IDF General Sued For "Targeted Killings"

[Orwell]

I think that's a mistake. My organization works with some of those organizations - Amnesty International, B'Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel - and while they are dedicated, they, too, frequently show bias. It's all but inherent in their information sources. That's why you need to balance their data with other input. Keep in mind that the IDF's own inquiry into the alleged "massacre" in Jenin is now considered the most reliable, even by those human rights organizations who conducted their own investigations. It's not very complicated: there's an hierarchy of credibility that often changes according to opinion. For several reasons, I ma of the opinion that the IDF is generally less credible than human rights organisations. But tis doesn't mean that the IDF has zero credibility. It only means that, compared to certain other sources, the IDF comes second.

Who said you can't criticize the IDF? Criticize away. Just don't expect anyone important to listen. If it's important enough for you to try to counter what you see as propaganda, then this issue obviously resonates with you (I assume you don't hold forth on elections in Vanuatu), and since you apparently care enough to voice your concerns, you might consider doing that in a more effective manner. The reason I perceived your posts as "knee-jerk" is that they seemed more like reflexive (and, I daresay, voluminous) uncritical parroting of Palestinian grievances (as reflected in HR organization reports) than an honest attempt to set the record straight. One doesn't drown out a debate opponent with citations. That just turns it into "he-said-she-said." You're relatively new to this debate. I tried the reasoned approach with the "Israel-right-or-wrong" crowd. It didn't work. Other people before me tried the honest debate route, and it lead them nowhere. Yes, you are right, these things turn into "he-said-she-said", but not because I want to. It has became like that because any criticism of Israel is met with great hostility around these parts. It is very hard to actually discuss the subject without name calling, heaps of fallacies and misleading dishonest debating. There's a lot of bad faith, lets-win-at-any-price attitudes. The "Israel-right-or-wrong" crowd don't really want to debate, they want to shut people up.

As far as webfusion is concerned, go ahead and take his information with a grain of salt, but don't dismiss it. I've taken your side, politically, but you've bent over backwards to discredit his input, and I call foul. His thoughts on this forum regarding Palestinian rights, or any apparent racism he might betray, have no bearing on the military/security arguments he's made. They're sound. I haven't gone over backwards. You probably haven't followed other discussions on the subject here. What's the big deal about Webfusion's credibility? He's not the only partisan hack around here. He has used the same kind of demagogic arguments as the other partisan hacks. I don't find him less credible on this subject than, say, Skeptic. It's just that Webfusion seems to be the only one who actually cares that I don't find him credible, the other partisan hacks seem to not give a damn. But what the hell does he expect, after all the male bovine manure he said?

[Orwell]

In other news.



So let's go to the poll.

http://www.fafo.no/nyhet/pal-opinion-Dec05-tables.pdf

Specifically page 52 of 102 table 2.22. The title is "Support to Al Queda's bombings in the US and Europe".

65 Palestinians out of 100 said they "support" Al Queda's bombings in the US and Europe, 35 Palestinians out of 100 said they "oppose" Al Queda's bombings in the US and Europe.

I am not making this up.

Are you actually trying to argue that those dumb opinions justify human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians?

[Skeptic]

Are you actually trying to argue that those dumb opinions justify human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians?

He is trying to argue that saving israeli lives does.

[Giz]

Are you actually trying to argue that those dumb opinions justify human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians?

So how would you defend Israeli civilians from terror attacks? How would you stop the militants from launching rockets? Would you:

1) do nothing
2) send in israeli police to arrest them inside PA territory
3) send in the IDF to arrest/clobber them inside PA territory
4) ask the PA to arrest them (nb, this is similar to option 1)
5) air/artillery strike as accurately as possible, but knowing there may well be some civilian casualties

If you have a plan, then please share it. As it is I am disposed to regards the IDF responses as the "lesser of the evils".

[Orwell]

Orwell, I'm curious, what 'bigoted statements' can you cite from my previous postings?

Webfusion on IDF killings of Palestinian civilians:

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]

He is trying to argue that saving israeli lives does.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that saving Israeli lives justifies human rights abuses against Palestinians, is that what you are saying?

[Mycroft]

Webfusion on IDF killings of Palestinian civilians:

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.


How is it bigoted to be angry at people who cheer terrorists?

[Mycroft]

Let me get this straight: you're saying that saving Israeli lives justifies human rights abuses against Palestinians, is that what you are saying?

Wouldn't you?

[Skeptic]

Orwell: we keep hearing from you about Palestinian civil rights. How about israeli civil rights? Do israeli citizens have a right not to be bombed by terrorists?

[Skeptic]

Let me get this straight: you're saying that saving Israeli lives justifies human rights abuses against Palestinians, is that what you are saying?

Absolutely.
100%.
Give the man a cigar.
Ding dign ding ding ding!!!!

Ain't I just horrid?

[Orwell]

So how would you defend Israeli civilians from terror attacks? How would you stop the militants from launching rockets? Would you:

1) do nothing
2) send in israeli police to arrest them inside PA territory
3) send in the IDF to arrest/clobber them inside PA territory
4) ask the PA to arrest them (nb, this is similar to option 1)
5) air/artillery strike as accurately as possible, but knowing there may well be some civilian casualties

If you have a plan, then please share it. As it is I am disposed to regards the IDF responses as the "lesser of the evils".

I would try several of those possibilities, including option 5. I'm not denying that Israel has a problem with terrorism and shouldn't fight it. But I believe that Israel and the IDF are going much to far. I do not believe that they are doing everything they can to minimise civilian casualties. I am criticising Israel for using lethal force in an excessive or indiscriminate manner, for reprisal attacks against civilians, for using civilians as human shields (I dunno if this practice is still used), for shooting at unarmed protesters, for employing extrajudicial executions, for imposing severe and frequently arbitrary restrictions on freedom of movement, amongst other things. I have been saying that this "accidental killing of civilians during military operations argument" does not explain a large number of the events described in many of the links I gave on another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47909&highlight=targets+civilians%29%3A, have fun...) it does not square with eyewitness accounts, casualty lists, and descriptions given by human rights organisations (which, by the way, have a lot more credibility than the IDF, and the Israeli government).

[Orwell]

Absolutely.
100%.
Give the man a cigar.
Ding dign ding ding ding!!!!

Ain't I just horrid?

No, you're just a run-of-the-mill partisan hack, the kind of person who who finds double standards perfectly reasonable... You are not a "skeptic".

Orwell on nationalists (circa 1945): "Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side."

[Giz]

I would try several of those possibilities, including option 5. I'm not denying that Israel has a problem with terrorism and shouldn't fight it. But I believe that Israel and the IDF is going much to far. I do not believe that they are doing everything they can to minimise civilian casulties. I am criticising Israel for using lethal force in an excessive or indiscriminate manner, for reprisal attacks against civilians, for using civilians has human shields (I dunno if this practice is still used), for shooting at unarmed protesters, for employing extrajudicial executions, for imposing severe and frequently arbitrary restrictions on freedom of movement, amongst other things. I have been saying that this "accidental killing of civilians during military operations argument" does not explain a large number of the events described in many of the links I gave on another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=47909&highlight=targets+civilians%29%3A, have fun...) it does not square with eyewitness accounts, casualty lists, and descriptions given by human rights organisations (which, by the way, have a lot more credibility than the IDF, the Israeli government and you guys).

OK, some of your earlier posts (Palestinian human rights must count above Israeli security) had seemed to imply (as I'd read it) a blanket rejection of artillery/air strikes.

If your position is that:
1) the proportionality and accuracy of these strikes should be kept under review,
2) Israel is entitled to use force to defend itself.

Then we may be a lot closer to agreement on a mid east thread than I would have considered possible...

[Orwell]

Orwell: we keep hearing from you about Palestinian civil rights. How about israeli civil rights? Do israeli citizens have a right not to be bombed by terrorists?

Does a bird have wings? Does a wolf cry out his loneliness? Yes.

Now, do Palestinian civilians (that means bystanders) have a right not to be bombed by the IDF?

[David Swidler]

It's not very complicated: there's an hierarchy of credibility that often changes according to opinion. For several reasons, I ma of the opinion that the IDF is generally less credible than human rights organisations. But tis doesn't mean that the IDF has zero credibility. It only means that, compared to certain other sources, the IDF comes second.

You say yourself it's only your opinion. Even less reason to say it again and again.

You're relatively new to this debate.
Hardly. I just tend to lurk more than post. Besides, I live in Jerusalem, so this debate involves issues with which I can confidently claim I am more familiar than you. That's not meant to belittle your opinion.


