a good hour in line waiting for my turn at the customs checkpoint. Yet the argument is rarely made that those checkpoints "humiliate" people or are a form of collective punishment.

Now put the word "israeli" in front of the word checkpoint and it's a whole new ball game... ;)

[Cleopatra]

Palestinian suicide bomber: we are targeting this Israeli bus. The target is the bus, not the civilians inside the bus. It is the bus that is being targeted, not the people inside the bus. The fact that we are going to target the bus in a place and time where the bus will be filled with innocent bystanders is just an accident of circumstances, collateral damage, if you will. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

As an Israeli citizen, I have to tell you that I feel deeply hurt by this comment.
The target of the Islamists is not the bus as you ironically suggest,ignoring the pain that such targets cause for our people, the target is the Israeli civilians that are used to blackmail the Israeli governments.

You have to demonstrate Orwell that soliders of IDF take orders to hit civilian targets.

This is exactly what you have been claiming in this thread. You have to prove that somebody in the Israeli Army or government gives orders to soldiers to kill civilians.

I have served in the Air Force, in airports' security and nobody,ever, gave me orders to kill a civilian of any origin. We had explicit orders to refrain from any use of violence exactly because we were warned that " the world was starring at us". Two fellow soldiers were killed in an ambush in Hebron exactly because they were afraid to use their guns.That ambush in Hebron changed my life for ever. I realised that regardless education and social background,you can turn into an animal into seconds and yet most of us didn't just because we were afraid to use our guns and kill another human being.

So, to make a long story short.

I call BS on you. You'd better prove your claims and prove them fast.

[a_unique_person]

You have to demonstrate Orwell that soliders of IDF take orders to hit civilian targets.

This is exactly what you have been claiming in this thread. You have to prove that somebody in the Israeli Army or government gives orders to soldiers to kill civilians.


But what if the IDF is not acting on cases where soldiers are not following the rules of engagement? If the soldiers are not disciplined, then the IDF is condoning what they are doing.

[Jocko]

But what if ....

But what if we give those goalposts a rest already? In case you haven't noticed, semantics are already under a great deal of strain already. What do you have to say about the topic at hand?

[a_unique_person]

http://www.aad-online.org/2005///English/8-August/13-18/15-8/2.htm

The Haaretz link no longer works, so this is the first link on Google with the same story. I make no comment on the site, the story is the story that Haaretz carried.



Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz yesterday approved the promotion of a senior officer who was reprimanded recently for his role in an incident in which a Palestinian teenager was killed near the town of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip some two years ago.
Lieutenant Colonel Adam Zussman, who is currently serving as a battalion commander, will be appointed as a brigade commander in the Southern Command and has been promoted to the rank of colonel. Two years ago, Lieutenant Colonel Zussman authorized a company that had just ended its basic training to hold a “battalion welcome march” in the southern Gaza Strip area.
During their march, the troops passed by an IDF outpost in the settlement of Morag, bordering with the Palestinian towns of Rafah and Khan Yunis, from where fire exchanges were common between the sides.
Zussman allowed the troops to open “deterring fire” in the direction of nearby Palestinian homes. Palestinians later reported that a 15-year-old boy was killed in the area. Military Police failed to link the company's fire to the death of the Palestinian youth because, among other reasons, the Palestinians gave conflicting, and probably erroneous, reports on the time of his death. The incident nevertheless raised sharp criticism in the IDF because the “deterring fire” consisted of hundreds of rounds and because the march exposed the troops to unnecessary danger.
Two weeks ago, Zussman appeared before a disciplinary tribunal on the recommendation of the Military Advocate General's Office. He was charged with unlawful use of arms and was given a severe reprimand, but the court recommended not to hold back his promotion




He gets a severe reprimand, and a promotion.


A senior officer in the IDF orders trainees to open fire indiscriminately in the direction of civilian dwellings.

[WildCat]

Orwell, you overplayed your hand. Please acknowledge it and move on. There's no point in you proving over and over again that civilians die, and pretending that others can't see the difference between targeted and collateral damage.
Orwell has still won, didn't you notice? He just re-defined what the word "targeted" means. Just because his definition differs from the denotation doesn't phase him at all. He's on a mission!

We can, and I'm sure you can too.
He can, but won't. Pride goeth before a fall, as they say.

[Orwell]

Except it's the other way around. The target is the people inside the bus, the bus itself is not the target. If it were, it would be easy to just set it on fire, along with a bunch of other busses, back at the bus yard when it's parked for the night.

When you have to create alternate definitions for words to make your point, all you do is demonstrate extreme narrow mindedness that can't be touched by any new information or rational debate. I guess it's probably satisfying from your point of view, but it's not exactly honest.

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point.
If a Palestinian terrorist said those things to justify attacks on a bus, I would (and, I'm sure you would to) find it unacceptable, a load of equine manure, basically. The same kind of argument coming from the IDF is equally unacceptable to me. It should be to you too, but I know that you don't attribute the same value to arab lives as you do to israeli lives. 'Cause, you know, you're a partisan hack.

Israeli military commander: we are targeting these Katyusha rockets launchers. The target is the rocket launchers, not the civilians inside the vicinity of the rocket launchers. It is the rocket launchers that are being targeted, not the people in the village near the rocket launchers. The fact that we are going to target the rocket launchers in a place and time where the village square will be filled with innocent bystanders is just an accident of circumstances, collateral damage, if you will. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

[WildCat]

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point.
If a Palestinian terrorist said those things to justify attacks on a bus, I would (and, I'm sure you would to) find it unacceptable, a load of equine manure, basically. The same kind of argument coming from the IDF is equally unacceptable to me. It should be to you too, but I know that you don't attribute the same value to arab lives as you do to israeli lives. 'Cause, you know, you're a partisan hack.
Except that no Palestinian terrorist has ever even pretended the target was the bus, and the bus has no value from a military point of view at all.

Israeli military commander: we are targeting these Katyusha rockets launchers. The target is the rocket launchers, not the civilians inside the vicinity of the rocket launchers. It is the rocket launchers that are being targeted, not the people in the village near the rocket launchers. The fact that we are going to target the rocket launchers in a place and time where the village square will be filled with innocent bystanders is just an accident of circumstances, collateral damage, if you will. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.
Maybe you didn't notice, but it's a war. Rocket launchers are military targets, no question about that.

Tell me, Orwell: You're walking down your street and notice a few masked men setting up a rocket launcher. Do you:

1) Get the hell out of there
-OR-
2) Crowd around giving thanks to god

And which option is more likely to get you killed?

[webfusion]

IDF Corporal David Markovich targeted and killed four Arabs on Monday in the North during a combat operation.
"This was excellent soldiering," his commander said. "If you had checked his magazine after the firing, you would have found that only perhaps eight bullets were missing."

==================================
According to reports from the scene of still currently ongoing combat operations, IDF soldiers evacuated earlier today a Palestinian mother and her two-year-old child from a house near the scene of a continuing gunfight, after the boy had a severe asthma attack.
The Palestinian governor of the Jenin district asked the Israeli civil authority to allow the transfer of the mother and the child. As they were taken from the house, IDF soldiers held their fire while a Red Crescent ambulance arrived to take the child to the hospital.

=========================
What's up with this next report? How come there weren't any dead Palestinian kids? I just don't understand... there should have been some of them shot, as it is obvious from what we hear from Orwell that the IDF is aiming to kill.

About 200 children and 10 teachers began protesting at the IDF checkpoint at 7 a.m. ... dozens tried to burst through the checkpoint, but soldiers shoved them back.
No injuries were reported.

Go figure...

[Orwell]

As an Israeli citizen, I have to tell you that I feel deeply hurt by this comment.
The target of the Islamists is not the bus as you ironically suggest,ignoring the pain that such targets cause for our people, the target is the Israeli civilians that are used to blackmail the Israeli governments.

You have to demonstrate Orwell that soliders of IDF take orders to hit civilian targets.

This is exactly what you have been claiming in this thread. You have to prove that somebody in the Israeli Army or government gives orders to soldiers to kill civilians.

I have served in the Air Force, in airports' security and nobody,ever, gave me orders to kill a civilian of any origin. We had explicit orders to refrain from any use of violence exactly because we were warned that " the world was starring at us". Two fellow soldiers were killed in an ambush in Hebron exactly because they were afraid to use their guns.That ambush in Hebron changed my life for ever. I realised that regardless education and social background,you can turn into an animal into seconds and yet most of us didn't just because we were afraid to use our guns and kill another human being.

So, to make a long story short.

I call BS on you. You'd better prove your claims and prove them fast.
Or what Cleo? You're going to spank me or something? ;)
Anyway, read the links, in particular posts 11, 12, 25, 48, 86 and 99. Keep in mind that if IDF commanders are giving orders to shoot civilians or encouraging soldiers to be careless about civilians, there won't be any paper trail.

[Orwell]

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/israel2/israel0402-02.htm#P107_9709From October 24, 2001 to March 31, 2002, the IDF raided more than thirty Palestinian villages, towns, and refugee camps to arrest "wanted" Palestinians. The raids continued as this report went to press. Israel stated that the targets of these raids were persons alleged by the Israeli authorities to have planned or participated in attacks against Israeli military targets or against Israeli civilians.7 The majority of arrest raids took place in West Bank villages isolated by geography or by roadblocks and travel prohibitions imposed under the policy of strict internal closure instituted by the Israeli authorities in September 2000. [...] The doors at which the IDF knocked were generally not those of the "wanted" Palestinians. Instead, the IDF chose others, usually neighbors or relatives of "wanted" individuals, and ordered them, often at gunpoint, to bring those persons to the Israeli forces. In each of the four case studies investigated by Human Rights Watch, the IDF compelled civilians with threats and intimidation to identify the houses of individuals "wanted" for questioning or arrest, and to walk with IDF soldiers, sometimes during live fire exchanges, to knock at the doors of those houses and ask the inhabitants to open the door and come out. The IDF coerced some into providing information about the families of "wanted" Palestinians, exposing those individuals to the potentially lethal accusation of acting as a "collaborator."9 Others were not just coerced and threatened, but also beaten.

[webfusion]

Orwell likes this thread, it offers him a virtually endless opportunity to post how the IDF operates in wartime, keeping casualties of its own men to a minimum, while ensuring the protection of Israeli citizens from wanton attacks by terrorists hell-bent on perpetrating various atrocities, and all the while, I have yet to see him bring forward ONE example of the IDF targetting civilians for 'sport', for political advantage, or for any other reason.

It's wild, but he actually believes that "coercion and threatening (and beatings)" are the equivalent of targetting innocent civilians for death.

(BTW, the Israeli Supreme Court has passed judgement that ended the practice of bringing those neighbors along into the IDF arrest missions for the purpose of eliminating live fire from the holed-up terrorists. Result? IDF casualties, more terrorists killed rather than arrested. Gunbattles rage for hours, and everyone around is in danger, from the crossfire, as we have seen in Jenin during the past twenty-four hours.)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/649120.html
A senior Islamic Jihad militant, thought to be responsible for the October 26 bombing that killed six Israelis in a Hadera market, turned himself in to the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank city of Jenin before dawn on Thursday, Israel Radio reported.
IDF troops arrested the militant along with two other wanted men during a predawn operation surrounding a number of houses in Jenin in which Palestinian militants have barricaded themselves in recent days.
The wanted militant turned himself in to IDF forces after an exchange of fire erupted between troops and the Palestinians barricaded inside the building.
If, in fact, the IDF implements a policy of shooting to kill, (let's leave aside the entire civilian part of the equation and just focus on the "shoot to kill" element), can someone please explain why this top Islamic Jihad SOB didn't receive a few bullets right there and then?

I am leaving Orwell off 'ignore' for a little while to see his twists and turns continue, it's quite fun to watch, really.

[Jocko]

Or what Cleo? You're going to spank me or something? ;)

You should be so lucky.

Keep in mind that if IDF commanders are giving orders to shoot civilians or encouraging soldiers to be careless about civilians, there won't be any paper trail.

So... your complete lack of evidence is, in fact, evidence?

Please, Orwell, stop digging. This is getting embarrassing to watch. No one is claiming the IDF is perfect, no one is claiming that civilians don't sometimes die from IDF bullets. You're thrashing straw men left and right, tossed the dictionary into a woodchipper, and still you're no closer to proving that the IDF "deliberately targets" civilians.

[webfusion]

Lets go to the videotapes:

In particular, Post 11 (The Physicians, Nov 2000)
"PHR calls on the Palestinian Authority to make public its rules of engagement, and to adhere to international standards regarding the use of force. PHR calls on the Palestinian Authority to investigate and bring to justice all perpetrators of illegal use of force."
Totally 100% Ignored.


Next, Post 12 (The IDF Tank vs Dr Samer al-Ahmad, July 2002)
In Jenin, the IDF was engaged in battle operations of a massive scale unseen since the Six Day War 1967, and tanks were deployed under orders to stop anything that moves -- especially the car of the good doctor as clearly seen in the video being driven at a high rate of speed. His car was the target.
What was that tank doing in Jenin, anyway? Was it shooting in all directions, targetting civilians in all directions, raking the streets with .050 rounds and shells, bringing the entire weight of its deadly capabilities upon the citizenry of Jenin? Actually, even in this tragic incident, the IDF apologized and recognized an operational mistake had been made.
The tank was chasing a car that was breaking curfew. Watch the tape.

Next, Post 25 (Killing the Medics, March 2002)
Seems very bizarre, IDF shooting at marked Red Crescent vehicles. Why did they do that? Was there any valid reason to be firing at Palestinian medical teams who should be allowed to pass freely, even within a hot-war zone? Aren't you a bit curious? Here's the answer:
March 28, 2002
An Islamic suicide bomber killed 16 Jews and wounded at least 90 as they prepared to celebrate the start of Passover at The Park hotel in Netanya.
Israelis had been braced for a suicide bombing, with police leave cancelled and members of the security forces told to keep their weapons with them as they went to synagogues.
The army had earlier stopped a Palestinian ambulance in the West Bank with a suicide bomber's belt and 22lb of explosives hidden under a stretcher.

So, the IDF was interested in stopping and searching all Red Crescent ambulances, as a matter of national security, and when some drivers of those vehicles declined to obey IDF troops' direct signals to stop, there was probable cause for the soldiers to open fire, especially under the circumstances.

This all doesn't get any mention in the B'tselem report, as I read it, as directed by Orwell to do.

And then, Posts #48, 86 and 99.
"On the loudspeaker (the Palestinian residents) were warned to get out before I came in." -- quoted from the bulldozer operator who went ahead and crushed the houses to dust. Advance warning, such as it was, is evidence of NOT targetting civilans for death.

"The Human Rights organization also called upon Hizballah to refrain from carrying out indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians in Qiryat Shemona and other communities in northern Israel." -- 1999.
Ignored, 100% totally.
Just this week the Hizballah proved they are incapable of leaving Israel in peace, even across an Internationally recognized border.
And Israel basically took the attack in stride, and did not make a big deal of it, and didn't retaliate against the civilian population of Southern Lebanon, out of respect and concern for these innocent people.

Previously, in Operation Accountability 1996 (as the name suggests, to convince the Lebanese to hold the Hizbullah accountable for their unprovoked, ruthless and wanton attacks into Israeli civilian centers) ---
"120 Lebanese civilans were killed...and conservative damage estimates suggested that some 1,000 houses had been totally destroyed, 1,500 houses had been partially destroyed, and 15,000 houses had sustained light damage. Israeli forces cut civilian water and electricity supplies, damaged schools, mosques and churches, and targeted a number of cemeteries with shell fire."

Total War Zone. Israel is not obligated to sit still and absorb Syrian-supported, Iran-assisted terror. It is not required to sit still while Katyusha or Qassem or SCUD ballistic missiles rain down upon Tel Aviv, or Sderot, or Kiryat Shmona.
Or while AlQueda monsters attempt to get an ElAl passenger airliner into the sights of a Stinger ground-to-air launcher.

Screw that. Screw them, and screw the civilians who think they can go out to the streets of gaza, or ramallah or damascus or beirut and cheer the terrorists as heros, with no penalties or deterrance facing them from any quarter.

[Orwell]

Screw that. Screw them, and screw the civilians who think they can go out to the streets of gaza, or ramallah or damascus or beirut and cheer the terrorists as heros, with no penalties or deterrance facing them from any quarter.

Ah some genuine unabashed real feeling at last! I wish others around there here parts were as honest about their feelings towards Palestinians and Arabs as you are, it would make life much easier.

[Orwell]

You should be so lucky.



So... your complete lack of evidence is, in fact, evidence?

Please, Orwell, stop digging. This is getting embarrassing to watch. No one is claiming the IDF is perfect, no one is claiming that civilians don't sometimes die from IDF bullets. You're thrashing straw men left and right, tossed the dictionary into a woodchipper, and still you're no closer to proving that the IDF "deliberately targets" civilians.

Just watch me now!
An example of what the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem calls an Israeli army investigative whitewash is the case of Khalil al-Mughrabi.

The 11-year-old was playing soccer with a group of children in the Gaza Strip town of Rafah on July 7, 2001, when a burst of gunfire hit him in the head, killing him and wounding two of his friends, aged 10 and 12.

A military spokesperson gave this description of the incident: "Dozens of Palestinians rioted . . . and endangered soldiers' lives. The soldiers acted with restraint and control, and dispersed the rioters by using means for dispersing demonstrations, and by live gunfire into an open area distant from the rioters."

Khalil happened to be in the open area. Witnesses cited by B'Tselem said the children finished playing around 6:45 p.m. that day and sat down next to or on mounds of sand near the fence that marks the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt.

At 7:10 p.m. or so, Khalil was shot in the head. According to the children, the shots came from an Israeli military observation tower about one kilometer away. The firing continued, striking two other children.http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0916-03.htm

[Orwell]

Soldiers beat Muhammad Qashu'a, age 88, in his olive orchard near ‘Illar Village, March 2005 (http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/20050329_Soldiers_Beat_Muhammad_Kashua_Age_88.asp)

[Orwell]

IDF soldiers shoot and kill Husni Daraghmeh after he he followed their orders and raised his hands in the air, April 2004 (http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/20040404_Death_of_Husni_Daraghmeh_Witness_Barghout hi.asp)

[Orwell]

IDF soldiers fire at peaceful demonstrators in Deir Qaddis, wounding some, March 2004 (http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/20040315_Muhammad_Nasser_Shooting_on_Demonstrators _in_Deir_Qaddis.asp)

[a_unique_person]

I think there appears to be a confusion as to whether or not killings occur because it is the policy of the IDF to target civilians, or because individuals in the IDF target civilians?

[Orwell]

I think there appears to be a confusion as to whether or not killings occur because it is the policy of the IDF to target civilians, or because individuals in the IDF target civilians?

It is pretty clear that individuals in the IDF target civilians (just go through all the links). Human rights organisations have routinely complained that the IDF looks the other way when this happens, they mention a culture of impunity (I can find the relevant links if someone wishes me to). It is also pretty clear that the IDF is careless about killing civilians during military operations (once again just look through all the damn links). What are we to conclude from this (if you're not a partisan hack, that is)? That higher ups in the IDF don't give a damn and condone this kind of behaviour.

[Orwell]

I've already posted this, but here's a reminder.
Israeli Soldiers Tell of Indiscriminate Killings by Army and a Culture of Impunity. Whistleblowers' testimony shows desire for revenge on Palestinians. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0906-02.htm)

[a_unique_person]

It is pretty clear that individuals in the IDF target civilians (just go through all the links). Human rights organisations have routinely complained that the IDF looks the other way when this happens, they mention a culture of impunity (I can find the relevant links if someone wishes me to). It is also pretty clear that the IDF is careless about killing civilians during military operations (once again just look through all the damn links). What are we to conclude from this (if you're not a partisan hack, that is)? That the IDF doesn't give a damn and condones this kind of behaviour.

But is it part of the rules of engagment to target civilians?

[Orwell]

But is it part of the rules of engagment to target civilians?

Do you think they would officially admit to such a thing? Of course not! But by letting these things happen with near impunity they're effectively giving a "nudge nudge wink wink", something like "we know we shouldn't but every knows we can if we want to".

[Orwell]

AUP, could you correct my quote, please? I added a bunch of things.

[a_unique_person]

I will agree there are elements of the IDF that target civilians, that the IDF does not act against them, but that the official rules don't condone these acts, and that many individuals in the IDF would not participate in such acts.

There are also occasions when IDF members fire on civilians in 'self-defence' (another debate what actually constitutes this situation), but are forced to for just that reason. The question is whether they should be in that situation in the first place, that is, occupying the West Bank areas where Palestinians live.

[Orwell]

I will agree there are elements of the IDF that target civilians, that the IDF does not act against them, but that the official rules don't condone these acts, and that many individuals in the IDF would not participate in such acts. I don't even know what the official rules are, and frankly, I don't care, so I never claimed that the official rules allowed for firing at civilians. I'm just reporting what I know is going on, what's happening in practice, not what the theory is. And yes, there are people in the IDF that refuse to go along with this. In fact, I quoted a few of them right here: http://www.jfjfp.org/BackgroundW/refusenik_pilots.htm

There are also occasions when IDF members fire on civilians in 'self-defence' (another debate what actually constitutes this situation), but are forced to for just that reason. The question is whether they should be in that situation in the first place, that is, occupying the West Bank areas where Palestinians live.
Oh, but I'm not denying that at all! Atrocities and abuses committed by Palestinians have already been extensively documented and discussed on this forum, ad nauseam. I figured it would be refreshing to criticise the IDF for a change (except that I never pretended that the Palestinians were above reproach). This entire thread turned into one occasion to remind certain people that atrocities are being committed by people on both sides.

[Orwell]

Suspected execution of Mahmud Kmel and use of Palestianians as human shields by IDF soldiers in Raba, Jenin District, 3 Dec. 2004 (http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/20041203_Suspected_Execution_by_IDF_of_Raba_in_Jen in_Witness_Suleiman_Qasrawi.asp)

[Cleopatra]

Or what Cleo? You're going to spank me or something? ;)
Anyway, read the links, in particular posts 11, 12, 25, 48, 86 and 99. Keep in mind that if IDF commanders are giving orders to shoot civilians or encouraging soldiers to be careless about civilians, there won't be any paper trail.

What sort of argument is that? The same argument that Holocaust deniers use to question the Holocaust,right?

You are an idiot Orwel and you are so foolish that you don't even make it to my list of the antisemites of the forum. You are an ignorant,foolish little wanker.

Get in my -- I am not replying to your BS for as long as I consider appropriate list-- and stay here to discuss with the fanatics. You don't deserve my time, little wanker.

As for my dear friend aup he made it to my signature...

[webfusion]

Let Orwell have his fun...he's not proving anything... except that the IDF is an excellent fighting force, which other nations on earth could be proud to emulate their professionalism and abilities in similar circumstances.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D241105/hawaraarrest241105AP185.jpg
An IDF soldier arresting a Palestinian found with explosives (strapped to his body) at the Hawara checkpoint outside the West Bank city of Nablus on Thursday. (AP)



===========================
Orwell is going in circles:
"Anyway, read the links, in particular posts 11, 12, 25, 48, 86 and 99"
I read them and made specific rebuttal to the nonsense contained therin.
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1289335&postcount=116
See my Post 116 of this thread.

[Tmy]

Have there been instances where IDF agents have been charged with any violations/crimes when it came to civilian deaths?

[webfusion]

Post 130 --
Mahmud A-Dab'i (referred to in the report as Mamoud Kmel for some unexplained reason) was apparently executed in the field, by IDF soldiers acting on orders. It was an extrajudicial killing of a wanted terrorist, from every indication in the narrative, and he was clearly, according to that eyewitness report offered by B'Tselem, not a civilian.

To bring it here to skeptics on the JREF as an example of IDF targeting civilians is really lame.

[webfusion]

TMY asks -- "Have there been instances where IDF agents have been charged with any violations/crimes when it came to civilian deaths?"

Yes.

[Elind]

Makes you wonder, then, how it is that the IDF winds up killing more civilians than the Palestinians do.

Gee, that's a powerful point:boggled:

I don't know... Perhaps because all Palestinians are civilians according to some? You?

Perhaps because the IDF are lousy shots and don't aim at civilians specifically, they just aim at Palestinians and hope to hit a non civilian?

Perhaps because the Palestinian (non civilians?) hide behind civilians (?) who actively give them cover and make it hard to see exactly who is shooting from a group, or a nursing home or wherever?

I guess the only way to fight such a nobel philosophy (?) is to give up in case someone accuses one of DELIBERATELY TARGETING CIVILIANS AS A STATED POLICY OF WAR, which is what the accusation was.

Why can't you discuss that point directly?

[Tmy]

TMY asks -- "Have there been instances where IDF agents have been charged with any violations/crimes when it came to civilian deaths?"

Yes.

Do you happen to have a link or story available? I tried a quick search but couldnt find anything on point.

[Orwell]

Let Orwell have his fun...he's not proving anything... except that the IDF is an excellent fighting force, which other nations on earth could be proud to emulate their professionalism and abilities in similar circumstances.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D241105/hawaraarrest241105AP185.jpg
An IDF soldier arresting a Palestinian found with explosives (strapped to his body) at the Hawara checkpoint outside the West Bank city of Nablus on Thursday. (AP)



===========================
Orwell is going in circles:
"Anyway, read the links, in particular posts 11, 12, 25, 48, 86 and 99"
I read them and made specific rebuttal to the nonsense contained therin.
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1289335&postcount=116
See my Post 116 of this thread.

You didn't rebut anything. I think that in a couple of instances, you simply quoted my own links back. And then you gave your own explanations about what was hapenning, essentially saying "believe me". To put it simply, if I have to chose between believing you (or the IDF's version of the facts) and believing human rights associations, I'll believe the human rights associations.

[Orwell]

What sort of argument is that? The same argument that Holocaust deniers use to question the Holocaust,right? I invoke Goodwin's Law!

You are an idiot Orwel and you are so foolish that you don't even make it to my list of the antisemites of the forum. You are an ignorant,foolish little wanker. Sorry, but are you implying that I'm even worse than an anti-semite or something like that?

Get in my -- I am not replying to your BS for as long as I consider appropriate list-- and stay here to discuss with the fanatics. You don't deserve my time, little wanker.

As for my dear friend aup he made it to my signature...

Aw, you're pissed off... See, I get pissed off too, specially when I think things are presented in a completely unfair one sided way! You don't like my "BS"? Well, I can't stand your BS, nor Webfusion's a-good-Palestinian-is-a-dead-Palestinian BS, Zenithy-Nadir's BS gives me the creeps, and Skeptic's BS has given me the heebie-jeebies on several occasions. Eh?! ;)

Oh, and I almost forgot about Mycroft's BS! Now that's BS in an industrial scale!

[Orwell]

8 Dec. 04: Two-thirds of Palestinians Killed in the West Bank This Year Did not Participate in the Fighting (http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20041208.asp)

In response to the IDF's statistics about Palestinian casualties in the West Bank, B'Tselem reports that a total of 751 Palestinians were killed since the beginning of this year by IDF security forces.

Of those killed, 187 were in the West Bank. Of those killed, 369 did not participate in the fighting. Of these, 111 were from the West Bank, including 33 minors.

A further 3 were members of the Palestinian security forces. An additional 8 Palestinians in the West Bank were targeted for assassination.

Of those killed in the West Bank, 52 participated in the fighting. B'Tselem was not able to determine whether the remaining 13 Palestinians killed participated in the fighting or not.

Two-thirds! But didn't Webfusion say that IDF soldiers were very professional, all good shots, and all that jazz?!

[Orwell]

TMY asks -- "Have there been instances where IDF agents have been charged with any violations/crimes when it came to civilian deaths?"

Yes.

Would be a tad too impolite to ask for, say, links and quotes from assorted sources to prove this? Or should we just take your word for it once again?

[WildCat]

You didn't rebut anything.
You haven't posted anything that needs a rebuttal. Just a Kilik-style link spamming with no commentary.

Now, go back to your back-slapping party w/ a_u_p.

[Orwell]

I think I've already posted this one, but I'm kind of loosing track... Anyway, here it goes, repeated or not...

24 Nov. 04: Rules of Engagement and Lack of Accountability Result in Culture of Impunity for Palestinian Civilian Deaths (http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20041124.asp)

According to B'Tselem's data, since the beginning of the intifada, IDF soldiers have killed at least 1,656 Palestinians who took no part in the fighting. Of those killed, 529 were children. Many of these deaths result from changes in the Rules of Engagement, which now allow soldiers to open fire on Palestinians in a variety of non-combat situations, even when the soldiers are not in danger. The most blatant example is the order to open fire whenever Palestinians enter so-called "danger zones," including the perimeter fence around the Gaza Strip, and areas around military bases and settlements.