I tried the reasoned approach with the "Israel-right-or-wrong" crowd. It didn't work. Other people before me tried the honest debate route, and it lead them nowhere. Yes, you are right, these things turn into "he-said-she-said", but not because I want to. It has became like that because any criticism of Israel is met with great hostility around these parts. It is very hard to actually discuss the subject without name calling, heaps of fallacies and misleading dishonest debating. There's a lot of bad faith, lets-win-at-any-price attitudes. The "Israel-right-or-wrong" crowd don't really want to debate, they want to shut people up.

Ah, yes, the "I'm a persecuted minority whom they're trying to silence" defense. Grow up.

I've read your posts, Orwell. "Reasoned debate" indeed. Trot out one-sided sources - just as you accuse your opponents of doing - and profess deafness to anything else. You do more damage to your - and my - position than you realize. With friends like Orwell...

I haven't gone over backwards. You probably haven't followed other discussions on the subject here. I certainly have. See my comments above.

What's the big deal about Webfusion's credibility? He's not the only partisan hack around here. He has used the same kind of demagogic arguments as the other partisan hacks. I don't find him less credible on this subject than, say, Skeptic. It's just that Webfusion seems to be the only one who actually cares that I don't find him credible, the other partisan hacks seem to not give a damn. But what the hell does he expect, after all the male bovine manure he said?

I find more BS and evasion in your statements than in web's. In fact I find none in webfusion's posts at all. To me, Orwell, you come across as a partisan hack more than any of your opponents do. To your credit you don't spout propaganda or distorted history, but you seem to have curiously inconsistent standards for determining the reliability of information, and that undermines your credibility. A little critical thinking goes a long way; don't just swallow the HR organizations' reports without considering how they might not provide all the crucial information. I realize that's a tall order for someone not immersed in the material, but it's something you'd do well to keep in mind, even if pursuing that course of action is impractical. As a starting point, remember that although they claim to be politically independent, these organizations - every single one, though not necessarily to the same degree - has a tendency to give greater weight to Palestinian accounts than to Israeli accounts, out of anti-occupation bias. It's a bitch to avoid in that line of work, but it comes through in every report, clear to the objective eye. The IDF at least has reasons to strive for accuracy: avoiding repetition of mistakes; accountability to the citizenry; and conservation of resources, to name a few. The organizations have no such need, especially since sympathetic media don't bother covering the mistakes. I'm willing to bet the mule incident mentioned above will appear in at least one organization's report despite the forensic evidence that the death had nothing to do with the arrest.

And it pains me, because these organizations could be the key to more enlightened Israeli policymaking, but they can't seem to see with nonpolitical eyes.

[Orwell]

OK, some of your earlier posts (Palestinian human rights must count above Israeli security) had seemed to imply (as I'd read it) a blanket rejection of artillery/air strikes.

If your position is that:
1) the proportionality and accuracy of these strikes should be kept under review,
2) Israel is entitled to use force to defend itself.

Then we may be a lot closer to agreement on a mid east thread than I would have considered possible...

Palestinian human are as important as Israeli security.
The problem with these threads has been more along the lines of the local partisan hacks being unable to even accept past Israeli abuses. And then they try to build elaborate strawmen in the hopes of discrediting the poster who dares question their unwavering pro-Israeli bias.

[Orwell]

You say yourself it's only your opinion. Even less reason to say it again and again.


Hardly. I just tend to lurk more than post. Besides, I live in Jerusalem, so this debate involves issues with which I can confidently claim I am more familiar than you. That's not meant to belittle your opinion. So you claim... ;)

Ah, yes, the "I'm a persecuted minority whom they're trying to silence" defense. Grow up. Who's defending anything? Do you think I give a damn? I don't. By the way, I didn't make any personal attacks against you. If you wanna play rough, I can get impolite too, you know. As far as I can tell, you're pretty much going the bad-faith debater way, and if it keeps going this way, I'll eventually just go meh, who cares what he thinks... So what is it that you want?

I've read your posts, Orwell. "Reasoned debate" indeed. Trot out one-sided sources - just as you accuse your opponents of doing - and profess deafness to anything else. You do more damage to your - and my - position than you realize. With friends like Orwell...

I certainly have. See my comments above.
I have accused the IDF and Israel of frequent human rights abuses. Tell me, who should I go to for details about that? The IDF? Do you know what "conflict of interest" means? In a past thread, I provided three separate sources, plus articles quoting "refusenicks". That's at least 3 more sources than those who have bitched about my posts. If you don't agree with my sources, then provide links that question them.

I find more BS and evasion in your statements than in web's. In fact I find none in webfusion's posts at all. You're right, there's no evasion in Webfusion's posts. He's pretty honest about his hatred of Palestinians. But what am I evading exactly? I have been pretty clear in the expression of my opinions. To me, Orwell, you come across as a partisan hack more than any of your opponents do. To your credit you don't spout propaganda or distorted history, but you seem to have curiously inconsistent standards for determining the reliability of information, and that undermines your credibility. And that makes me more of a partisan hack than the people who spout propaganda or distorted history, eh? Inconsistent standards? Why, because I find information from human rights organisations to be more credible than information form the IDF? Rubish!

A little critical thinking goes a long way; don't just swallow the HR organizations' reports without considering how they might not provide all the crucial information. I realize that's a tall order for someone not immersed in the material, but it's something you'd do well to keep in mind, even if pursuing that course of action is impractical. As a starting point, remember that although they claim to be politically independent, these organizations - every single one, though not necessarily to the same degree - has a tendency to give greater weight to Palestinian accounts than to Israeli accounts, out of anti-occupation bias. It's a bitch to avoid in that line of work, but it comes through in every report, clear to the objective eye. The IDF at least has reasons to strive for accuracy: avoiding repetition of mistakes; accountability to the citizenry; and conservation of resources, to name a few. The organizations have no such need, especially since sympathetic media don't bother covering the mistakes. I'm willing to bet the mule incident mentioned above will appear in at least one organization's report despite the forensic evidence that the death had nothing to do with the arrest. Says you. So far, I'm not very impressed with your "critical thinking" skills. You make a lot of claims peppered with a few personal attacks, but then you don't back anything up. So links please. Back your assertions up, and the maybe we can actually debate.

And it pains me, because these organizations could be the key to more enlightened Israeli policymaking, but they can't seem to see with nonpolitical eyes. Or maybe they just happen not to agree with you, eh?

[webfusion]

Who has tried to shut you up, Orwell? Earlier in this thread, Lisa Simpson as moderator asked you to stop using the JREF forum for personal attacks, but other than that, nobody really has been complaining about your method or your ongoing ad homs, and nobody is asking for you to be suspended for the type of things you are posting. It wouldn't really be hard to request the moderators do so, but we're being very patient with you, IMHO.

How many times have you posted the same Orwell quote? In this thread alone, you've resorted to it quite often, and it still is meaningless -- none of what George Orwell refers to applies to Israel in 2005/06.
Can you point to IDF torture, the use of hostages (and I don't mean sending a neighbor up to the front door of a house and asking the terrorists inside to surrender), forced labour (???), mass deportations (???), imprisonment without trial (even the Administrative Detentions are accomplished within the framework of proper Military tribunals), forgery (???), assassination (of terrorist leaders, not political assassinations, which is what Mr Orwell is alluding to), the bombing of civilians?

What bombing of civilians? In the past few weeks, Israel has been under virtually constant bombardment from terrorist cells, from un-occupied Gaza. These rockets are being launched directly at Israeli towns and farms, with the express intent to kill civilians therin. These are acts of open warfare, carried out by men whose mission is specifically to terrorize the population of a sovereign nation. Yes, screw them. I say it again --- and screw those who harbor, support and cheer the terrorists on. That is not in any way, shape or form, a bigoted remark, and shame on you for interpreting it as such, Orwell.

When I see candies and sweets being handed out in the streets of Gaza at the news the Israeli Prime Minister is ill, or when I see dancing for joy in the streets of Gaza after the 9-11 atrocities, or when I see the sheer excitement and celebrations when a suicide attack is carried out in Israel, I feel that I am perfectly justified in saying -- screw them.
Not all Palestinians have this mentality, but enough do to make for lousy neighbors, and building a fence to keep them apart from the State of Israel seems to be the minimum we can accomplish.