An equally troubling phenomenon, however, is the climate of impunity in which these deaths take place. Over the past four years, the IDF conducted only 89 military police investigations into deaths and injuries of Palestinians. Of these investigations, only 22 resulted in indictments. To date, one soldier has been convicted of causing the death of a Palestinian. Thus in the vast majority of cases, no one is ever held accountable.

The combination of rules of engagement that encourage a trigger-happy attitude among soldiers together with the climate of impunity results in a clear and very troubling message about the value the IDF places on Palestinian life.

[Orwell]

You haven't posted anything that needs a rebuttal. Just a Kilik-style link spamming with no commentary.

Now, go back to your back-slapping party w/ a_u_p.

Really? All the human rights organisations links and quotes, that doesn't do a thing to you? You haven't been reading the links, eh? Too bad, you might learn something. Anyway, if you don't like my "spamming", report it to the moderator.

And Commentary? Commentary is for people who are able to debate honestly, not for partisan hacks. Besides, even considering this, I commented quite a lot, check posts 2, 47, 69, 81, 85, 87, 89, 90, 109, 123. Plenty of commentary.

[Cleopatra]

I invoke Goodwin's Law!



...

[webfusion]

"check posts 2, 47, 69, 81, 85, 87, 89, 90, 109, 123"

Orwell, what are you doing here? This is a board where people actually understand that claims need to have some proof or at least evidence of a convincing nature. Look around, it is fairly obvious in all the other discussions that JREF members have a sense of what is ludicrous and what is not.

Here ya go:

#2:
"My point all along is that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap."
------- No argument there. The question has been, is the IDF targeting innocent civilians at random and killing people willy-nilly, outside of combat or active missions, and using their Armed Forces to eradicate civilians in a methodical and pre-planned way (i.e. - rounding them up, machine gunning them and burying the corpses in mass graves?) That is the image of "the IDF Targets Civilians" which is being brought forward in people's minds. For a world that faced this 6 decades ago throughout Europe, for a world that sees this is the standard in Iraq, in Syria, in Sudan, and elsewhere in Africa, for a world that understand the meaning of "targets civilians" in the context of Stalin and Hitler, for Orwell to come here and say that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap, falls well short of any standard of showing that the Israeli Defense Forces are guilty of what he claims.

#47-- "It is possible to target civilians without doing so deliberately, like when a IDF soldier shoots at a kid who just threw a rock at him."
If you fire the weapon in your hands, you do so with the full knowledge of what is in your sights. That's just the way soldiers operate in the IDF. Trust me on this. The IDF even has a very strict rule -- no full-auto fire. Ever. If you even click the safety on the weapon to full-auto, you are facing a courts-martial.
One kid (or even a few ganged together) throwing rocks is not a target, and wouldn't be shot. When a thousand screaming rioters are hurling projectiles and swarming around an isolated IDF unit (usually four or five guys in a jeep), then yes, people are gonna get shot, and if that is called "targeting civilians" then I am going to go on record, right here:
Yes, IDF troops are not prepared to lay down their arms and become victims of a rampaging bloodthirsty mob, and they certainly open fire at civilians.
(see: Ramallah, October 12, 2000)

#69 -- "I'm just acknowledging that it is pointless to argue about these things with you (webfusion)" It is pointless, because you fail to grasp a critical element of the discussion: Evidence must be evaluated for veracity and context. I have posted several times here my evaluations in intricate detail of the spamming you are inflicting on us. I cannot spend the time to cover it all, but I think that when you asked us to "read the links" and mentioned specific ones, I went and took the effort to show where the information contained in the articles linked-to by you did NOT make the case for IDF targeting civilians. In fact, the last one was a reply to post #130.

I would like for you to specifically show us how your post #130 and the 'evidence' contained therin shows support for your claim?

You say that my replies (rebuttals) are just my opinion, and the human rights organizations are more believable. Fine, you are free to stick to that as long as you want, but I think that the skeptics here know who is speaking the truth and who is making a frantic and ongoing effort to re-define the meaning of "targetting civilians".

#123 -- "It is also pretty clear that the IDF is careless about killing civilians during military operations" --- Tough cookies. The Palestinian civiliains are right there in harms way, they put themselves in harms way, they participate in attacks on IDF positions, they provide cover and lend support to HAMAS and Islamic Jihad and AlAqsa and Iz-a-Din-A-Qassem and countless other terrorists/militants/insurgents/gunmen/freedom fighters/PA police who are running around fighting Israeli troops at every corner. What actually amazes ME, is the fantastically low number of Palestinians killed, overall, sir. It stands as a testament to the restraint, the abilities of the IDF, and the true grit of young recruits as they face life-and-death struggles daily.

==========================
NOTE TO TMY;
Orwell posted a link himself, which says, inter-alia,
IDF conducted 89 military police investigations into deaths and injuries of Palestinians. Of these investigations, 22 resulted in indictments.
Indictments are charges. Does that answer your question?

[webfusion]

After a ton of stuff appearing here, it's awfully hard to take anything on a case-by-case basis. I have tried to some extent, but was dismissed by Orwell as not being believable compard to B'Tslelem or HRW.

Let's look at one well-publicized incident of a Palestinian civilian being killed just today. It is in the news story linked to RIGHT HERE (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/649120.html).
This is what the report indicates:
In the course of the Wednesday clashes (during a huge IDF military operation in Jenin), IDF troops shot dead a local man who hurled rocks at an army patrol, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said.

Orwell, I have to ask you, in all seriousness, if you wish to bring any credibility to your side of the discussion now, can you indicate whether or not you think this was a classic case of the IDF targetting a civilian?

We await your reply.

[Orwell]

...

"Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Although the law does not specifically mention it, there is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Yeah, I realise that I wrote Goodwin's and not Godwin's. Oooh, major bummer! ;)

[webfusion]

In the definition of Godwin's Law, my post #146 means that I've lost the argument here.
Sorry about that.

[Orwell]

"check posts 2, 47, 69, 81, 85, 87, 89, 90, 109, 123"

Orwell, what are you doing here? This is a board where people actually understand that claims need to have some proof or at least evidence of a convincing nature. Look around, it is fairly obvious in all the other discussions that JREF members have a sense of what is ludicrous and what is not. I'm a bloke in front of a computer in his office. All evidence I can provide has to be in the form of links. Considering that limitation, I gave you plenty of evidence.

Here ya go:

#2:
"My point all along is that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap."
------- No argument there. The question has been, is the IDF targeting innocent civilians at random and killing people willy-nilly, outside of combat or active missions, and using their Armed Forces to eradicate civilians in a methodical and pre-planned way (i.e. - rounding them up, machine gunning them and burying the corpses in mass graves?) That is the image of "the IDF Targets Civilians" which is being brought forward in people's minds. For a world that faced this 6 decades ago throughout Europe, for a world that sees this is the standard in Iraq, in Syria, in Sudan, and elsewhere in Africa, for a world that understand the meaning of "targets civilians" in the context of Stalin and Hitler, for Orwell to come here and say that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap, falls well short of any standard of showing that the Israeli Defense Forces are guilty of what he claims. That image (" targeting innocent civilians at random and killing people willy-nilly, outside of combat or active missions, and using their Armed Forces to eradicate civilians in a methodical and pre-planned way (i.e. - rounding them up, machine gunning them and burying the corpses in mass graves?)" is your image, not mine. The links I provided give plenty of examples of what is clearly "targeting of civilians" by Israeli soldiers. I never made claims that there was some kind of systematic "ethnic cleansing" or anything like that. I quote: It is pretty clear that individuals in the IDF target civilians (just go through all the links). Human rights organisations have routinely complained that the IDF looks the other way when this happens, they mention a culture of impunity (I can find the relevant links if someone wishes me to). It is also pretty clear that the IDF is careless about killing civilians during military operations (once again just look through all the damn links). What are we to conclude from this (if you're not a partisan hack, that is)? That higher ups in the IDF don't give a damn and condone this kind of behaviour.

#47-- "It is possible to target civilians without doing so deliberately, like when a IDF soldier shoots at a kid who just threw a rock at him."
If you fire the weapon in your hands, you do so with the full knowledge of what is in your sights. That's just the way soldiers operate in the IDF. Trust me on this. The IDF even has a very strict rule -- no full-auto fire. Ever. If you even click the safety on the weapon to full-auto, you are facing a courts-martial.
One kid (or even a few ganged together) throwing rocks is not a target, and wouldn't be shot. When a thousand screaming rioters are hurling projectiles and swarming around an isolated IDF unit (usually four or five guys in a jeep), then yes, people are gonna get shot, and if that is called "targeting civilians" then I am going to go on record, right here:
Yes, IDF troops are not prepared to lay down their arms and become victims of a rampaging bloodthirsty mob, and they certainly open fire at civilians.
(see: Ramallah, October 12, 2000)

Here's one instance where IDF soldiers appear to not follow procedure:
Mr. HEDGES: Well, every afternoon--you know, you could almost time
it--around 3 or 4, the Palestinian kids, who have nowhere to play, would play--would go out on the dunes and they'd have kites or rag balls and this kind of stuff. And I remember--I heard it the first day. And I speak Arabic, so I'm listening over the loudspeaker to the worst curse words in Arabic, and phrases like, you know, 'All the Palestinians who live in Khan Yunis are dogs,' which is calling an Arab a dog is particularly insulting. And I couldn't--I just couldn't believe what I heard.

And I walked out towards the dunes and they were--the--over the
loudspeaker from an Israeli army Jeep on the other side of the electric fence they were taunting these kids. And these kids started to throw rocks. And most of these kids were 10, 11, 12 years old. And, first of all, the rocks were the size of a fist. They were being hurled towards a Jeep that was armor-plated. I doubt they could even hit the Jeep. And then I watched the soldiers open fire. And it was--I mean, I've seen kids shot in Sarajevo. I mean, snipers would shoot kids in Sarajevo. I've seen death squads kill families in Algeria or El Salvador. But I'd never seen soldiers bait or taunt kids like this and then shoot them for sport. It was--I just--even now, I find it almost inconceivable. And I went back every day, and every day it was the same.http://64.226.129.19/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=487

#69 -- "I'm just acknowledging that it is pointless to argue about these things with you (webfusion)" It is pointless, because you fail to grasp a critical element of the discussion: Evidence must be evaluated for veracity and context. I have posted several times here my evaluations in intricate detail of the spamming you are inflicting on us. I cannot spend the time to cover it all, but I think that when you asked us to "read the links" and mentioned specific ones, I went and took the effort to show where the information contained in the articles linked-to by you did NOT make the case for IDF targeting civilians. In fact, the last one was a reply to post #130.

I would like for you to specifically show us how your post #130 and the 'evidence' contained therin shows support for your claim? Usage of Palestinian civilians as human shields. Executing an alleged "Palestinian terrorist" after he was disarmed and immobilised. We have no idea who this guy was, or what he was accused of.

You say that my replies (rebuttals) are just my opinion, and the human rights organizations are more believable. Fine, you are free to stick to that as long as you want, but I think that the skeptics here know who is speaking the truth and who is making a frantic and ongoing effort to re-define the meaning of "targetting civilians". I'm not redefining anything. Here's at least to instances where Israeli officials are quoted acknowledging that they were targeting civilians. Moreover, although the first stage of Operation Accountability was marked by a number of precision attacks by the IDF on purported guerrilla targets, the IDF engaged in wide-scale shelling during the rest of the operation. The damage done during the shelling was then justified as necessary as a deterrent.18 One express aim of Operation Accountability was to punish the inhabitants ofsouthern Lebanon for Hizballah's activities. The extensive nature of the damage sustained in numerous southern Lebanese villages confirms this stated intent.19 Human Rights Watch has found that in addition to the large number of civilian homes damaged, the basic infrastructure of many villages had been targeted and destroyed. By the end of Operation Accountability, conservative damage estimates suggested that some 1,000 houses had been totally destroyed, 1,500 houses had been partially destroyed, and 15,000 houses had sustained light damage.20 Israeli forces cut civilian water and electricity supplies, damaged schools, mosques and churches, and targeted a number of cemeteries with shell fire.http://hrw.org/reports/1996/Israel.htm
Human Rights Watch today called upon Israel to halt indiscriminate and reprisal attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Lebanon. The organization also called upon Hizballah to refrain from carrying out indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians in Qiryat Shemona and other communities in northern Israel. Since Thursday, the attacks have claimed the lives of two Israeli civilians and at least eight Lebanese civilians. Israeli officials explicitly stated that the attacks were reprisals against the Lebanese civilian population. Internal Security Minister Avigdor Kahalani said that he wanted "all the inhabitants of Lebanon feel what all of Israel feels." Reprisals, when aimed at civilians or civilian objects, violate international humanitarian law.http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/06/26/isrlpa925.htm

[Orwell]

#123 -- "It is also pretty clear that the IDF is careless about killing civilians during military operations" --- Tough cookies. The Palestinian civiliains are right there in harms way, they put themselves in harms way, they participate in attacks on IDF positions, they provide cover and lend support to HAMAS and Islamic Jihad and AlAqsa and Iz-a-Din-A-Qassem and countless other terrorists/militants/insurgents/gunmen/freedom fighters/PA police who are running around fighting Israeli troops at every corner. What actually amazes ME, is the fantastically low number of Palestinians killed, overall, sir. It stands as a testament to the restraint, the abilities of the IDF, and the true grit of young recruits as they face life-and-death struggles daily.
Yeah, yeah... :rolleyes:
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast.html
By November 2002, some 2,500 Palestinians and over 650 Israelis, many of them civilians, had been killed since violence erupted in September 2000. At least twenty-one thousand Palestinians and two thousand Israelis were injured, including individuals maimed for life. Both Israeli security forces and Palestinian armed groups committed grave breaches of the rules of war in deliberately attacking civilians or displaying serious and systematic disregard for innocent civilian lives. While old abuses continued and intensified, new ones appeared.[...]A major concern was the culture of impunity that had taken hold. Israeli authorities repeatedly failed to conduct timely or credible investigations into numerous IDF abuses, including unlawful or willful killings of Palestinian civilians. Where such investigations did occur, the results were rarely made public. The Palestinian Authority, in turn, failed to bring to justice those responsible for planning and carrying out suicide bombings or other attacks against Israeli civilians while it had capacity to do so. Both sides justified their violations of international law by pointing to the other side's repeated abuses of these very standards.
==========================
NOTE TO TMY;
Orwell posted a link himself, which says, inter-alia,
IDF conducted 89 military police investigations into deaths and injuries of Palestinians. Of these investigations, 22 resulted in indictments.
Indictments are charges. Does that answer your question?
You should include the whole quote: An equally troubling phenomenon, however, is the climate of impunity in which these deaths take place. Over the past four years, the IDF conducted only 89 military police investigations into deaths and injuries of Palestinians. Of these investigations, only 22 resulted in indictments. To date, one soldier has been convicted of causing the death of a Palestinian. Thus in the vast majority of cases, no one is ever held accountable.