Firing artillery and using precision-guided air-to-ground munitions and creating a de-facto 'no-mans land' in northern Gaza, seems to be a pretty good idea right now, also. If the terrorists increase the range of their rockets from 8km to 15km or 25km, then the 'no-mans land' could easily be extended that far by IDF actions, and considering gaza is only 45km long, the Palestinian terrorists might soon find themselves squeezed into the bottom of the barrel, with one option left to them --- leaving for Sinai or leaving by sea.

Not possible? I think it is.
(see: Beirut, August 1982)

[zenith-nadir]

Now, do Palestinian civilians (that means bystanders) have a right not to be bombed by the IDF?You Orwell are what is called a useful idiot. The Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian terrorists just adore folks like you. Why? Because you do not see IDF actions in the context of the total failure by the Palestinian Authority to address the security situation.

Instead you take a softer line against Islamist terror than you do against the IDF. And don't even try to say you don't because I can produce pages and pages of you lambasting Israel and the IDF while it would probably take JREFers a week to find the single post in there somewhere by you regarding the terror of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades.

Even today the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades terrorists stormed and took over three Palestinian Authority government buildings at gunpoint - I posted the pictures above - and you are still bitching and moaning about the mean old IDF with nary word regarding todays Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades terror. So much for your caring about the Palestinian civilian population.

When you decide to see IDF actions in the context of the total failure by the Palestinian Authority to address the security situation - see Palestinian terrorism - then I shall retract calling you a useful idiot. Until then you are absolutely worthless to debate in my books.

p.s. And I fully expect you to now lash out at me eventhough what I say is the truth.

[webfusion]

Now, do Palestinian civilians (that means bystanders) have a right not to be bombed by the IDF?

Nope.
They are about to see the IDF begin dropping leaflets --
These leaflets tell the 'innocent bystanders' that their lives are going to be disrupted in the extreme due to the ongoing terrorism being perpetrated by their neighbors, sons, relatives, and that their government is acquiescing to the terrorists by failing to deploy the 30,000-strong PA Police security forces against Islamic Jihad, et. al.

The Israel Defense Forces intends to drop flyers from IAF planes warning residents before striking Gaza Strip targets as it begins enforcing a buffer zone to prevent Qassam rocket fire into its territory.

The notices will be scattered around areas from which militants launch Qassam rockets into Israel. They will call on Palestinian police officers to evacuate the northern Gaza Strip of all civilians, and will state that the responsibility for any potential civilian casualties in Israel Air Force strikes lies with the terrorist Qassam-launcher crews who use civilian areas for cover.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/662733.html

[Skeptic]

No, you're just a run-of-the-mill partisan hack, the kind of person who who finds double standards perfectly reasonable... You are not a "skeptic".


It's not a DOUBLE standard, Orwell, it's a SINGLE standard: that the human rights--including those to life--of a civilian population attacked by terrorists counts for something, as well as the human rights of the terrorists.

Obviously, for you, any Palestinian human right counts more than every israeli one, including the one to live. This is merely another way of saying that israelis have no human rights and in particular no right to defend themselves.

Who has tried to shut you up, Orwell? Earlier in this thread, Lisa Simpson as moderator asked you to stop using the JREF forum for personal attacks, but other than that, nobody really has been complaining about your method or your ongoing ad homs, and nobody is asking for you to be suspended for the type of things you are posting. It wouldn't really be hard to request the moderators do so, but we're being very patient with you, IMHO.

With things as they are, telling Orwell to shut up counts as good advice, under the "it's better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" principle... though it's probably too late for that.

[Mycroft]

No, you're just a run-of-the-mill partisan hack, the kind of person who who finds double standards perfectly reasonable... You are not a "skeptic".

Orwell on nationalists (circa 1945): "Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side."

Again with the straw-man. Nowhere did Skeptic say any action was acceptable merely because it was Israel that was doing it.

[Mycroft]

And it pains me, because these organizations could be the key to more enlightened Israeli policymaking, but they can't seem to see with nonpolitical eyes.

Excellent post!

The tragedy here is the tragedy of the boy who cried wolf. When AI or HRW pass along less than credulous reports, or put more weight on Israeli wrongs than they do on Palestinian wrongs, it makes them less credible.

I've been saying forever that you can't advance peace through denial. Progress in any peace process will require an honest, equal, and realistic look at both sides. The only other alternative is unilateral action.

[webfusion]

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Israeli air-to-ground missiles & artillery fire against targets in Gaza were justified responses to Qassem rocket attacks on Israel.

------------ It looks like the US administration and the State Department are lining up behind the IDF, in their plans to create that no-mans-land in Northern Gaza, evacuating all civilians from the area, either by advance warnings or going ahead with direct shelling to get them to leave. ---------

[Mycroft]

An outcome I'd rather see:

Abbas uses some of that 30,000 man "police force" to put a stop to the kassam rockets, jailing those who make and fire them off. Israel no longer has a reason to attack anything.

Will it happen?

No.

[webfusion]

wow.

what a concept.

[gnome]

Let me get this straight: you're saying that saving Israeli lives justifies human rights abuses against Palestinians, is that what you are saying?

If I might throw in a few cents worth of opinion... I don't think that the saving of israeli lives must be in conflict with preventing human rights abuses.

Depending on how you define human rights abuse, of course... but for example I don't think that Israel must partake of war crimes for their own safety--to the contrary, I argue that any actual war crimes work against Israeli security by prologing the conflict.

Is there anyone here that argues that refraining from war crimes hurts a nation's security? If not, then the question of which is more important can be put to rest.

[webfusion]

I sure don't know what "War Crimes" you are thinking about, gnome.
Have any specific examples? My OP refers to several court cases that are in the works to bring IDF leaders into the realm of mounting a legal defense (or ignoring them, I guess that's an option as well).

Meanwhile, Israeli Air Forces attacked before dawn on Wednesday a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine militant base south of Beirut, in retaliation for the barrage of rockets fired from Lebanon at Israel late Tuesday night.

Hmmm, I wonder if that terrorist base was nearby to civilian residential areas?
Did the IAF jets pinpoint target that base, and avoid harming any Lebanese non-combatants? If so, it would be worth posting the details here... who here has access to better information than what is offered by Reuters?

Orwell, how's those Human Rights Watch sources of yours? What do they say about this clear and blatant violation of sovereign Lebanese airspace by Israeli warplanes? Tsk Tsk...


{{{ eta: really old link, same old news, different dateline }}}
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/377678.stm

[ImaginalDisc]

You know, I'm sure this is a naive question, but doesn't the Israeli border seem like the prime example of a border which needs a five mile demilitarized zone?

[webfusion]

ID, the tiny country of Israel is only 9 miles across at the waist.
(Netanya to Tulkarm).

Israel doesn't need a DMZ, it needs to bring the islamic terror in the West Bank and Gaza to a complete halt. They are facing exactly the same sort of terror mentality that the entire world witnessed on a clear September morning in 2001.

Today the Jihadists are shooting simple rockets and mortars and RPG's. Tomorrow they send another suicide attack to the center of Tel Aviv. The next day, maybe a nuclear suitcase bomb to Eilat.

5 mile DMZ? If only it were that simple...
(see: South Lebanon Security Zone, 1982)

[ImaginalDisc]

I keep forgetting how small Israel is.

[webfusion]

dude, a terrorist standing in the Arab village of Rantis' in the West Bank would have an easy clear shot at the Ben Gurion Int'l Airport main approaches with a Stinger/Grail shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/westbank_july_1992.jpg

[gnome]

I sure don't know what "War Crimes" you are thinking about, gnome.
Have any specific examples? My OP refers to several court cases that are in the works to bring IDF leaders into the realm of mounting a legal defense (or ignoring them, I guess that's an option as well).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing any specific war crimes. I'm making the point that the argument isn't "should we commit this war crime?". Skeptic and Wildcat were close to that position.

[Mycroft]

Is there anyone here that argues that refraining from war crimes hurts a nation's security? If not, then the question of which is more important can be put to rest.

The problem is every action Israel takes is described as a "human rights abuse" by her critics. Kill a terrorist? That's an "extra-judicial killing." Put up a check-point? That's a deliberate "humiliation", and a violation of their human rights. Engage in a gun battle where a civilian gets shot (not sure by who?) Well, that's "targeting" civilians, and will make an HRW report for Orwell to bring up here. At the very least, he becomes a statistic that makes his type "doubt" that so many more Palestinians dying isn't proof of something wrong with Israel.

There are methods Israel uses, and methods they do not use. There are methods Israel used to use, but which will no longer use. Personally, I'm just disgusted by the person who assumes just because something happened once, that it's policy, or who still smears Israel for policies that were changed years or even decades ago.