[Orwell]

In the definition of Godwin's Law, my post #146 means that I've lost the argument here.
Sorry about that.

Well, don't worry about that, my invocation of Godwin's law was pretty much tongue in cheek.

[Mycroft]

After a ton of stuff appearing here, it's awfully hard to take anything on a case-by-case basis. I have tried to some extent, but was dismissed by Orwell as not being believable compard to B'Tslelem or HRW.

Webs,

He's already said several times he's not interested in rational debate. Why bother?

[Orwell]

Webs,

He's already said several times he's not interested in rational debate. Why bother?

You're right, I'm not interested in debating with self-avowed partisan hacks. I know it's a waste of time.

And Webfusion, you are not believable compared to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'tselem. Considering what you have said here in this thread and in other threads about this subject, considering that you haven't really provided any links or credible sources for your claims, do you think that's an unreasonable stance on my part? I don't think it's unreasonable.

[Tmy]

Well DO the IDF specifically target civillians? I would have to say no. Its not their purpose to just hunt Palistinians. They hunt terrorists and terrorist leaders.

But I do believe that the IDF has an organizational environment that doesnt discoourage the loss of inncocent Palistainian life. They probably think that a few civilian deaths helps the cause because it creates fear and intimdation with the Palistinians.

The IDF does not HAVE to fire a rocket at a crowded street in order to get their man. They choose to fire that rocket, knowing there will be collateral damage. Since the collateral damage is going to be Palistianians, its more acceptable behavior than if it were say, an Israelie crowd.

In short, they do not value Pali lives.

[Orwell]

Wow, Tmy, no offence man, but could you please rewrite your post a bit better?

[Tmy]

Wow, Tmy, no offence man, but could you please rewrite your post a bit better?

I dont know. Its a holiday and Ive had one too many rum-n cokes!

[Orwell]

I dont know. Its a holiday and Ive had one too many rum-n cokes!

Well cheers then!

[webfusion]

No answer, just more of the same HRW, B'Tselem and the discredited lies of Hedges.

I want to know something about a specific case, and Orwell is avoiding talking about it. Why is that?

Context:
Just today, another Palestinian civilian was killed outright by the IDF.
The circumstances of that death were described in one sentence in a news report, as part of an overall, far-reaching IDF campaign in Jenin, as Israel attempts to stop the terror it has been facing. The man was shot by an IDF soldier on that mission in Jenin.

Orwell, I have to ask you, in all seriousness, if you wish to bring any credibility to your side of the discussion now, can you indicate whether or not you think this was a classic case of the IDF targetting a civilian?

We await your reply.

[webfusion]

TMY -- "In short, they do not value Pali lives."

Sickening.
Being drunk (on too many rum-n-cokes) would indeed provide a logical explanation for such a wicked statement about the Israelis. Shut off your computer until you are sober, TMY, is my advice.

[Orwell]

No answer, just more of the same HRW, B'Tselem and the discredited lies of Hedges. Who discredited Hedges? Links please. And what's wrong with HRW, B'Tselem and AI?

I want to know something about a specific case, and Orwell is avoiding talking about it. Why is that?

I did discuss it briefly (post 150). According to the eye-witness account on the B'Tselem site:
Usage of Palestinian civilians as human shields. Executing an alleged "Palestinian terrorist" after he was disarmed and immobilised. We have no idea who this guy was, or what he was accused of.
That's one link, out of a bunch of them, and it's not even the most serious accusations being made by HRW, B'Tselem and AI.

[a_unique_person]

As for my dear friend aup he made it to my signature...

Why?

[webfusion]

No, No.

You are off the mark.

I asked you about the incident where a Palestinian man was killed in Jenin yesterday, and you are talking about Ed Knows what.

I'll review, to get you back on target.

Let's look at one well-publicized incident of a Palestinian civilian being killed just today. It is in the news story linked to RIGHT HERE. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/649120.html)
This is what the report indicates:
In the course of the Wednesday clashes (during a huge IDF military operation in Jenin), IDF troops shot dead a local man who hurled rocks at an army patrol, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said. 11-23-05

Orwell, I have to ask you, in all seriousness, if you wish to bring any credibility to your side of the discussion now, can you indicate whether or not you think this was a classic case of the IDF targetting a civilian?

This has nothing to do with human shields or B'Tselem or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pay attention, I know you are running along here full steam ahead, but try to focus, Orwell.

AS for Hedges, if you don't wish to research his little fabrication and understand that his story is a lie, that's OK, you are free to remain ignorant of the truth, nobody is forcing you to look at the information of HonestReporting (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Eyeless_in_Gaza_-_Part_2.asp) about Hedges being a huge a&&hole. I personally have no problem saying that Hedges is a liar and his account cannot stand close scrutiny.

The IDF does not target civilians.

[a_unique_person]

Chris Hedges report appears to me to be honest and unbiased. Eg, he mentions anti-semitic propaganda playing on Egyptian TV, he is held hostage by a Palestinian gunman, whom he portrays as ignorant and doomed to young die due to that ignorance.

"Honest Reporting"



Are you feeling frustrated and alone in your dismay of Israel's
portrayal in the media?
Well, not anymore! Join HonestReporting.com and become one of
100,000 activists who have decided to help fight Israel's war against
media bias!
Go to www.HonestReporting.com today to become a member of
the fast-action, interactive website that allows you to become a
partner in Israel's fight against media bias!



They are biased, in that they only wish to report on the perceived bias against Israel. If they wish to be unbiased, I would expect them to take a balanced approach to all reporting on the issue.

[Tmy]

TMY -- "In short, they do not value Pali lives."

Sickening.
Being drunk (on too many rum-n-cokes) would indeed provide a logical explanation for such a wicked statement about the Israelis. Shut off your computer until you are sober, TMY, is my advice.

You dont seriously think the IDF thinks that Palistinian lives are on the same par as the Israelie lives. Its not a wicked statement, all countries think this way. You think an IDF agent would just as easily open fire into an Israeli crowd in order to stop a terrorist? You think the US would bomb a building that house Saddams sons if they were hiding out in Paris instead of somewheresville Iraq? HELLS NO!

[webfusion]

aup mentions that Hedges can be considered reliable in his account of the IDF troops firing at the kids essentially for no other reason than for sport.
I read the details and form an opposite view of his reliability.

But, that is not what we are here discussing, the veracity of one source or another. In the overall picture of the IDF facing Palestinian civilians over the course of 60 years almost, it cannot be said that the IDF targets civilians for death in the course of their operations. Not in full scale wars and not in the intifadah phase (which began, BTW, in 1987, not 2000). Not one scintilla of evidence shows that the IDF has the intention, nor the implementation of any plan or policy, to kill Palestinians merely because they are Palestinians, and need to be killed.

This entire suggestion is totally out of bounds.

An interesting quote:
"(Hedges) is held hostage by a Palestinian gunman, whom Hedges portrays as ignorant and doomed to die young due to that ignorance."

Yeah, he'll die, in the sights of an IDF marksman, and someone will probably come along and add his name to a list of palestinians who got shot by the IDF, and mix that in with other Palestinians who were "targeted" by the IDF.

What a system.

[a_unique_person]

aup mentions that Hedges can be considered reliable in his account of the IDF troops firing at the kids essentially for no other reason than for sport.

He says yes, Honestreporting says no. He was there, they weren't. His other comments in the article seem honest. He reports no more than what he saw, including anti-semitic propaganda.

[webfusion]

Yes, TMY, I am here to tell you, and I know it to be true:
Palistinian lives are on the same par as the Israeli lives.

Israelis live alongside Palestinians in Israel, TMY. They are doctors, lawyers, truck drivers, accountants, schoolteachers, etc. The IDF is absolutely concerned with keeping a sense of neutrality and just today, a story appears which fully and clearly supports my contention that IDF policy is to take every opportunity to treat the Palestinians in a respectful, honest and fair way.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/649120.html
(this is the third time I'm linking within this thread to this same breaking-news story, have you read it even once?)
On Wednesday evening, IDF troops evacuated a Palestinian mother and her two-year-old child from a house near the scene of the continuing exchange of gunfire between soldiers and Palestinians, after the boy had a severe asthma attack.
The governor of the Jenin district asked the Israeli civil authority to allow the transfer of the mother and the child. As they were taken from the house, soldiers held their fire while a Palestinian ambulance arrived to take the child to the hospital.

Now, go back to your rum and stop here.

[a_unique_person]

The IDF is absolutely concerned with keeping a sense of neutrality and just today, a story appears which fully and clearly supports my contention that IDF policy is to take every opportunity to treat the Palestinians in a respectful, honest and fair way.

I would contend "every opportunity". That is just not true. The IDF is made up of individuals, who span the usual spectrum of human types, from the honest to the dishonest, the civil to the brutal, etc. The 12 year old girl who had a whole automatic magazine emptied into her was not a victim of "respect". That there are humane and decent people on both sides of the issue is never open to debate, we have to have 'faith' in human nature. That atrocities are committed by both sides is also beyond dispute, in my opinion.

[Tmy]

a story appears which fully and clearly supports my contention that IDF policy is to take every opportunity to treat the Palestinians in a respectful, honest and fair way.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/649120.html
(this is the third time I'm linking within this thread to this same breaking-news story, have you read it even once?)
[.

I read the story. Heres a little gem that stands out:

"In the course of the Wednesday clashes, troops shot dead a local man who hurled rocks at an army patrol, witnesses and hospital officials said."

Shot to death for throwing rocks??? In what country is that acceptable behavior for a police force? Is it any surpise human rights orgs complain about them.

So the IDF doesnt mow down every Palistinian every time they have an opportunity. Big F'n deal. That doesnt translate to them being saints.

[webfusion]

Hedges admits in the Harper's article that he did not see the boys shot -- they were "out of sight."
Hedges also says he didn't hear the shots being fired, which he (incorrectly) assumed meant that Israeli soldiers were using silencers.

Hedges is worthless as a reliable source, and for Orwell to bring his story forward as evidence of anything makes me laugh, a_u_p.

The IDF Spokesmen categorically reject the charge that soldiers entice Palestinian children to the fence.
"The day described by Hedges was particularly violent near Gush Katif, the Spokesman said, with scores of Palestinians attacking soldiers with rocks and bottles and endangering their lives. The soldiers acted with restraint for hours, using anti-riot equipment. When the attacks continued, IDF fire was directed at the riot leaders, and two of them were seen being hit in their legs."

Right there, in black and white, the IDF admits that it targets civilians!
And the Human Rights For Justice & Peace puts it into their report:
Palestinians got shot by the IDF, illegally and immorally.

Good grief.

[a_unique_person]

IDF spokesmen have categorically denied other things, that subsequently turned out to be true.

[webfusion]

TMY, don't let anyone accuse you of following this thread too closely.

I read the story. Heres a little gem that stands out:

"In the course of the Wednesday clashes, troops shot dead a local man who hurled rocks at an army patrol, witnesses and hospital officials said."

Shot to death for throwing rocks???

That is exactly the same incident which I've been trying (to no avail) to get Orwell to address. I have been asking if he thinks this is a classic example of the IDF targeting civilians, and if this is wrong?

You answered the question, saying that you believe it is targeting and it is wrong.
Fair enough. I am convinced you are mistaken, but at least you gave an answer. ( I am convinced of your error, because I myself served in the IDF, and know exactly what a rock-throwing mob is cabable of, including killing me).

You cannot assume that this guy was standing there, all alone, chucking a few stones, and got killed for his efforts. Read the story, and it will be clear that the IDF partrol was under concentrated attack by mobs of people in Jenin (maybe thousands, under the conditions). The fact that just ONE guy was killed is amazing! That is the essence of the evidence, proving without a shadow of a doubt, the IDF does not target civilians.

You are assuming the opposite from what is really indicated by this report, unfortunately.

[webfusion]

IDF spokesmen have categorically denied other things, that subsequently turned out to be true.

And then, there are cases like Muhammed AlDurrah, in which no amount of denials by the IDF will ever convince people of the truth.

Do you have a comment on the case which TMY just noted? (the story I've been asking Orwell about for a while now, of the fellow shot yesterday in Jenin for rock-throwing).

Do you think the shooting is just one more case of the IDF targeting civilians, or is it a case of something else?

[Tmy]

Fair enough. I am convinced you are mistaken, but at least you gave an answer. ( I am convinced of your error, because I myself served in the IDF, and know exactly what a rock-throwing mob is cabable of, including killing me).
.

Of cousre its dangerous. I agree. But in general, rock throwing does not equal bullet in the lung. If that were to happen in the US there'd be a whole lot of trouble for the police. (think Kent State).

Its not uncommon to put lives on diffrent pars. Its like when the police react to a shooting. They get to the crime scene quickly. But if a COP is the victim of the shooting, the police react with 10x the intensity. Not cause they dont value the life of regular joe shooting victim. They just care more about the cop.


And by the way, theres just way to many posts and links to really follow this thread.

[a_unique_person]

And then, there are cases like Muhammed AlDurrah, in which no amount of denials by the IDF will ever convince people of the truth.

Do you have a comment on the case which TMY just noted? (the story I've been asking Orwell about for a while now, of the fellow shot yesterday in Jenin for rock-throwing).

Do you think the shooting is just one more case of the IDF targeting civilians, or is it a case of something else?

It is an example of why the IDF should not be there in the first place. Sharon apparently has plans to grant the Palestinians a state. That should be the time we see the end of such incidents.

[Tmy]

( I am convinced of your error, because I myself served in the IDF, and know exactly what a rock-throwing mob is cabable of, including killing me).
.


And Im glad you let this info out. Cause I was gonna toss out the old "what do you know, have you ever been there!?" line. Man would I have been burned.

[webfusion]

And by the way, there's just way too many posts and links to really follow this thread.

Agreed. Thank Orwell for that.

BTW, the IDF are not 'police' -- IDF is an Armed Force engaged in combat operations against terrorists, and sometimes against other nations or terror groups (Hizbullah, for instance) who are attacking across the border.

[a_unique_person]

They are also an army of occupation.

[webfusion]

a_u_p, the question was plain.
Is the IDF targeting civilians, using the example of this man being shot (in the process of rock-throwing)?

I am not going to engage in a discussion here about the comment you made that "IDF should not be there in the first place. " or "army of Occupation"

[a_unique_person]

Rock throwing can kill. All references I have made to what I believe are against the IDF rules of engagement are other types of incidents.

[Tmy]

Agreed. Thank Orwell for that.

BTW, the IDF are not 'police' -- IDF is an Armed Force engaged in combat operations against terrorists, and sometimes against other nations or terror groups (Hizbullah, for instance) who are attacking across the border.


Yeah but by "police" i mean they are a govt security force. Government employees with guns are held to a higher standard than bomb toting terrorists.

[Orwell]

aup mentions that Hedges can be considered reliable in his account of the IDF troops firing at the kids essentially for no other reason than for sport.
I read the details and form an opposite view of his reliability.

But, that is not what we are here discussing, the veracity of one source or another. In the overall picture of the IDF facing Palestinian civilians over the course of 60 years almost, it cannot be said that the IDF targets civilians for death in the course of their operations. Not in full scale wars and not in the intifadah phase (which began, BTW, in 1987, not 2000). Not one scintilla of evidence shows that the IDF has the intention, nor the implementation of any plan or policy, to kill Palestinians merely because they are Palestinians, and need to be killed.

This entire suggestion is totally out of bounds.

I am not talking about anything that went on before the so-called "second Intifada". And that's for a pretty simple reason: I am pretty much limited to what I can link, and most of what went on before the mid nineties is not on-line.

There's a small paragraph in one of the articles I linked that made an impression on me:
Although those speaking out are a tiny proportion, their testimonies reflect a widespread culture of impunity, according to Sarit Michaeli of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem.

"During the first intifada, there were printed rules of engagement. In the second there are none and what rules exist are kept secret. This leaves a wide scope for interpretation for officers and soldiers," she said.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0906-02.htm

It seems to me that this indicates that the military practices (and the military culture) inside the IDF may have changed for the worse.

[Orwell]

Agreed. Thank Orwell for that.

BTW, the IDF are not 'police' -- IDF is an Armed Force engaged in combat operations against terrorists, and sometimes against other nations or terror groups (Hizbullah, for instance) who are attacking across the border.

Considering the idiotic hostility that any criticism of Israel creates around these parts, I felt that I had no choice but to swamp the thread with links supporting my points.

Look, we probably both want the same thing: an end to violence. But Israel will certainly never achieve any kind of peace by brutalising and killing an ever increasing number of Palestinians: not only will that create the hatred that feeds the extremists with the cannon fodder they need, but that will also make Israel loose the sympathy of people around the world.

[Orwell]

No, No.

You are off the mark.

I asked you about the incident where a Palestinian man was killed in Jenin yesterday, and you are talking about Ed Knows what.

I'll review, to get you back on target.

Let's look at one well-publicized incident of a Palestinian civilian being killed just today. It is in the news story linked to RIGHT HERE. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/649120.html)
This is what the report indicates:
In the course of the Wednesday clashes (during a huge IDF military operation in Jenin), IDF troops shot dead a local man who hurled rocks at an army patrol, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said. 11-23-05

Orwell, I have to ask you, in all seriousness, if you wish to bring any credibility to your side of the discussion now, can you indicate whether or not you think this was a classic case of the IDF targetting a civilian?

This has nothing to do with human shields or B'Tselem or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pay attention, I know you are running along here full steam ahead, but try to focus, Orwell.

AS for Hedges, if you don't wish to research his little fabrication and understand that his story is a lie, that's OK, you are free to remain ignorant of the truth, nobody is forcing you to look at the information of HonestReporting (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Eyeless_in_Gaza_-_Part_2.asp) about Hedges being a huge a&&hole. I personally have no problem saying that Hedges is a liar and his account cannot stand close scrutiny.

The IDF does not target civilians.

Have I denied that Palestinian terrorists exist in one of my posts? No, I haven't. I'm sure that there are many soldiers in the IDF that behave humanely and follow whatever procedures they're supposed to follow. I am also sure that there are elements in the IDF who don't give a damn, and that the "culture of impunity" mentioned in several of my links has encouraged these elements to target civilians.

I know you believe that the IDF never targets civilians, you already said so countless times. But why should I believe you and not AI, HRW, B'Tselem, the Israeli soldiers quoted by newspapers, observations by journalists, etc.?

[webfusion]

So the IDF doesnt mow down every Palistinian every time they have an opportunity. Big F'n deal. That doesnt translate to them being saints.

Indeed it doesn't. And as Orwell has so conveniently posted for everyone, there are huge ****** problems with the IDF actions, problems that range from using people as human shields (addressed in the Israeli High Court of Justice), to the use of mass detention without trials, to shooting 12-year-olds who are holding toy guns, to overzealous reactions to mobs attacking with stones.

Indeed, there are thousands of Palestinian dead (I abhor the arbitrary use of death-counts in the media using Sept 2000 as a demarcation for 'the intifadeh' because as we Israelis are painfully aware, the Palestinians have suffered casualties going back all the way to the outbreak of street violence in December 1987). Although a characterization has been made of me here by Orwell as saying or believing "a good palestinian is a dead palestinian" --- that is absolutely false. I would prefer that the palestinians cease confronting the armed and lethal IDF directly, cease terrorism in our cities, cease their campaign of incitement and involving children in their jihad, and cease their support of radical islamic fundamentalist movements (such as AlQueda). They have the potential to be good neighbors, they have the potential to emulate our robust democracy and hi-tech industry and attract tourism to their valuable and important land; they have such a positive future ahead of them, if they only adopt a path that that leads them there.

In the discussion at hand, the fact that the IDF does not 'mow down' Palestinians certainly is a Big ***** Deal. That is exactly the point the Israeli-supporters are making when denying that the IDF targets civilians. The very use of the term 'targets civilians' means that the IDF is out there using their tanks and artillery and air force and other means and methods to kill 'em, to kill as many as possible, to shoot at the crowds and mow them down, to decimate the populations in their cities, to 'ethnically cleanse' the Palestinians in cold blood with malice aforthought, as a matter of IDF policy and government approval.

Targeting civilians does not mean the IDF shooting an (unarmed) man who is participating in potentially-lethal violence and threatening the lives of an IDF patrol, during a riot. Human Rights Watch may think otherwise, Orwell may think otherwise. (I'm not sure, actually, since he is still remaining silent about that incident in Jenin --- he made three posts just now, and not one word in answer to my question about the shooting, and if he believes it is a case of targeted killing.)

Targeting civilians is the what the Islamic terrorists have perfected, to the great chagrin and sorrow of people everywhere.
(see: bombings in Iraq yesterday, in Hillah, where 11 Iraqis were killed and 17 injured Thursday when a car bomb exploded near a crowded soft drink stand, and a second incident near a Baghdad hospital, where innocent kids who were being given sweets by American troops for Thanksgiving lost their lives in a suicide attack).

Israel also faces such terror attacks, routinely, and to equate the IDF as being an organization that 'targets civilians' and by saying 'both sides' are guilty, is disgusting.

[Mycroft]

I would contend "every opportunity". That is just not true. The IDF is made up of individuals, who span the usual spectrum of human types, from the honest to the dishonest, the civil to the brutal, etc. The 12 year old girl who had a whole automatic magazine emptied into her was not a victim of "respect". That there are humane and decent people on both sides of the issue is never open to debate, we have to have 'faith' in human nature. That atrocities are committed by both sides is also beyond dispute, in my opinion.

Essentially your argument here is this:

Because the IDF is made up of humans, some of those humans will be bad people, you use the words dishonest and brutal.

Because we know some of the IDF are dishonest and brutal, it follows that these dishonest and brutal men in the IDF sometimes commit atrocities.

Because the IDF commits atrocities and the Palestinians commit atrocities, it’s beyond dispute that both sides commit atrocities.

And so you’ve created equivalence between the IDF and Palestinian terrorist organizations without any evidence at all.

You could use the same argument on any organization.

The Mafia is a brutal, violent criminal organization. Sometimes its member commit brutal and violent crimes.

Major League Baseball has thousands of members, all of whom are human. Some of these humans will be brutal, violent and criminal.

Because we know that some Major League Baseball players are brutal, violent and criminal, it follows that sometimes they commit brutal and violent crimes.

Because Major League Baseball players sometimes commit brutal and violent crimes, they are no different from the Mafia.

Absurd? Yeah, but all it takes is one news article about a baseball player getting involved in a drug deal, rape, or drive-by shooting and you have all the evidence you need to “prove” your case.

You can do the same with any organization. Boy Scouts, policemen, paramedics, public school teachers…any group large enough will have some members in it who are criminal and violent, more than enough to “prove” your case.

That’s why these equivalence arguments are fallacious. It doesn’t create an accurate picture to simply say ”atrocities are committed by both sides” and to let it go at that. That’s misleading and dishonest, though being technically true makes for good propaganda.

The truth here is that one of these groups commits atrocities as a matter of policy, and the other group has a policy not to commit atrocities, even if sometimes rogue members do it anyway. That’s the difference, and they are not equivilent.

[Mycroft]

IDF spokesmen have categorically denied other things, that subsequently turned out to be true.

Therefore you may feel free to accept even the worst smear against the IDF without applying any critical thinking at all. :oldroll: After all, “might be true” is good enough if you want it bad enough.

[Mycroft]

You cannot assume that this guy was standing there, all alone, chucking a few stones, and got killed for his efforts. Read the story, and it will be clear that the IDF partrol was under concentrated attack by mobs of people in Jenin (maybe thousands, under the conditions). The fact that just ONE guy was killed is amazing! That is the essence of the evidence, proving without a shadow of a doubt, the IDF does not target civilians.

When I was a kid, early grade school, some of my friends were a little more violent than normal. We’d have pine cone wars that would invariably escalate into rock wars. We’d pick up pieces of gravel or decorative stone and chuck these rocks at each other as hard we could, and they would hurt. You hoped for the body shot and would be wearing a jacket, and that would offer you pretty good protection, but if you got hit in the legs or, god forbid, the head…yeaouch!

I’ve seen videos of Palestinian kids throwing rocks. They were not chucking gravel like we used to. They were throwing rocks ranging in size from fist sized to soft-ball sized, and it wasn’t just one at a time, but 30 or 40 would come crashing down on their target all at once. They were deadly.

Shoot someone throwing rocks? The soldiers in the video I saw didn’t. They just took cover in their vehicle and drove away.

But having seen it it’s easy to imagine a situation where retreat isn’t an option. What do you do? You defend yourself.

[Mycroft]

You're right, I'm not interested in debating with self-avowed partisan hacks. I know it's a waste of time.


I would have to call myself a partisan hack in order for it to be "self-avowed." Since I don't label myself that way, the correct term would be "so called."

[Cleopatra]

Why?


Because you know that I can't tolerate subtle remarks. It must be obvious to you that Orwell doesn't have a case,not because IDF is the perfect army ( armies are by definition unliberal and undemocratic) but because nobody will be able to prove that a country built on western principles allow its officilias to give orders to target civilians deliberately even if this country is in War and its own civilians are being targetted by terrorists.

Also, you do know that IDF has nothing in common with the American or British troops and maybe the Australian ones. IDF soldiers are people like you and me. Your sons would be serving in IDF if you lived in Israel and they would be serving in real war conditions.

So, IDF is about common Israelis, people like me and I don't tolerate unfair and unsupported snide remarks for the people of Israel who try to make a life in a very hostile environment. I don't tolerate unfair remarks for people that they were never given a chance to figure out what sort of country they wish because they try to protect their lives.I don't tolerate descrimination for a country that unlike its dreadful conditions goes really well and will go better.Above all, I refuse to demonstrate my solidarity towards the fair palestinian cause by eating my flesh,there are other ways, less dramatic and more efficient.

Like every nation, Israel is far from perfect but I don't understand why people,especially the atheists of this forum judge Israelis by applying moral standards and expect Israelis to live in the islamic terror and be the examples of democratic westeners in the same time.

All the above are familiar to you from our previous conversations, public and private and yet you, like some other people here ( Capel Dodger,Cleon etc ) refuse to judge Israel by applying the same standards you use to judge your countries. People like Orwell don't influence anybody so I am not interested in pushing him by putting him in my signature and ridicule him in the way only I know. People around the world are influenced by people like you or Capel Dodger that why it's you that I am pushing.

That's why you made it to my signature.

[a_unique_person]

Good grief, now I'm being subtle again. Honestly, you have no idea what you are talking about when you try mind reading about what is the real meaning of what I am saying, behind the subtlety. I tried really hard to say just what I thought, as plainly and simply as I could, without any other meaning to be attributed to what I did say.

I was not arguing for Orwell or against him, but simply trying put the 'sceptical' case. What is the evidence?

That is, are there copies of orders that say the IDF must target civilians and kill them? I don't believe anyone has ever offered any evidence that there are.

Why then do we get examples such as the 12 year old girl riddled with the bullets of a full magazine of an automatic weapon? If there are no orders, then the individual must have acted outside orders, and the rules of engagement. Yet when they do, it seems that they are let off, even when these rules must have been broken.

Are you claiming that Israel is being treated unfairly when this is pointed out?

Who started this thread? It wasn't me, nor anyone else who thinks the Palestinians have the rough end of the pineapple. It was someone who is pro-Israeli.

[a_unique_person]

When I am being subtle, and not saying clearly and openly what I really think, what is it that I am really thinking?

[zenith-nadir]

IDF discovers bomb factory in Jenin - Nov. 25, 2005 9:21

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475618826&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The IDF confirmed reports that a large bomb factory had been uncovered by troops operating in Jenin on Tuesday evening. Soldiers had surrounded a house in Jenin as part of the ongoing clampdown on the Islamic Jihad infrastructure in the city.