[zenith-nadir]

The Islamist Palestinian terrorists reject to halt rocket attacks on Israeli towns.

Wed Dec 28, 2005 - Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_24)

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - The Islamic Jihad militant group rejected a call Tuesday from Mahmoud Abbas to halt rocket attacks on Israeli towns, dealing a new blow to the Palestinian leader. Israel responded to the attacks with airstrikes against Gaza targets.

Abbas traveled to Gaza on Tuesday for talks with the militant groups, in part to halt growing violence along Israel's border with Gaza. Israel has put heavy pressure on Abbas to stop militants from firing rockets.

But Islamic Jihad, which has been responsible for most of the rocket fire, rejected the appeal. Spokesman Khaled Batch accused Israel of violating the cease-fire, and said attacks were the only proper response.

"I think the continuation of resistance is what's better for the Palestinian people," he said.

New rocket fire was reported in southern Israel late Tuesday, and the army quickly responded with an airstrike on a suspected launch site in northern Gaza. For years the useful idiots around the world bought the "resistance to the occupation" B.S. Now it should be clear to anyone that "resistance" is a euphemism for terrorism.

Meanwhile the other Islamist Palestinian terrorists from Abbas own party Fatah stormed election offices in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20051228/i/r2402867182.jpg

Palestinian gunmen from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction take up positions in front of an election office after they stormed into it in the Khan Younis refugee camp, southern Gaza Strip December 28, 2005. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

Dec 28, 2005 - Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_elections_2)

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Dozens of masked Palestinian gunmen took over election offices in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, demanding spots for an armed group with links to the ruling Fatah faction in the party's list of candidates for a January parliamentary election, witnesses and officials said.

In Gaza City, more than 60 gunmen stormed the main election office, exchanging fire with policemen.

Gunmen in Gaza and parts of the West Bank repeatedly take over government buildings and election offices, demanding jobs and changes to election policies ahead of a January parliamentary vote. The almost daily standoffs are a sign of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' inability to bring law and order to his towns and cities.Just another typical day in unoccupied Gaza...

But wait...there's more...

Dec. 28, 2005 0:01 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1135696347657&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Tensions remained high along the northern frontier on Wednesday morning after a late night barrage of Katyusha rockets in Kiryat Shmona and Shlomi and a subsequent IDF reprisal in Lebanon.

Local residents, who were ordered into bomb shelters overnight, were allowed to leave the secured compounds on Wednesday morning.

The IAF confirmed that it carried out an air strike early Wednesday against a base belonging to the PFLP, a small Syrian-backed non-Islamist terror group in southern Lebanon. Wednesday's air raid was the second on Naameh since the Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.

Four people were treated for shock after two Kiryat Shmona apartments were hit by a Katyusha rocket fired from Lebanon just before midnight late Tuesday evening.

Three Katyushas were also fired into the town of Shlomi in the western Galilee, two of their shells were found on Wednesday morning near the town;
Terror from the west...terror from the east...terror from the north....it never ends.

[zenith-nadir]

So what does the total failure of the Palestinian Authority to halt terrorists from firing rockets into Israel from Gaza mean?

IDF to enforce north Gaza buffer zone within hours (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/663447.html) - 13:16 28/12/2005

In the first stage of its plans to create a northern Gaza buffer zone to keep Palestinians from firing Qassam rockets against Israel, IAF aircraft Wednesday dropped leaflets urging Gazans to clear the area by 6 P.M.

At the same time, IDF commanders handed Palestinian Authority security officials maps delineating the zones prohibited for Palestinian entry. This zone will be marked out by a fence, which runs one kilometer south to the evacuated settlements.

The new restrictions will remain in power until further notice, the IDF said.Gaza was unoccupied for the past few months but even that wasn't enough to stop the terrorism so now parts of unoccupied Gaza are going to be a buffer zone prohibited for Palestinian entry to keep Palestinians terrorists from firing Qassam rockets against Israel.

[webfusion]

Avi Dichter, one of the Israeli Defense Forces leaders (he was the head of the Shin Bet branch of the service) mentioned in the OP as being sued in the USA for "human rights crimes", has decided to join Arik Sharon's political party 'kadima'
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/663415.html
Senior Kadima officials expect that Dichter will receive one of the top five Kadima Knesset list slots, and that he would get the public security portfolio in the next government.

[David Swidler]

You probably should have started a new thread for that.

[webfusion]

Hmmm, we seem to have lost Orwell again, I think he got tired of the attack/counter-attack cycle of violence! It's so hard to keep up with the goings-on during this war, and I understand why people get frustrated and cannot follow the chain of events in Real Time.

Well, anyway, here is a bit of background info on the Palestinians who were the target of Israel's Air Force raids over the past 24 hours ----

The PFLP-GC gained notoriety with a string of bloody incidents since it was formed in 1968: It has hijacked an Israeli airliner, machine-gunned another at Zurich's airport, and blown up a Tel Aviv-bound Swissair plane, killing all 47 aboard.

The PFLP-GC commander in Lebanon, Anwar Raja, denied the group was responsible for the recent launching of Katyushas into Israeli towns. The Hexbolloks has denied the act as well. Since everyone is denying doing so, it must have been some Magical Pixies... and they are really hard for Israeli warplanes to go after, you know!

-----------------------------
David Swidler offers:
"You probably should have started a new thread for that (report about Avi Dichter)."

Just mentioning it in passing, since Dichter's name came up in my OP. I don't think it will merit much comment or discussion, but if you care to frame the information in such a way that it prompts a new dialogue in it's own topic, feel free... I'm glad to see this thread is going along just fine.

[Skeptic]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing any specific war crimes. I'm making the point that the argument isn't "should we commit this war crime?". Skeptic and Wildcat were close to that position.

Your point, as I understand it, gnome, is that israel should consider human rights violations and try to minimize them if possible as it tries to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks.

This is perfectly legitimate criticism, and I 100% agree with you, and I dare say that webfusion, z-n, and others agree as well. But--by and large, and being fully aware that israel is not perfect in that regard--israel does do just that. There are, for instance, various weapons previously used by the IDF whose use was restricted or stopped due to them hurting innocents.

The problem with Orwell & co. is that they don't really care about human rights; they simply are outraged that israel fights back. Their concern for "Palestinian human right" is merely an excuse. This can be seen in two characteristics that their "fair criticism" of israel for "human rights violation" always has:

1). First of all, they care not at all for Palestinian human rights when other Palestinians or (or for that matter anybody else apart from the israelis) violates them. Only this Christmas, armed Hamas and PLO gunmen took over Manger square, one of Christianity's holiest sites, and did not allow Christians--including Christian Palestinians--to worship there. Did Orwell care? No. Why? Because he couldn't blame israel.

2). Second, it is obvious that it is not that Orwell thinks that one method of replying to attacks is OK, or at least excusable, and another is a human rights violation. It is obvious that as long as israel fights back in any way, Orwell & co. will criticize it. Take for example the issue of firing rockets into israel from civilian areas:

If israel bombs the place, hurting civilians, Orwell & co. is outraged at that "war crime".
If israel attacks the terrorist hitting only him, and no civilians, Orwell & co. is outraged at "extra-judicial executions".
If israel warns the population to leave lest they be hurt and then bombs the terorrist's place, Orwell & co. is foaming at the mouth at israel's "ethnic cleansing".
If israel sends troops in to capture the terrorist, Orwell & co. complains that the capture scared and terrorized the neighbors, violating their human rights, and besides, the poor terorrist's human rights would be violated in an israeli prison.

...and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. Hell, if israel could have said a magic word to make the terorrist and only them disappear while making the rest of the population delirious with happiness and contentment, Orwell & co. would claim israel is using "nonconventional psychological weapons" on top of "extrajudicial executions", or something, too. Clearly, the only thing israel is allowed to do, in Orwell's view, is to grin and bear it.

Does this look like concern for human rights to you... or outrage at the idea that israel dares fight at all?

[Orwell]

You Orwell are what is called a useful idiot. p.s. And I fully expect you to now lash out at me eventhough what I say is the truth.

Your "truth". By the way, you, Zenith-Nadir, are what is called a useless idiot. You asked for it, you got it.

[Orwell]

Your point, as I understand it, gnome, is that israel should consider human rights violations and try to minimize them if possible as it tries to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks.

This is perfectly legitimate criticism, and I 100% agree with you, and I dare say that webfusion, z-n, and others agree as well. But--by and large, and being fully aware that israel is not perfect in that regard--israel does do just that. There are, for instance, various weapons previously used by the IDF whose use was restricted or stopped due to them hurting innocents.