The troops found mortar shells, large amounts of explosives, components for making explosives, and IDF equipment inside the factory.A large terrorist bomb factory was found concealed in a house in Jenin.

Late Wednesday, troops in Jenin arrested Iyad Hussein Abu Al-Roub, 31, head of the Islamic Jihad in the city. He was responsible for the Hadera suicide bomb attack and was in the midst of planning further attacks in Israel.So the IDF had to go get the head of Islamic Jihad in Jenin at their own peril. They risked their lives to stop the leader of the group who is responsible for sending a suicide bomber into an open air market full of Israeli civilians. And guess what, concealed in a noncombatant house was a bomb factory producing more bombs specifically built to kill Israelis.

Did the Palestinian Authority know Iyad Hussein Abu Al-Roub was there, you bet your boots they know who the leader of Islamic Jihad is in Jenin. Did they take any action against the the leader of Islamic Jihad in Jenin who sent a suicide bomber into an open air market full of Israeli civilians? Nope.

Let's continue.
Al-Roub surrendered to security forces after a 16-hour-siege. His partner, Fares Khader Abu Roub, also surrendered to troops. Both left the building carrying a white flag. The operation conducted by IDF forces and elite Border Police units in Jenin started before dawn on Wednesday. One Palestinian was killed and twelve were wounded in violent clashes between Palestinians and security forces.So in order to capture, not target and kill Iyad Hussein Abu Al-Roub, the IDF met stiff resistance where one Palestinian was killed and twelve were wounded.

Where is the Palestinian Authority? Why do they refuse to separate the Palestinian combatants from the Palestinian noncombatants? Why do they allow bomb factories to be hidden in civilian homes? Why do they refuse to arrest known leaders of known terror groups who are known to have sent bombers into Israel to kill Israeli civilians? Remember Islamic Jihad is fighting to destroy Israel not for the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Now imagine if you are Israeli and this has been going on day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade....because it has.

Since Israelis are only human and have emotions don't you think some humans in the IDF would resent Palestinians after doing this task day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade? But if the IDF simply "targets civilians" why did they just not go wild in Jenin? Why did they wait in a 16-hour-siege while under fire from other Palestinians to arrest Iyad Hussein Abu Al-Roub? I'll tell you why, because there is no policy in the IDF to target civilians.

Those soldiers in the IDF had to risk their own lives to go stop a known leader of a terror group who sent bombers into Israel because the Palestinian Authority refuses to do it. THey risked their own lives to save other lives. And in doing so they were A) shot at, which resulted in the death of one Palestinian and the wounding of 12 others and B) they discovered more terror bombs in a bomb factory concealed in a civilian home.

I do not think anyone at JREF could do that kind of job day in and day out without feeling some sort of emotion. This has been going on for decades and sometimes individuals in the IDF crack and do weird things under this pressure - Hell, even other 'disciplined' military forces do weird things in war, see: Abu Ghraib prison.

[Cleopatra]

I will return to reply to aup just one thing for now.

To make a long story short zenith nadir. For those they haven't heard the news. Israel is in War. Since the first day it was established.

[Cleopatra]

When I am being subtle, and not saying clearly and openly what I really think, what is it that I am really thinking?

I don't judge you by what you are thinking, I am judging you by what you post here.

We have a discussion. Orwell, in a childish fashion made one of his usual,unfounded silly claims. Orwell. A poster who refused to take my challenge a couple of weeks ago when I asked him to mention the most crucial matter for the Palestinians right now. Were you surprized? I wasn't because typing " crucial matter+palestinians" in the google search box won't give you much...

So Mycroft starts this thread, I don't agree with that because he gave too much credit to Orwell who is proverbially unable to debate on the matter and on the top of that now he feels victimized by the "jewish crowd".

Orwell is wrong unique but he will never listen to me because he doesn't consider my point of view unbiased.He can listen to you though. What do you do? You find the whole thing amusing and instead of explaining to him why he has to rephrase his claim--to say the least-- you fuel his idiocy by posting pseudo-neutral comments of " skeptical nature".

This is the subtle behavior that gets on my nerves, aup.

The other thing that gets on my nerves is that there is absolutely out of question for you to demonstrate some level headed approach to the whole matter.

As long as it's Israel bashing it's amusing. It's not for me.

[Cleopatra]

The magnitude of the prejudice and ignorance of the Israel bashers is demonstrated by the fact that nobody discussed the verdict of the Israeli Supreme Court according to which the use of civilians as human shields is banned, a case that was brought to court by Israeli human rights activists.Note that the verdict came as a follow up to an injunction previously issued (a couple of years earlier), in the peak of Intifanda II where human bombs were exploding every other day!!

I am sorry to ruin your illusions.

Off to lunch, REALLY pissed off.

[a_unique_person]

I don't judge you by what you are thinking, I am judging you by what you post here.

We have a discussion. Orwell, in a childish fashion made one of his usual,unfounded silly claims. Orwell. A poster who refused to take my challenge a couple of weeks ago when I asked him to mention the most crucial matter for the Palestinians right now. Were you surprized? I wasn't because typing " crucial matter+palestinians" in the google search box won't give you much...

So Mycroft starts this thread, I don't agree with that because he gave too much credit to Orwell who is proverbially unable to debate on the matter and on the top of that now he feels victimized by the "jewish crowd".

Orwell is wrong unique but he will never listen to me because he doesn't consider my point of view unbiased.He can listen to you though. What do you do? You find the whole thing amusing and instead of explaining to him why he has to rephrase his claim--to say the least-- you fuel his idiocy by posting pseudo-neutral comments of " skeptical nature".

This is the subtle behavior that gets on my nerves, aup.

The other thing that gets on my nerves is that there is absolutely out of question for you to demonstrate some level headed approach to the whole matter.

As long as it's Israel bashing it's amusing. It's not for me.

I thought I was just pointing out that blaming "The IDF" was not supportable. That if he has evidence of action by IDF members that is wrong, it is only evidence of that.

[a_unique_person]

I had no idea I found this 'amusing'. Could you point out any evidence that I do?

[Orwell]

Essentially your argument here is this:

Because the IDF is made up of humans, some of those humans will be bad people, you use the words dishonest and brutal.

Because we know some of the IDF are dishonest and brutal, it follows that these dishonest and brutal men in the IDF sometimes commit atrocities.

Because the IDF commits atrocities and the Palestinians commit atrocities, it’s beyond dispute that both sides commit atrocities.

And so you’ve created equivalence between the IDF and Palestinian terrorist organizations without any evidence at all.

You could use the same argument on any organization.

The Mafia is a brutal, violent criminal organization. Sometimes its member commit brutal and violent crimes.

Major League Baseball has thousands of members, all of whom are human. Some of these humans will be brutal, violent and criminal.

Because we know that some Major League Baseball players are brutal, violent and criminal, it follows that sometimes they commit brutal and violent crimes.

Because Major League Baseball players sometimes commit brutal and violent crimes, they are no different from the Mafia.

Absurd? Yeah, but all it takes is one news article about a baseball player getting involved in a drug deal, rape, or drive-by shooting and you have all the evidence you need to “prove” your case.

You can do the same with any organization. Boy Scouts, policemen, paramedics, public school teachers…any group large enough will have some members in it who are criminal and violent, more than enough to “prove” your case.

That’s why these equivalence arguments are fallacious. It doesn’t create an accurate picture to simply say ”atrocities are committed by both sides” and to let it go at that. That’s misleading and dishonest, though being technically true makes for good propaganda.

The truth here is that one of these groups commits atrocities as a matter of policy, and the other group has a policy not to commit atrocities, even if sometimes rogue members do it anyway. That’s the difference, and they are not equivilent.

What exactly are you saying, Mycroft? That we must not criticise the behaviour of IDF soldiers out of fear of "creating equivalencies between the IDF and Palestinian terrorist organizations"? That's horse manure and you know it. I'm sure that there are IDF soldiers who behave correctly, but as you pointed out, there are IDF soldiers who don't. More seriously, it seems that the IDF soldiers who don't behave correctly aren't being punished, and that IDF practices have changed in a way that allows bad behaviour towards Palestinian civilians to go on with impunity.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about these "equivalencies". If the IDF are the good guys, then they should behave like the good guys. Good guys don't drop one-tonne bombs on residential neighbourhoods in order to kill one man.

My claims were that the IDF has targeted civilians (in the strictest sense of the word targeted). I know some people wanted me to be implying more, probably in the hopes of building a straw man... And concerning this claim (that the IDF was targeting, or if you prefer, attacking civilians) I gave you many links that I believe to are credible enough to support it.

[WildCat]

My claims were that the IDF has targeted civilians (in the strictest sense of the word targeted). I know some people wanted me to be implying more, probably in the hopes of building a straw man... And concerning this claim (that the IDF was targeting, or if you prefer, attacking civilians) I gave you many links that I believe to be credible that support it.
You've had quite a while now to show evidence that the IDF targets civilians. You've offered bluff, bluster, and misdirection, but no evidence. I think at this point it's safe to say you have no evidence, and we can all be reasonably sure the IDF does not target civilians.

If you want to start a thread about the limits one should have in prosecuting a war, please do so. But I see much evidence that you don't think Israel is really at war, so you'll just retreat back to your usual strawmen and link-spamming. Whatever. :rolleyes:

[Orwell]

The magnitude of the prejudice and ignorance of the Israel bashers is demonstrated by the fact that nobody discussed the verdict of the Israeli Supreme Court according to which the use of civilians as human shields is banned, a case that was brought to court by Israeli human rights activists.Note that the verdict came as a follow up to an injunction previously issued (a couple of years earlier), in the peak of Intifanda II where human bombs were exploding every other day!!

I am sorry to ruin your illusions.

Off to lunch, REALLY pissed off.

See, this is the typical line of argument that makes me laugh in disbelief...

So what if the Israeli supreme court has banned that practice? That only gives further support to the reports that the IDF was using it. Why do you have to turn my criticisms of IDF behaviour into a general attack on the entire nation of Israel, all other institutions included? It was never intended as such, and the fact that you think it is indicates that you are unable to think clearly when talking about Israel.

This stupid hostility really doesn't become you.

[Orwell]

I would have to call myself a partisan hack in order for it to be "self-avowed." Since I don't label myself that way, the correct term would be "so called."

I recall a threat were you said that you thought criticising Israel was "inappropriate".

[Orwell]

You've had quite a while now to show evidence that the IDF targets civilians. You've offered bluff, bluster, and misdirection, but no evidence. I think at this point it's safe to say you have no evidence, and we can all be reasonably sure the IDF does not target civilians.

If you want to start a thread about the limits one should have in prosecuting a war, please do so. But I see much evidence that you don't think Israel is really at war, so you'll just retreat back to your usual strawmen and link-spamming. Whatever. :rolleyes:

I offered you all the evidence that I could have possibly offered you. Link after link after link. If you're too stupid (or too dishonest) to understand what's described in those links, well, that's not my problem now is it?

Sceptics... Yeah right. :rolleyes:

Since it seems that you aren't willing to debate the issue in an honest way, maybe I should keep posting my links away... ;)

[Cleopatra]

I had no idea I found this 'amusing'. Could you point out any evidence that I do?

No, I can't point out any evidence the same way I can't show any evidence in the instances _I_ unlike the majority of the people here know when you are joking or when you are genuinely upset or sad.

[Cleopatra]

See, this is the typical line of argument that makes me laugh in disbelief...

So what if the Israeli supreme court have banned that practice? That only gives further support to the reports that the IDF was using it. Why do you have to turn my criticisms of IDF behaviour into a general attack on the entire nation of Israel, all other institutions included? It was never intended as such, and the fact that you think it is indicates that you are unable to think clearly when talking about Israel.

This stupid hostility really doesn't become you.


Probably I can't think clearly when it comes to Israel but I can think clearly when it comes to legislation. In various threads in this forum I have posted many things regarding the nature of law. A law usually is the outcome of a long-long procedure that exists to underline what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a society.

So, during a war period which wasn't a common case of war, it was a war against the israeli civilians--the Israeli Surpeme Court comes and makes official something that was considered " bad practice" by the Army. This proves that your claim, that IDF targets civilians doesn't stand.

I wasn't upset by your criticism and I am not intimidated by such comments because I have been posting in this forum for quite a long time and people know where do I come from. I am passionate pacifist,dedicated to the cause of peace, hoping that very soon I will see the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.I am passionately in favor of an secular israeli state knowing that in the case of Israel this is not very simple. BUT this doesn't mean that I am obliged to tolerate unfair criticism,kicks below the belt etc.

So, I wasn't upset by your criticism but I was genuinely upset by the light hearted way you seem to form your opinion about this matter. What the world thinks about Israel is of vital importance for the peace process. Chosing to attack Israelis with no reason and refusing to aknowledge certain facts about Israel,makes Israelis more introvert and more scarred and if Israeli people were less scarred the incidents of abuse of power by IDF that you listed above would be much much less.

BTW what happened to the first crop of the greenhouses in Gaza? Have the Israeli authorities let the farmers sell their products or the former still wait for the approval to come? Who knows about that? Who exercizes pressure to Israel about that? Nobody! All of you are too busy criticizing the obvious and let the pacifists of both sides helpless and desperate.

[Orwell]

Probably I can't think clearly when it comes to Israel but I can think clearly when it comes to legislation. In various threads in this forum I have posted many things regarding the nature of law. A law usually is the outcome of a long-long procedure that exists to underline what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a society.

So, during a war period which wasn't a common case of war, it was a war against the israeli civilians--the Israeli Surpeme Court comes and makes official something that was considered " bad practice" by the Army. This proves that your claim, that IDF targets civilians doesn't stand. You're a lawyer, eh? That explains a lot of things. :) I dunno, maybe a chunk of IDF hierarchy doesn't share the values of the rest of the Israeli society? Or maybe it's the Israeli supreme court who's out of step with the values of Israeli society (I sincerely hope not, by the way). How should I know? Why should I care? All I know is that the IDF has done reprehensible things. As I said before, any debate regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that doesn't take this into account is doomed to be one sided. By the way, I'm happy to see that the Israeli supreme court is trying to put some limits on IDF abuses.