The problem with Orwell & co. is that they don't really care about human rights; they simply are outraged that israel fights back. Their concern for "Palestinian human right" is merely an excuse. This can be seen in two characteristics that their "fair criticism" of israel for "human rights violation" always has:

1). First of all, they care not at all for Palestinian human rights when other Palestinians or (or for that matter anybody else apart from the israelis) violates them. Only this Christmas, armed Hamas and PLO gunmen took over Manger square, one of Christianity's holiest sites, and did not allow Christians--including Christian Palestinians--to worship there. Did Orwell care? No. Why? Because he couldn't blame israel.

2). Second, it is obvious that it is not that Orwell thinks that one method of replying to attacks is OK, or at least excusable, and another is a human rights violation. It is obvious that as long as israel fights back in any way, Orwell & co. will criticize it. Take for example the issue of firing rockets into israel from civilian areas:

If israel bombs the place, hurting civilians, Orwell & co. is outraged at that "war crime".
If israel attacks the terrorist hitting only him, and no civilians, Orwell & co. is outraged at "extra-judicial executions".
If israel warns the population to leave lest they be hurt and then bombs the terorrist's place, Orwell & co. is foaming at the mouth at israel's "ethnic cleansing".
If israel sends troops in to capture the terrorist, Orwell & co. complains that the capture scared and terrorized the neighbors, violating their human rights, and besides, the poor terorrist's human rights would be violated in an israeli prison.

...and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. Hell, if israel could have said a magic word to make the terorrist and only them disappear while making the rest of the population delirious with happiness and contentment, Orwell & co. would claim israel is using "nonconventional psychological weapons" on top of "extrajudicial executions", or something, too. Clearly, the only thing israel is allowed to do, in Orwell's view, is to grin and bear it.

Does this look like concern for human rights to you... or outrage at the idea that israel dares fight at all?

Lies, strawmen, male bovine manure, propaganda, partisan hackism, rubbish, fabrications. Your partisan hackism makes you incapable of debating this subject honestly. It's either that, or your reading comprehension skills are severely impaired.

[Orwell]

If I might throw in a few cents worth of opinion... I don't think that the saving of israeli lives must be in conflict with preventing human rights abuses.

Depending on how you define human rights abuse, of course... but for example I don't think that Israel must partake of war crimes for their own safety--to the contrary, I argue that any actual war crimes work against Israeli security by prologing the conflict.

Is there anyone here that argues that refraining from war crimes hurts a nation's security? If not, then the question of which is more important can be put to rest.

Damn right! But that's too much nuance for the "Israel-right-or-wrong" crowd. If you wanna get along with them, you gotta think more in terms of "Palestinian baaad".
As I said to Mycroft nearly a month ago:
To you (and others on this forum), it's as if politics amounts simply to reacting to bedtime stories that have cookie-cutter heroes and villains and gratifying moral endings, it's not about doing things in the world, it's about achieving catharsis. I'm not saying that's wrong. If it's what you want to make of politics, okey-dokey.

And Zenith Nadir keeps droning on and on about genocidal hatred of Israel, totally not getting the point that I am not defending Palestinian extremism and that I don't give two flying fornications for that kind of thinking.

But that doesn't mean that I have to support every stupid thing the IDF and the Israeli government does. The security of Israel does not justify massive massive human rights abuses.

[Skeptic]

Orwell whined:

Lies, strawmen, male bovine manure, propaganda, partisan hackism, rubbish, fabrications.

:)

I got you good this time, didn't I?

[Mycroft]

Orwell whined:

Lies, strawmen, male bovine manure, propaganda, partisan hackism, rubbish, fabrications.

:)

I got you good this time, didn't I?

It's so hard to "win" an internet debate. Reducing your opponent to incoherent babbling, in my opinion, counts.

[WildCat]

It's so hard to "win" an internet debate. Reducing your opponent to incoherent babbling, in my opinion, counts.
And when he puts you on "ignore", you know you've got him beaten down! :wave1

[webfusion]

Ok, here ya go SKeptic, just for fun --- no need to reply, I'm making the following remarks for pure mental exercise, and they in no way impinge on the validity of your overall posting or the thrust of your remarks... I felt your posting #290 was authentic and valid, while the response to it by Orwell was so shallow and devoid of a shred of evidence to dispute your POV, I almost felt sorry for the guy.

Skep comments:
"Only this Christmas, armed Hamas and PLO gunmen took over Manger square, one of Christianity's holiest sites, and did not allow Christians--including Christian Palestinians--to worship there."

Not exactly the way it happened. The takeover preceeded the holiday by a few days, and by Christmas it had been resolved. This year, according to numerous press reorts I have seen, there were tens of thousands of Palestinians and foreign tourists in Bethlehem, more than at any time since 2000, and the festivities & prayers proceeded without interference from the IDf or the Islamic radicals. President Abbas himself visited the Church of the Nativity, I happen to know, from good sources...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/christmas_world
In this particular online report, by SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer, somehow the very fact of that visit by Abbas gets overlooked! It might have been edited out to make room for the other brilliant worldwide xmas events mentioned in that cobbled-together article, so let's give her the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.bangordailynews.com/news/templates/?a=125826
This link provides an overview of Christmas's Past in Manger Square. Makes for a fascinating read, from Bangor Maine.

and one more link, an obscure article about the man who is the official custodian of the Christian Holy Places throughout the Holy Land, by decree of the Vatican : Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=christmas&itemNo=661472)

There, that should cover it for this year.
Have a great 2006 all.

[Orwell]

Orwell whined:

Lies, strawmen, male bovine manure, propaganda, partisan hackism, rubbish, fabrications.

:)

I got you good this time, didn't I?

You got what? Let me get this straight... You got me by lying and distorting what I have been saying? That's how you clowns "debate", innit?

[Orwell]

It's so hard to "win" an internet debate. Reducing your opponent to incoherent babbling, in my opinion, counts.

There was nothing incoherent in that post. I was simply describing that pile of horse faeces posted by "Skeptic". You don't even care about representing your adversary's points of view accurately, that's why you're partisan hacks. See, if you guys had some relevant points to make, or even any interest in debating anything seriously, you wouldn't use such bare faced lies.

Anyway, since one risks becoming idiotic if one keeps debating with idiots, I'll just give a nice one finger salute to you "gentleman" and go on my way.

[WildCat]

Anyway, since one risks becoming idiotic if one keeps debating with idiots, I'll just give a nice one finger salute to you "gentleman" and go on my way.
Orwell has debated idiots his whole life, I'd bet. :D

[webfusion]

The Palestinians should stone the Islamic Jihad morons with rocks every time they go out in public. It's about time they started building a country instead of allowing those thugs to cause IDF artillery shellings into the backyards of otherwise peaceful civilians.

Unlike Hamas, senior IDF sources said, Islamic Jihad is not in the habit of considering the consequences of its actions on the lives of the Palestinian population.

Meanwhile, Palestinian President and Chief of The Whole Kit & Kaboodle, Muhammed Abbas, managed to take time out from his busy schedule to say this:
"Israel has left the Gaza Strip and has no right to come back," Abbas told reporters in Gaza. "They should not make any pretext."

Come Back? We''re not coming back, Mr Abbas, we are sending long-distance air mail. Special Delivery.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D281205/200nahaloz_le.jpg
Pretext This!

--------------------

See ya around Orwell, don't let the door slam you in the a-- on your way out.

[zenith-nadir]

So what else happened in Gaza today...

Dec. 28, 2005 17:46 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1135696353801&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Three British citizens were kidnapped as they entered the Gaza Strip from Egypt through the Rafah crossing on Wednesday, Palestinian witnesses and security officials said.

The hostages were reported to be a female human rights worker, 25 years old, and her parents who were visiting from England.

According to a Channel 2 report the woman's name is Kate Barton. Other agencies noted that she worked at the Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights.

Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:56 PM GMT16 (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-12-28T225634Z_01_DIT678509_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST.xml)

GAZA (Reuters) - Israel shelled the northern Gaza Strip on Wednesday to enforce a "no-go zone" it says is aimed to stop cross-border rocket fire by militants, and the Palestinian Authority condemned the move.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlimage&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobkey=id&blobtable=JPImage&blobwhere=1135696353785&cachecontrol=never&ssbinary=true


Of course the Palestinian Authority condemned the move...then they'll blame Israel....

Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:56 PM GMT16 - continued (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-12-28T225634Z_01_DIT678509_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST.xml)

At least 12 artillery shells landed after the new measure went into force at 6 p.m. (4 p.m. British Time), wounding a militant and a teenage bystander. Another shell narrowly missed a car, whose occupants fled. Witnesses said a rocket crew was nearby.

Palestinians condemned the buffer zone, calling it tantamount to re-occupying land Israel withdrew from in September after 38 years of occupation.Do you see the game Orwell? "wounding a militant and a teenage bystander. Another shell narrowly missed a car, whose occupants fled. Witnesses said a rocket crew was nearby." This is the part where you say:

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

"Palestinians condemned the buffer zone, calling it tantamount to re-occupying land Israel withdrew from".

Well that "land" was unoccupied a few short months ago, thank you very much, and what did the Palestinian terrorists do with the new land? Why it became Kassam season for the terrorists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad...and the PA did nothing...they allowed terrorists to fire their Kassams at will... at civilians living next door in a neighboring country!

Here's the numbers.

11:53 Dec 21, '05 / 20 Kislev 5766 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=95236)

...there were 62 Kassam attacks in September (all in the second half of the month), 16 in October, 29 in November, and 49 so far this month. In total, then, there were 156 rockets since Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza this past August. Over 80 more Gaza-fired Kassams landed during this period inside Gaza, short of their targets.

156 rockets since Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. 156 in four months!


Your "truth". By the way, you, Zenith-Nadir, are what is called a useless idiot. You asked for it, you got it.The reason I call you a useful idiot Orwell is because you don't get it. Just like the others before you just didn't get it. I assume you came to JREF because you consider yourself some sort of skeptic. Well Mr. skeptic here is the large amount of data on which you could derive a conclusion. That conclusion is that the Palestinian terrorists are not "fighting for Palestinian Nationalism". That is a well-worn lie. They are fighting to destroy Israel...and they always have been. If Islamic Jihad and Hamas were actually "fighting for Palestinian Nationalism" then they would have to listen to the commands of Abbas the elected leader of the Palestinians. But they don't. So then obviously they have another agenda. That agenda is the destruction of Israel. It has been this way for decades.

Abbas promises endlessly to stop the Kassam attacks just like Arafat used to promise endlessly to stop the suicide bombers and rocket attacks. I've documented it repeatedly. So what happens? Neither of them ever stop the Palestinian terrorists... so Israel is forced to. That is the reality on the ground "over there".

And this is where you come in to the debate, like others did before you. Without context. Without full knowledge. You say:

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...

Well the IDF is bombing the crap out of Northen Gaza as I type this post.... and it is as it always was...occupied or unoccupied...the Palestinian terrorists terrorize, the leader of the Palestinian Authority pledges and promises and eventually the IDF is left to do the dirty work which results in:

"wounding a teenage bystander. Another shell narrowly missed a car, whose occupants fled.", and this is just they type of event where - without context - you parrot the useful idiots around the world:

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

[WildCat]

Well the IDF is bombing the crap out of Northen Gaza as I type this post.... and it is as it always was...occupied or unoccupied...the terrorists terrorize, Abbas pledges and promises and eventually the IDF is left to do the dirty work.
I predict Orwell will call you a partisan hack.

[webfusion]

Don't count on Orwell to pick up where he left off... I think he's genuinely mad.

Z-N indicates:
"156 rockets since Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. 156 in four months!"

IIRC, that is actually about the same as the number fired during the time Israel still occupied the Strip. By the way, the ZOA which cites the 'Red Dawn' numbers, counted all launches (239), and not just the landings inside Israel (156) discounting the misfires and shortfalls of over 80 ----- those 80+ need to be counted as well, since they might have reached their destinations inside of Israel, except for their notoriously poor construction and bad trajectories).
http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2005/20051222a.htm (December 22nd)
Since September 15, a total of 239 rockets have been fired at Israel, according to the Red Dawn warning system, which monitors Qassam launches. This rate of rocket fire does not differ greatly from the period prior to the disengagement, when the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) still controlled the Gaza Strip.

In any case, the withdrawal from Gaza is not the 'end of occupation' and so long as there are outstanding issues (thousands of Palestinian detainees at Ketziot & Megiddo, ongoing construction of the so-called "wall", tenders for more houses in the West Bank, etc etc,) then it is useless to say that Gaza is now free and the Palestinians living there no longer have any greivances. They are within the same realm as the rest of the Palestinians, and are not about to just disconnect themselves from everything else around them.

That is not to say that firing rockets and mortars is a proper way to express political dissatisfaction by any stretch of the imagination, but besides from being really annoying, can it be said they are "destroying Israel"?
C'mon.

The Islamic Jihad is acting on orders from Tehran, in coordination with their brethren in Lebanon. The mullahs are looking for a distraction. In fact, they are probably hoping that Israel sends over a few F-15's to blow up the facility at Natanz, then they would look to be the ones "hard done by" and garner sympathy at Israel's expense (as did Iraq after the Osiriq raid). Israel was a pariah after that escapade. Everyone has such short memories!

[zenith-nadir]

I predict Orwell will call you a partisan hack.Probably. :D

Anyone intimately connected to Israel who has knowledge about "realities on the ground" hears from the useful idiots all the time. It goes like this WildCat.

Since 1994 Palestinian suicide bombers kept blowing up Israelis and the PA under Arafat did nothing. So Israel set up checkpoints in the occupied territories to catch the bombers before they got into Israel and the useful idiots around the world attacked Israel for "humiliating" the Palestinian population.

Since 1994 Palestinian terror leaders kept sending bombers and the PA under Arafat did nothing to arrest them. So Israel started targeted killing terror leaders and the useful idiots around the world attacked Israel for "targeting" Palestinians.

Since 1994 there were Salaries For Suicide Bombers (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml) where relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers recieved $10,000 to $25,000 per family and the PA under Arafat did nothing. So Israel started punishing instead of rewarding the families by buldozing their homes and the useful idiots around the world attacked Israel for "collectively punishing" the Palestinians.

Finally after taking so much heat for trying to stop the Palestinian terrorists by checkpoints, targeted killings and home demolitions Israel went to plan "D", a physical barrier to thwart suicide bombers. Well once again the useful idiots around the world took Israel to the International Court of Justice in the Hauge and the useful idiots there ruled Israel’s security barrier was illegal and unjustified. Israel said "F"-you International Court of Justice. So far the justification is the barrier works pretty damn well at stopping suicide bombers... but now the useful idiots around the world attack Israel for "stealing land".

So Israel went to plan "E" and Sharon said "ok...fine....let's go way outside of the box....here's Gaza back". So what happened? 156 Kassam rocket attacks by Palestinian terrorists from Gaza in just four months and a couple suicide bombers. And once again, the PA under Abbas does nothing. The same old same old.

This is where guys like Orwell come into the debate - out of context - to tell me Israel is A) "humiliating Palestinians", B) "targeting Palestinians", C) "collectively punishing Palestinians" or D) "stealing land from Palestinians". These are they type of people I call useful idiots.

[zenith-nadir]

That is not to say that firing rockets and mortars is a proper way to express political dissatisfaction by any stretch of the imagination,
Neither was the Munich Massacre, the Ma'alot Massacre, Lod Airport Massacre, Coastal Road Massacre, Achille Lauro is hijacking, the Karine-A ship loaded with 50 tons of weapons, over 100 suicide bombings, plus thousands of other bombings, hijackings, assassinations and attacks.

And that is my point Web. After what? 30? 40? years isn't enough enough? Terrorizing Israel is no longer an acceptable way to express political dissatisfaction. Likewise hearing the PA promise endlessly to end terror and never actually ending Palestinian terror is also no longer acceptable.

but besides from being really annoying, can it be said they are "destroying Israel"? C'mon.Kassams? Nope. The real danger is the PA allows it to happen. Today the terrorists fire Kassams, maybe tommorow it'll be Katushas or SA-7s or Stingers...

then it is useless to say that Gaza is now freePalestinians can go anywhere in Gaza that they wish. They can even travel into Egypt and beyond. That is pretty free in my books. Travel to the West Bank? Well that's another story...because of continued terrorism. And I agree, since it was a unilateral disengagement there are many outstanding issues remaining.

[webfusion]

So far the justification is the barrier works pretty damn well at stopping suicide bombers... but now the useful idiots around the world attack Israel for "stealing land".

So Israel went to plan "E" and Sharon said "ok...fine....let's go way outside of the box....here's Gaza back". So what happened? 156 Kassam rocket attacks by Palestinian terrorists from Gaza in just four months and a couple suicide bombers. And once again, the PA under Abbas does nothing. The same old same old.

The claim of 'stealing' Palestinian land goes back quite much farther than the security barrier/wall, Z-N. We could trace that to the 1967 crossing of the Green Lines (in fact, I started a thread about that HERE (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=49333)). Others will argue that the stealing of Palestinian lands began in 1948, or even in the 1800's (see:demon).
Personally I don't even think the conflict has anything to do with land.
It goes deeper to an islamic fundamentalist attitude that jews should be destined to remain as dhimmis and the very idea of jews running a really advanced independent modern state and being successful makes the islamic world (not just the Palestinians) nuts.

Arik Sharon left Gaza, fully expecting the Qassem rockets to continue, there is no doubt he knew that. There is nothing supporting any claim that indicates otherwise. In fact, as I pointed out just now, your number of 156 is too low, and nearer to 300 launches have been made, according to the IDF 'Red Dawn' phased-radar system. Remember, this number is equal to launches ongoing for months BEFORE the withdrawal, while the IDF had total control in Gaza!

Abbas is doing the correct thing, as a candidate in the run-up to the elections. He told the Israelis, "you deal with it" --- and the current no-go zone is the best the Israelis can hope for.
General Staff sources admit also that even if the rocket-launch cells are pushed back beyond the buffer zone, they will still be able to hit at Israeli territory.

The IDF has been in exactly this situation before, with the Lebanon cross-border firing (and is still involved up North, as we see). What is the solution?

Wouldn't you like to know? !!!!

[webfusion]

Palestinians can go anywhere in Gaza that they wish.

Except the no-go zone! ;)

After what? 30? 40? years isn't enough enough? Terrorizing Israel is no longer an acceptable way to express political dissatisfaction. Likewise hearing the PA promise endlessly to end terror and never actually ending Palestinian terror is also no longer acceptable.

Get used to it, this stuff will probably will go on for another 40. What end do you see in sight?
(see: HAMAS running for election to Palestinian Parliament and terrorists being incorporated onto the PA Police force! )

[Skeptic]

Orwell has debated idiots his whole life, I'd bet. :D

Yes, the number of idiots who don't know a damn thing Orwell just happens to meet must astound him. Obviously, everybody is an idiot except for him.

[Skeptic]

You got what? Let me get this straight... You got me by lying and distorting what I have been saying? That's how you clowns "debate", innit?

Well, of course you say I'm "lying" (or lying, as you emphasized--I can just see you shouting at the monitor as you wrote it), Orwell.

For two reasons:

1). Rather transparent denial, a well-known psychological defense mechanism. In other words you're raging at me for accurately telling you how you look, instead of yourself for being a fool.

2). Since, like all fools, you are 100% convinced that you have the absolute truth, you naturally believe that when someone wins an argument against you--which, just between you and me and the lamppost, isn't difficult--it just has to be because they are evil or lying or stupid, etc.

I mean, what other reason could there be for them to disagree with the holy truth? After all, we all know there is no truth but what Orwell believes, and Orwell is its prophet.

[David Swidler]

Skep, you're skirting ad hominem territory. Address his statements, not his personality.

I think it's time to let this thread die a quiet death. It's just going in circles. IMHO the only reason at this point to further this discussion is if someone changes his mind. We can all see how likely that is.

[zenith-nadir]

Dec. 29, 2005 9:56 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1135696358366&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

An IDF officer was killed and around 10 people were wounded in a suicide bombing in the West Bank on Thursday morning.

A suicide bomber detonated himself at a surprise IDF roadblock south of Tulkarm, near Shavei Shomron. The bomber was driven in a taxi to the area, and when he exited the vehicle, soldiers asked him to open his coat. He refused, and set off his explosives.

Three Palestinians - the taxi driver and two passengers - were also killed in the attack. It was unclear whether there were other Palestinian fatalities.

The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack, which wounded both Israelis and Palestinians.Once again the islamist terrorists send yet another murderer on yet another suicide. This time an IDF officer and three Palestinians were blown to bits by this Islamic Jihad nutjob.

But you wanna know the irony?

The bomber was driven in a taxi to the area, and when he exited the vehicle, soldiers asked him to open his coat. He refused, and set off his explosives. Three Palestinians - the taxi driver and two passengers - were also killed in the attack.The taxi driver who drove the suicide bomber was also killed by the bomber. As were two innocent Palestinians sitting in the taxi. This is the world Orwell knows nothing about.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20051229/2005_12_29t054101_450x280_us_mideast.jpg

Israeli soldiers examine the scene of an explosion close to an army checkpoint near the West Bank city of Tulkarm December 29, 2005. (Mustafa Abu Dayeh/Reuters)


Except the no-go zone! ;)Speaking of which.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20051228/capt.sge.rla52.281205214753.photo00.photo.default-380x257.jpg

A Palestinian man shows a leaflet written in Arabic with an accompanying map airdropped by Israeli planes over Gaza warning Palestinians to keep out of the area declared no-man's land 'security zone' by Israel, in northern Gaza Strip. Israeli artillery batteries bombarded the northern Gaza Strip after a deadline expired for Palestinians to evacuate a new security zone which is intended to stop rocket attacks.(AFP/Mohammed Abed)

[zenith-nadir]

I KNEW this old myth would be dragged out of it's hole soon.

BBC - Wednesday, 28 December 2005, 20:20 GMT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4564876.stm)

"The ways of buffer-zones, militarism, incursions, attacks, assassinations will just ... add to the cycle of violence and counter-violence," said senior negotiator Saeb Erekat in a BBC interview.That old BS line that Israel responding to having Palestinian rockets fired at it's civilians adds to the "cycle of violence".

Get it JREFers? The Palestinian Authority does nothing to stop terrorists from launching rockets at Israeli civilians but Saeb Erekat - who works for the PA - blames Israel for adding to the cycle of violence and counter-violence by it's response to stop Palestinian rockets being fired into Israel.

This is the type of propoganda the useful idiots eat up and why I remain at JREF to debunk.

[webfusion]

One quick follow-up to the IDF stopping the guy with the fancy 10Kg belt:

The one thing that was not mentioned in the litany of PA senior negotiator Saeb Erekat, was the terrible IDF CHECKPOINTS and the horrendous ILLEGAL WALL!

According to the news services report ----
(The bomber) was riding in a Palestinian taxi when it was stopped for inspection at the impromptu checkpoint, which had been placed about 500 meters from the security fence (aka 'wall') crossing point at Avneh Hefetz.

When the bomber got out of the taxi and was asked by soldiers to raise his shirt, he vanished in a large puff of smoke and fire...

So, I ask again --- What is the solution?

Wouldn't you all like to know? !!!!

=====================================

Mr Swidler, if you are in the mood to see a thread killed, let me do it!!! I can achieve victory if you don't post again in the Kill This Thread thread! (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=38808) -- I've been trying to destroy the darn thing with all sorts of advanced weaponry, to no avail. Roadtoad is driving along over there with a truck using armor plating, and Hawk one & rjh01 think my aim is off.
However, if nobody else posts there until the New Year, I win!

I feel just like the real IDF -- employing all sorts of 'stopping' tactics and still they keep on coming at'cha.

[Skeptic]

That old BS line that Israel responding to having Palestinian rockets fired at it's civilians adds to the "cycle of violence"

Come to think of it, "Cycle of Violence" would be a really cool name for a heavy-metal Band. It would be even coolers if its members would be israelies and Palestinians. Stranger things have happened--especially in the middle east, where nothing but strange things seem to happen lately.

[webfusion]

As usual, ZN makes a valid point:
The real danger is the PA allows it to happen. Today the terrorists fire Kassams, maybe tommorow it'll be Katyushas or SA-7s or Stingers...


I was reading an article today, and it cited an interview conducted with an Islamic Jihad leader ----
At the beginning of the week one of the commanders of the Islamic Jihad was interviewed by Shlomi Eldar of Channel 10 News. He analyzed, with sharp clarity, the process of Israeli deterioration. First, he said, we fought with stones, and you indicated with stones you can't beat an army. After you were worn out and did not respond to stones, we started shooting. Then your army promised you'd stop it within a few days. So apparently you couldn't, or didn't want to. Afterward we started the suicide bombings and you claimed they were not strategically dangerous. Then we began shooting the Qassams, and you dismissed their effect, saying 'what can Qassams do?' And now, with improved Qassams we are already firing on Ashkelon.

=================================
for skep -
http://www.shanghaistreets.net/media/P1010705_1_480.jpg
'Cycle of Violence' -- a REAL Heavy Metal Band in concert!