I wasn't upset by your criticism and I am not intimidated by such comments because I have been posting in this forum for quite a long time and people know where do I come from. I am passionate pacifist,dedicated to the cause of peace, hoping that very soon I will see the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.I am passionately in favor of an secular israeli state knowing that in the case of Israel this is not very simple. BUT this doesn't mean that I am obliged to tolerate unfair criticism,kicks below the belt etc. Well, Cleo, if certain people in this forum (mainly Mycroft, Zenith-Nadir, Skeptic, and now it seems Wildcat, I'm thinking that Webfusion is getting less adamant now) were able to debate honestly about this subject, I would have probably been less forceful and more diplomatic about my criticisms of the IDF.

So, I wasn't upset by your criticism but I was genuinely upset by the light hearted way you seem to form your opinion about this matter. What the world thinks about Israel is of vital importance for the peace process. Chosing to attack Israelis with no reason and refusing to aknowledge certain facts about Israel,makes Israelis more introvert and more scarred and if Israeli people were less scarred the incidents of abuse of power by IDF that you listed above would be much much less.
Look, I can act dead serious if I think I am treated with respect. If you keep insisting, after all the human rights reports I have posted, that my claims about IDF attacking civilians (I will cease to use the word "targets", since that seems to have produced a lot of confusion) are a fragment of my imagination (that is without any grounds in some kind of reality), I won't take you seriously.

You're right, "what the world thinks about Israel is of vital importance for the peace process". What do you think is best for Israel? Debating the issues in an honest manner, or just spouting propaganda and blocking any serious debate with dishonest arguments? 'Cause see, if you behave that way, I will just find a way to get my point across in the most annoying way I can find. ;)

BTW what happened to the first crop of the greenhouses in Gaza? Have the Israeli authorities let the farmers sell their products or the former still wait for the approval to come? Who knows about that? Who exercizes pressure to Israel about that? Nobody! All of you are too busy criticizing the obvious and let the pacifists of both sides helpless and desperate. What does that have to do with IDF human rights abuses? Even if the Palestinians were generally a bunch of bungholes (totally hypothetically speaking), how would that justify IDF human rights abuses? It's simple really: I just don't believe that Israeli security requires systematic human rights abuses. Is that an illegitimate stance?

[Orwell]

One more thing: Cleo, I am taking the time to actually try to speak to you simply because I think that, even though we might disagree, you at least seem to be honest about your feelings. As far as I can tell, you don't engage in elaborate male bovine manure arguments and spin à la Mycroft, so I don't feel like I am wasting my time.

[Cleopatra]

You're a lawyer, eh? That explains a lot of things. :) I dunno, maybe a chunk of IDF hierarchy doesn't share the values of the rest of the Israeli society? Or maybe it's the Israeli supreme court who's out of step with the values of Israeli society (I sincerely hope not, by the way).
Or maybe S**** just happen in wars, right? Think! We live in an era that the acts of an army come to the light of publicity and it's almost impossible for armies to hide their misdeeds. I am somebody who finds herself in oposition to any sort of authority and govenrment.Government, any government is the worse enemy of any citizen. Still, I expect IDF to apply some standards that exist in peace time, although I know that this is war, real war.
How should I know? Why should I care? All I know is that the IDF has done reprehensible things. As I said before, any debate regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that doesn't take this into account is doomed to be one sided. By the way, I'm happy to see that the Israeli supreme court is trying to put some limits on IDF abuses.

IDF has done some really reprehensible things that contradict even the jewish tradition and I bet that we will been recording such events in the future so our duty is to bring those events into light of publicity and criticize IDF and Israel for its real acts.

Well, Cleo, if certain people in this forum (mainly Mycroft, Zenith-Nadir, Skeptic, and now it seems Wildcat, I'm thinking that Webfusion is getting less adamant now) were able to debate honestly about this subject, I would have probably been less forceful and more diplomatic about my criticisms of the IDF. Listen. You have started posting only recenlly,otherwise you would have known the welcoming I have organized for zenith-nadir. It was a Cleopatra treatment in full glory. Many times I find myself in disagreement with Mycroft. I might like Mycroft as a person but 7 to 10 of the times I disagree with his points of view. I scrutinize z-n's and Mycroft's posts and frankly I haven't found them lying. They post facts. I am in the position to know that facts many times don't say a word and they don't reveal the truth but I cannot call these people liars just because I disagree with their attitude.

You have to distinguish your personal tastes from facts.


Look, I can act dead serious if I think I am treated with respect. If you keep insisting, after all the human rights reports I have posted, that my claims about IDF attacking civilians (I will cease to use the word "targets", since that seems to have produced a lot of confusion) are a fragment of my imagination (that is without any grounds in some kind of reality), I won't take you seriously. No, I don't question the reports you linked. Israel has serious issues with violations of human rights and I find myself in a very difficult position when I have to remind to people that even Great Britain made it to the reports of Amnesty International. I consider hypocritical when the interest about human rights is exhausted in Israel.That's all.

You're right, "what the world thinks about Israel is of vital importance for the peace process". What do you think is best for Israel? Debating the issues in an honest manner, or just spouting propaganda and blocking any serious debate with dishonest arguments? 'Cause see, if you behave that way, I will just find a way to get my point across in the most annoying way I can find. ;)

Ok. Why do you expect Israelis to be any different than other people when it comes to state propaganda?

What does that have to do with IDF human rights abuses? Even if the Palestinians were generally a bunch of bungholes (totally hypothetically speaking), how would that justify IDF human rights abuses? It's simple really: I just don't believe that Israeli security requires systematic human rights abuses. Is that an illegitimate stance?It doesn't have to do with the violations of human rights. It has to do with my asking you to report what is the vital issue for the Palestinians these days.

You seem to have your ears open only for the Palestinian cause which is a fair cause. You have to listen to the Israelis as well.

[Mycroft]

What exactly are you saying, Mycroft? That we must not criticise the behaviour of IDF soldiers out of fear of "creating equivalencies between the IDF and Palestinian terrorist organizations"? That's horse manure and you know it

I didn’t say that nor anything like that.

That post was specifically about AUP and how he made his argument. The “horse manure” is how you take my statement ”AUP, your argument is fallacious and here is why” and read it as “You can’t criticize the IDF.” That’s not what I said, and if you would engage your brain and calm your infantile tantrum you might be able to see that.


Frankly, I don't give a damn about these "equivalencies". If the IDF are the good guys, then they should behave like the good guys. Good guys don't drop one-tonne bombs on residential neighbourhoods in order to kill one man.

I’m sorry it offends your sensitivities, but the world doesn’t always work that way. In war, sometimes you take the shot to eliminate an important target even if you know it will also get some civilians. That’s sad, but war is a product of an imperfect world.


My claims were that the IDF has targeted civilians (in the strictest sense of the word targeted). I know some people wanted me to be implying more, probably in the hopes of building a straw man... And concerning this claim (that the IDF was targeting, or if you prefer, attacking civilians) I gave you many links that I believe to are credible enough to support it.

You spammed the thread with links it’s doubtful you even read, and did so in a way that virtually eliminated any chance of intelligible discussion.

Are your links credible? Some of them are, some are not. Skepticism is about sorting the credible from the un-credible, but that won’t happen with your shot-gun approach. All you accomplish is to announce to the world that you feel anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a “partisan hack” and not worth paying attention to.

Who can take you seriously after that?

[Mycroft]

I recall a threat were you said that you thought criticising Israel was "inappropriate".

No, I have never threatened anyone, if you "recall" anywhere that I did, you're welcome to link to it and prove me wrong.

In any case, "self-avowed" means that's what I call myself, not what I'm called by someone else.

[Mycroft]

Many times I find myself in disagreement with Mycroft. I might like Mycroft as a person but 7 to 10 of the times I disagree with his points of view.

Hmph! I thought I'd gotten that down to five of ten times at least!

[Gurdur]

I just think y'all should talk about something ELSE occasionally, but hey, that's only IMHO.

[Mycroft]

I just think y'all should talk about something ELSE occasionally, but hey, that's only IMHO.


There are threads on topics that don't interest me very much. If I read them, I don't tell the people who are interested enough to post their opinions that they should be doing something else instead. That would be rude.

[Gurdur]

There are threads on topics that don't interest me very much. If I read them, I don't tell the people who are interested enough to post their opinions that they should be doing something else instead. That would be rude.
Possibly you're quite right, but the sheer number of Israel (pro- or anti-) threads is what prompted my not-too-serious remark. No offence intended.

[Mycroft]

Possibly you're quite right, but the sheer number of Israel (pro- or anti-) threads is what prompted my not-too-serious remark. No offence intended.

I may have been unduly snippish. If I haven't said it already, welcome to the forum. :)

[Gurdur]

Many thanks. Didn't mean to be snippish myself, sorry if I came over like that.

[Cleopatra]

I just think y'all should talk about something ELSE occasionally, but hey, that's only IMHO.

Generally speaking, this is a very wise advise. For me is a subject I am quite aware of. I am very much interested in the american politics as well but I am not in the position to debate seriously with posters like Randfan,Luke and others because you people live there. I'd rather read those threads than debating because I don't think that I have much insight to offer. On the contrary, I consider my presence in a discussion about Middle East more constructive. One of the most precious compliments I have received was from Supercharts-- an american jew and rather fierce zionist. After a year of reading my posts he has said in mu.nu that he has changed his views regarding Israel and he has realized that Israel isn't always right and that thanks to the resident Israeli!

[luchog]

I just think y'all should talk about something ELSE occasionally, but hey, that's only IMHO.
Some of us do talk about other things quite a bit. Just not here. :D

But if you're interested in my opinions on beer or art...

[webfusion]

I was relieved to see that Orwell recognized that "attacking" and "targeting" are two different things.

Look, we probably both want the same thing: an end to violence.

I dunno, is that how you are interpreting what I said before? ----
"I would prefer that the palestinians cease confronting the armed and lethal IDF directly, cease terrorism in our cities, cease their campaign of incitement and involving children in their jihad, and cease their support of radical islamic fundamentalist movements (such as AlQueda). They have the potential to be good neighbors, they have the potential to emulate our robust democracy and hi-tech industry and attract tourism to their valuable and important land; they have such a positive future ahead of them, if they only adopt a path that that leads them there."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D271105/185Abbas%20Olmert271105_AP.jpg
Israel's Deputy Premier Ehud Olmert and Palestinian PM Abbas in a photo-op today.

[Orwell]

I was relieved to see that Orwell recognized that "attacking" and "targeting" are two different things.
Attack: (military) an offensive against an enemy (using weapons); "the attack began at dawn"

Target: a reference point to shoot at; "his arrow hit the mark"

And damn it, the IDF has attacked, targeted, killed, maimed, assassinated, abused, whatever, Palestinian civilians. Period. No amount of bitching, spinning, complaining, lying, etc. is going to change that.

[webfusion]

Which brings me back to asking, Orwell --- in the incident of a Palestinian man being killed in Jenin last week, during IDF operations, would you say he was "targeted"? That question I have asked of you still remains open ---- you are free to answer, or not, as you wish.

It is one case, typical of the type of incidents which are being discussed.
I am not sure why you are avoiding dealing with that, and instead are drawing upon a mass of reports and articles that have nothing to do with targeting.

Was_this_ civilian_targeted_by_the_IDF?

[Orwell]

I have already answered your question. I never denied that there are Palestinian terrorists and that they must be arrested. One good action doesn't erase, excuse or rebut all the documented human rights abuses perpetrated by the IDF.

And this "it's a war zone, manure happens" thing is a load of hokum, you're trying to dilute what I have been saying back into something you're comfortable with.

A reminder (already posted):
Israeli Soldiers Tell of Indiscriminate Killings by Army and a Culture of Impunity
Whistleblowers' testimony shows desire for revenge on Palestinians (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0906-02.htm)

[zenith-nadir]

I have already answered your question. I never denied that there are Palestinian terrorists and that they must be arrested. One good action doesn't erase, excuse or rebut all the documented human rights abuses perpetrated by the IDF.

And this "it's a war zone, manure happens" thing is a load of hokum, you're trying to dilute what I have been saying back into something you're comfortable with.Was_this_ civilian_targeted_by_the_IDF?The irony here Web is you've served in the IDF and assure Orwell that you never had orders to target civilians. Orwell has never served in the IDF but he is 100% sure the IDF does target civilians.

I guess it is up to JREFers to decide who's telling the truth.

Personally I would love to see the IDF out of the West Bank for good. They are already out of Gaza so that point is moot. But the IDF can never truely "stand down" as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are still operational, active and a clear and present danger to all Israeli civilians.

Yet what I've learned over the decades is Israeli settlements are considered a violation of Palestinian human rights. The security wall is considered a violation of Palestinian human rights. Restrictions on freedom of movement is considered a violation of Palestinian human rights. The destruction of property is considered a violation of Palestinian human rights. Israel’s response to the terrorism of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is considered disproportionate and....a violation of Palestinian human rights. As a matter of fact the mere presence of IDF troops in Gaza or the West Bank is a violation of Palestinian human rights, the IDF shouldn't be there at all regardless of why they are there in the first place.

Hell, the Palestinian Authority never had it so good. Since 1994 they have allowed the combatants of the militant terror groups to disguise themselves like Palestinian noncombatants. They have allowed the combatants of the militant terror groups to hide amongst Palestinian noncombatants - virtually using them as cover. They have allowed the combatants of the militant terror groups to operate with impunity and launch attacks from inside Palestinian noncombatant positions such as orchards, farms, homes, apartments, schools, hospitals, Palestinian Authority offices and ordinary businesses.

Since 1994 the Israelis have signed several agreements with the Palestinian Authority which obligates the Palestinian Authority to not allow combatant militant terror groups to operate with impunity. They are, in order:


Israel-PLO Recognition, September 9-10, 1993
Israel-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, (Oslo 1) September 13, 1993
Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, May 4, 1994
Agreement on the Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities (Israel-PLO), August 29, 1994
Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, September 28, 1995
Agreement on Temporary International Presence in Hebron, May 9, 1996
Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron, January 17, 1997
The Wye River Plantation Agreement (1998)
The Sharm el Sheikh Agreement (1999)
Palestinian-Israeli Security Implementation Work Plan (Tenet Plan) June 15 2001
The Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (April 30, 2003)


Yet even to the very day I am typing this post the Palestinian Authority still allows combatant militant terror groups to operate with impunity.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20051128/i/r3506165203.jpghttp://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20051128/i/r4086959400.jpg

Palestinian gunmen stand during a news conference after they closed a polling station for Fatah movement at the Khan younis camp southern Gaza Strip, November 28, 2005. Palestinian gunmen, firing in the air, stormed into several polling stations in the Gaza Strip on Monday where President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party was holding primary elections and forced them to close, witnesses said. Courtesy of REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa.

Several Israeli governments have maintained a willingness to withdraw from areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a component of a comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians, but it has proved impossible to fulfill such an agreement despite many attempts by many people over many decades.

I've always wondered if Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'Tselem consider the Palestinian Authority allowing combatant militant terror groups to run roughshod over the rights of Palestinian noncombatants a "violation of Palestinian human rights" too. ;)

[Orwell]

I've always wondered if Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'Tselem consider the Palestinian Authority allowing combatant militant terror groups to run roughshod over the rights of Palestinian noncombatants a "violation of Palestinian human rights" too. ;)

Yes, and if you had been paying attention, you would notice that several of the quotes I provided mention that and complain about it. What are you trying to argue? That PA human rights abuses justify IDF human rights abuses?

[Jocko]

Yes, and if you had been paying attention, you would notice that several of the quotes I provided mention that and complain about it. What are you trying to argue? That PA human rights abuses justify IDF human rights abuses?

Here, take this, it'll help.

[Orwell]

The irony here Web is you've served in the IDF and assure Orwell that you never had orders to target civilians. Orwell has never served in the IDF but he is 100% sure the IDF does target civilians.

I guess it is up to JREFers to decide who's telling the truth.



Yes, that's one ex-IDF sorldier's word against a crapload of HRW, AI and B'tselem reports. Who should sceptics (real ones, not partisan hacks) believe? It should also be noted that Webfusion probably served a while ago, and he probably can't say much about today's IDF (note that most of not all the reports I quoted were from the last 5 years).

[Orwell]

Here, take this, it'll help.

Another who hasn't been paying attention. :rolleyes:

[Jocko]

Another who hasn't been paying attention. :rolleyes:
Yes, Orwell, everyone who disagrees with you does so simply because they aren't paying attention. Such arrogance. I've pointed out your problems - semantic and otherwise - twice, and been generally ignored.

You've been challenged to make good on your thesis, and failed by every imaginable measure. If you were smart, you'd write it off as a misunderstanding over the term "targeted," but no, you've got to keep on digging, as if the deeper and darker the hole, the less likely people will be able to see your foolishness.

Dream on, kid. This kind of invective may fly in third-period Poli Sci, but out here in the real world things work differently.

Pay attention, indeed.

[Mycroft]

Yes, that's one ex-IDF sorldier's word against a crapload of HRW, AI and B'tselem reports. Who should sceptics (real ones, not partisan hacks) believe? It should also be noted that Webfusion probably served a while ago, and he probably can't say much about today's IDF (note that most of not all the reports I quoted were from the last 5 years).

That's a good question, who should skeptics believe?

The problem is that you ask the question as though the answer were predetermined. A skeptic would ask it with an open mind, willing to consider either answer.

[Mycroft]

What are you trying to argue? That PA human rights abuses justify IDF human rights abuses?

No. That's a straw-man, and if you made any attempt to understand the arguments of those that disagree with you, you would know that.

The argument is not that PA human rights abuses justify IDF abuses, but that an action needs to be considered in its context in order to be judged.

[Orwell]

That's a good question, who should skeptics believe?

The problem is that you ask the question as though the answer were predetermined. A skeptic would ask it with an open mind, willing to consider either answer.

Who is more credible, Mycroft?

[Orwell]

The argument is not that PA human rights abuses justify IDF abuses, but that an action needs to be considered in its context in order to be judged.

Why is it that you rarely follow your own advice?

[zenith-nadir]

Yes, that's one ex-IDF sorldier's word against a crapload of HRW, AI and B'tselem reports. Who should sceptics (real ones, not partisan hacks) believe? It should also be noted that Webfusion probably served a while ago, and he probably can't say much about today's IDF (note that most of not all the reports I quoted were from the last 5 years).I guess what I am trying to say to you Orwell is that there are some really bad dudes roaming around the West Bank and Gaza. They are well organized, lethal and supported by nation states. They are worse than your IDF human rights reports,.. murder, assasinations, bombings, suicide bombings, kidnapping, extortion, booby-traps, ambushes, child soldiers, smuggling, torcher. Some of them even stormed Palestinian polling stations today and disrupted the Palestinian primary elections.

Fatah cancels Gaza primaries (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051128/ts_nm/mideast_palestinians_dc_10)

The violence by armed men belonging to Fatah, was a blow to Abbas's efforts to exert control over Gaza, territory Israel quit in September and which is widely seen as a testing ground for Palestinian statehood."..belonging to Fatah", how ironic considering Fatah is the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority. Anyhow...

These Fatah militants - actually, let's call a spade a spade - these Fatah terrorists are so extreme they are willing to disrupt Palestinian primary elections with gunfire and violence. They have no regard for international law, the rules of war or humanitarian law - they will attack Palestinian and Israeli alike. That is how dangerous they are, they will attack their own without blinking an eye. So just think Orwell what they've cooked up for Israel and the IDF over the years.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20051128/capt.jrl11811281613.mideast_israel_palestinians_el ections_jrl118.jpg

Palestinian youths stand next to a masked gunman after militants closed a
polling station during the Fatah movement primaries in Khan Younis,
southern Gaza Strip, Monday, Nov. 28, 2005.

(AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)Look at those kids Orwell. Do they care that the same terrorist just temporarily aborted their democratic future? Nope. Do they look afraid of this un-uniformed masked gunman standing on the street with an AK-47? Nope. One child in the foreground even has his arm around him. He might as well be selling balloons and candy.

That gunman represents the islamist threat the IDF has the responsibility to impede day after day, week after week, year after year. That is why I feel you fail to weigh the facts-on-the-ground with the same gravity with which you weight your IDF human rights reports Orwell.

This manifestation of the Arab-Israeli armed conflict has been going on since 1994. The IDF is not immune to human rights abuses for it's made up of fallible humans. Nor do PA human rights abuses justify IDF human rights abuses. Does that mean the IDF targets civilians, no it doesn't. Does that mean the probability human rights abuses will occur by humans in any armed conflict, yes it does - (example: Abu Ghraib prison).

[Orwell]

Yes, Orwell, everyone who disagrees with you does so simply because they aren't paying attention. Such arrogance. I've pointed out your problems - semantic and otherwise - twice, and been generally ignored.

You've been challenged to make good on your thesis, and failed by every imaginable measure. If you were smart, you'd write it off as a misunderstanding over the term "targeted," but no, you've got to keep on digging, as if the deeper and darker the hole, the less likely people will be able to see your foolishness.

Dream on, kid. This kind of invective may fly in third-period Poli Sci, but out here in the real world things work differently.

Pay attention, indeed.

Let me see, I essentially said that IDF soldiers were targeting civilians (in the sense of shooting at them needlessly) but the people who disagree with me thought that I was arguing for some kind of ethnic cleansing. Which I never did, not even once. Then, under the avalanche of AI, HRW and B'tselem links I posted, they started saying yeah, they are shooting at civilians but they're not doing it on purpose, accidents of war and all that. But I found links were IDF officials themselves are quoted publicly saying that they shelled civilians in southern Lebanon as a reprisal for Hezbollah attacks. Then there are the links quoting IDF soldiers (the so called refusenicks) who denounce IDF attacks on civilians, and the careless attitude of the IDF towards Palestinian lives... And then there's the partisan hacks who seem to think that because I am criticising the IDF, I must be defending or justifying violence by the PA and all the Palestinian terrorist groups... Meanwhile, all I got against my arguments was a lot of rhetoric, some name calling, the word of a possible ex-IDF soldier (who talks about his past experience) and a few people telling me "you're wrong" without really advancing any concrete arguments about why I shouldn't believe AI, HRW, B'Tselem, the refusnicks, newspaper coverage, etc. And then there's Jocko, who probably only posts on this thread because he hates my guts (the feeling is mutual) and never lets an occasion to tell me so pass him by. Did you read any of the real arguments before posting insults, Jocko? I'm willing to bet you didn't, ,cause you're an idiot and that's what idiots do.

I guess if the level of the debate stays this way, I might just get back to just posting away links detailing human rights abuses by the IDF, eh?

[Jocko]

Let me see, I essentially said that IDF soldiers were needlessly targeting civilians (in the sense of shooting at them) but the people who disagree with me thought that I was arguing for some kind of ethnic cleansing. Which I never did, not even once. Then, under the avalanche of AI, HRW and B'tselem links I posted, they started saying yeah, they are shooting at civilians but they're not doing it on purpose, accidents of war and all that. But I found links were IDF officials themselves are quoted publicly saying that they shelled civilians in southern Lebanon as a reprisal for Hezbollah attacks. Then there are the links quoting IDF soldiers (the so called refusenicks) who denounce IDF attacks on civilians, and the careless attitude of the IDF towards Palestinian lives... Meanwhile, all I got against my arguments was a lot of rhetoric, some name calling, the word of an ex-IDF soldier (who talks about his past experience) and a few people telling me "you're wrong" without really advancing any concrete arguments about why I shouldn't believe AI, HRW, B'Tselem, the refusnicks, newspaper coverage, etc.

No one said they're shooting at civilians, but they're not doing it on purpose, even though if someone HAD said this, it would be enough to put down your thesis as the laughable lie it is.

No, what people have been telling you, briefly and at length, in manners friendly and snide, is that they shoot at terrorists and sometimes miss.

Your repeated attempts to mischaracterize matters, even in the face of firsthand testimony, only shows what a juvenile approach you insist on applying to the question. Like so many liberals, you "know" there is only one right way to look at things, that of limp-wristed relativism, and if a few terms have to be redefined, and a few truths bent to match your philosophy, well, then that's just the way things have to be.

The funniest thing of all is how liberals like to portray conservatives as the "black and white" thinkers, when they themselves are at least an egregious of an example.

Orwell, once and for all - how old are you? I need to know if you're idealistic or just retarded.

[Mycroft]

Why is it that you rarely follow your own advice?

Which advice is that?

Who is more credible, Mycroft?

You spammed this thread with 50 or more links. Do you care to pick one and discuss it?

[Mycroft]

Orwell, once and for all - how old are you? I need to know if you're idealistic or just retarded.

My guess is high school age.

[Orwell]

Yayyy, more rhetoric from the Jockmaister! :rolleyes: :s2:

The 50 or more links I posted all generally point out in the direction of the IDF shooting at civilians on purpose. What one partisan hack would call "spamming" a more reasonable person would call evidence. ;)

Is that clear, or do you want me to repeat it for you?

[Jocko]

Yayyy, more rhetoric from the Jockmaister! :rolleyes: :s2:

The 50 or more links I posted all generally point out in the direction of the IDF shooting at civilians on purpose. What one partisan hack would call "spamming" a more reasonable person would call evidence. ;)

Is that clear, or do you want me to repeat it for you?

How old are you, Orwell? Please settle this once and for all. Your ongoing reliance on cute little smilies to dodge questions doesn't bode well for your maturity.

[Jocko]

My guess is high school age.

In my experience, you normally don't see this degree of Kool-Aid chugging till college, or at least college age. That's about the time the girls these people are trying to impress get involved in politics, which is why THEY get involved in politics.

[Orwell]

Well, your irrelevant bickering and your stupid pointless comments about my age gives me no choice...

Soldiers shell house with residents still inside, setting it on fire (http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/20051023_Soldiers_Soldiers_cause_fire_in_residenti al_building_Witness_Nadira_Hamad.asp)

You asked for it! :D

[Orwell]

IDF soldiers kill eleven year-old Palestinian girl in Nablus, September 2004 (http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/20040915_Soldiers_kill_Maram_al_Nakla_Witness_Mana l_a_Damoni.asp)

[Orwell]

IDF soldiers kill Muhammad Diriyah, father of six, when he opens the door to his house for them, April 2004 (http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/20040411_Death_of_Muhammad_Diriyah.asp)

[Jocko]

Well, your irrelevant bickering and your stupid pointless comments about my age gives me no choice...

Soldiers shell house with residents still inside, setting it on fire (http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/20051023_Soldiers_Soldiers_cause_fire_in_residenti al_building_Witness_Nadira_Hamad.asp)

You asked for it! :D

Doesn't mention the IDF at all. Are you even reading these?

[Jocko]

IDF soldiers kill eleven year-old Palestinian girl in Nablus, September 2004 (http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/20040915_Soldiers_kill_Maram_al_Nakla_Witness_Mana l_a_Damoni.asp)

Good lord, Orwell, it takes five minutes to read these. Are you really THAT busy?

Then I heard a bullet shot and I thought that the army wanted to scare the people gathered in the street to see the evacuation of the house. My husband and I turned around and then I saw Maram. She was standing a few steps away from me and had blood streaming down her right cheek. My husband caught her and ran to the ambulance. The ambulance was a few meters from us. It was a huge shock. We heard only one bullet being shot and there were no soldiers in the area.

My emphasis.

So while you're on "irrelevancies," how old are you? If your reading comprehension skills are any measure, I'd put you charitably between 6 and 8.

[Jocko]

IDF soldiers kill Muhammad Diriyah, father of six, when he opens the door to his house for them, April 2004 (http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/20040411_Death_of_Muhammad_Diriyah.asp)


Sigh...

I heard one of the soldiers say in Arabic, “We’ve killed a terrorist, we’ve killed a terrorist,” but I did not hear any shooting. When I returned with Hayah and the children, we saw Muhammad lying on the ground by the entrance to the house.

Even your uncorroborated anecdotes don't back up your claims that the IDF "targets" civilians - all you have here is IDF claiming to have killed a terrorist, and since it's his widow telling the story, I'm not even convinced they were mistaken in THAT.

Orwell, give up.

[Jocko]

Come on, Orwell. I addressed your irrelevancies. Now it's your turn.

[Cleon]

Doesn't mention the IDF at all. Are you even reading these?

Are you joking? Who do you think "the army" is, Ukranians? Geez, the depths some people will jump to to avoid acknowledging the obvious.

[Cleon]

Even your uncorroborated anecdotes don't back up your claims that the IDF "targets" civilians - all you have here is IDF claiming to have killed a terrorist, and since it's his widow telling the story, I'm not even convinced they were mistaken in THAT.

This HAS to be a joke. Because his widow is telling the story, he must have been a terrorist? Ye gods.