[Mycroft]

That old BS line that Israel responding to having Palestinian rockets fired at it's civilians adds to the "cycle of violence"

Come to think of it, "Cycle of Violence" would be a really cool name for a heavy-metal Band. It would be even coolers if its members would be israelies and Palestinians. Stranger things have happened--especially in the middle east, where nothing but strange things seem to happen lately.

At Little Green Footballs, a pro-Israeli/pro-WOT blog run by a former liberal who underwent a dramatic conservative shift during 9/11, the term "cycle of violence" is used to describe the owners periodic 50 mile bicycle excursions.

[webfusion]

pro-WOT

pro-what?

===============================
eta --- nevermind, got it, 'War On Terror'
===============================

Oh, by the way, guess who has now stepped forward and claimed the launch of Katyushas from Lebanon the other day? Postings on an Islamist Web site declared :::

""The lion sons of al Qaeda launched ... a new attack on the Jewish state by firing 10 missiles ..."

[Mycroft]

pro-WOT

pro-what?

===============================

WOT = War on Terror. I stop short of calling him a Republican, though he probably is.

[Mycroft]

Once again the islamist terrorists send yet another murderer on yet another suicide. This time an IDF officer and three Palestinians were blown to bits by this Islamic Jihad nutjob.

I'd just like to take a moment to point out the significance of the ratios here.

The fact that so many more Palestinians have died in this conflict than have Israelis is often pointed to as evidence that it's the Israelis that are at fault and that the Israelis are not doing enough to preserve innocent Palestinian life.

The problem is that reasoning only holds if you don't look too closely at the individual deaths and realize how many Palestinians die because Palestinian terror organizations place their lives in danger. The simple truth is a Palestinian terror attack is just more likely to kill Palestinians than it is Israelis.

[WildCat]

Stranger things have happened--especially in the middle east, where nothing but strange things seem to happen lately.
Exhibit A. (http://www.liel.net/Liel-ClintonVideo2.wmv) :D

[zenith-nadir]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20051231/2005_12_30t201148_450x341_us_mideast_hostages.jpg

A screen grab from a video released to media on December 30, 2005, by a previously unknown Palestinian group called Brigades of the Mujahideen shows a masked gunman reading a list of demands next to British hostage Kate Burton. Kate Burton, a 25-year-old British human rights worker and her parents were freed in the Gaza Strip on Friday by the Palestinian gunmen who kidnapped them two days earlier. (Ramatan via Reuters TV/Reuters)

Associated Press Dec 31, 2005 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051231/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_63)

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A British aid worker and her parents were whisked out of Gaza early Saturday after being released by Palestinian gunmen who had abducted them two days earlier.

A previously unknown group calling itself the Mujahedeen Brigades Jerusalem Branch claimed responsibility, threatening more abductions of foreigners if Israel doesn't abolish its "no-go" zone in the northern Gaza Strip. Israel imposed the off-limits area this week to prevent rocket fire, and has threatened to shoot anyone entering the zone.

The kidnappers said they released the hostages as a "goodwill gesture" after receiving assurances that Britain and the European Union would seek an end to the Israeli buffer zone. British officials, however, denied that a deal had been struck.

The kidnappers said they would seize international election observers if their demands were not met.

I love that propoganda spin..."we released the hostages as a "goodwill gesture" but we promise to seize more if our demands are not met. :rolleyes:

Dec 31, 2005 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051231/wl_nm/mideast_gaza_dc_2)

GAZA (Reuters) - About 50 masked gunmen occupied a Palestinian government office in the Gaza Strip for several hours on Saturday to demand jobs, witnesses and a spokesman for the gunmen said.

The group, members of a political wing of the mainstream Fatah movement, occupied an Interior Ministry office in Deir el-Balah refugee camp, forced everyone to leave and stood guard outside.(emphasis mine)

Do you see how it is over there JREFers? Palestinian terrorists kidnapped a British aid worker and her parents in Gaza because Israel enforced a "no-go zone" in Gaza to stop Kassam rocket attacks by other Palestinian terrorists in Gaza. Fatah terrorists stormed and took over the Palestinian Authority Interior Ministry office to demand jobs. Layers upon layers of terrorism which the Palestinian Authority - who has been in power since 1993 - refuses to confront and control.

Instead we get these well-worn and tired old lies from the Palestinian Authority that it is "Israel's fault". Which is one way to keep the useful idiots' minds off the real truth which is the PA's inaction to confront and control Palestinian terror:

Wednesday, 28 December 2005, 20:20 GMT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4564876.stm)

"The ways of buffer-zones, militarism, incursions, attacks, assassinations will just ... add to the cycle of violence and counter-violence," said senior negotiator Saeb Erekat in a BBC interview.

[zenith-nadir]

But wait...there's more:

14:28 Dec 30, '05 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=95754)

Anarchy in the Palestinian Authority (PA) spread to the Rafiah border crossing, which was closed Friday morning after European Union (EU) observers fled 100 armed PA policemen who formed a blockade.

...the EU's observers stationed at the crossing quickly fled the scene in panic while the gunmen prevented vehicles from reaching the crossing. The observers are responsible for monitoring the crossing and enforcing the agreement between Israel and the PA on live camera transmissions of border activity.

The armed men refused to heed demands by PA officials to leave the compound, and the EU workers left out of fear for their lives.

"Our monitors are now in the Kerem Shalom military base [in Israel]. When the situation is clear, and these people leave, we will go back to our work," said EU spokesman Julio De La Guardia. (emphasis mine)

Incase you missed it in the story the "gunmen" are PA policemen.

[webfusion]

While there is now another thread running about the Useful Idiots, I wanted to bump this one to mention a statement issued this morning by the Israelis, regarding targeting civilians :

"The IDF is continuing Operation Blue Skies in the northern Gaza Strip.
There were no terrorist missile launches over the weekend targeting our civilians."


And the Palestinian Authority has issued the following "resolution" on New Year's Eve:
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas vowed last night to end the chaos.

"It is time to impose the authority of law and order," Abbas said in a New Year's message broadcast on Palestinian television. "These events ... harm our international credibility and strengthen Israel's pretext to undermine peace and stop withdrawals."

"The national authority regards chaos, anarchy, and challenges to the authority of law and order as dangers threatening the entire national project," he reiterated.

-------------- Reiterate away, Mr Abbas.

[davefoc]

ZN,
I appreciate your posting of news articles concerning the Gaza strip.

But are they part of a point?

Do you think those of us that have criticized Israel's expansion think that when Israel withdraws from its settelements all happiness and peace is going to erupt?

Right now, there is a clear cut border between the Gaza Strip and Israel. There are not Israeli settlers in the Gaza Strip to muddy the waters between terrorist attacks incited because of Israel's placement of settlers into the Gaza Strip and terrorist attacks which are aimed at the destruction of Israel.

The people of Gaza now have a clear cut choice. End the chaos or deal with the repercussions of not being able to prevent terrorist attacks from their soil. Previously, the choice was to put up with Israeli expansion fueled by Israeli trolling for immigrants all over the world and Israeli subsidies from the US or to resist the Israeli occupiers with violence. Can you imagine that it might have been difficult to develop a significant consensus in the Gaza strip that the peaceful accomodation of Israel's territorial goals might not be the best way to go?

So there was violence before and there is violence now. Does this mean that Israel should just keep expanding? I guess to you it does. To me it is just evidence when a country is founded with massive immigration on land that other people see as their own there will be violence. Eventually, violence will subside as it becomes in the best interest of everybody to accept the new status quo. But if Israel never defines stable borders and continues to expand then it is pretty reasonable to expect that the process of acceptance and the end of violence is not going to start.

Right now, my guess, is that there are many Gaza Strip citizens that would like to see the rocket firings into Israel be stopped. It is obvious, that Israel has no choice to do what is necessary to stop them. There is undoubtedly an overwhelming consensus in Israel to do what is necessary to prevent them. And the Gaza strip citizens realize that there can be no stability in the Gaza strip while rocket attacks on Israel take place from Gaza Strip territory.

I wonder if you personally want them stopped. You seem to find solace in stories of Palestininan violence. It seems that in the stories of Palestinian violence you see a justification for the establishment of Israel and its continued expansion. Something like the Palestinians are so bad that they deserve whatever has happened to them.

To me, your views are exactly analogous to how the American settlers felt about the Indians. The Indians felt that they needed to resist the American expansion into territory they considered theirs. The Indians resisted with the same kind of brutal terrorist attacks that must be deployed by the side in any dispute that is outgunned. At the time of the American expansion the Indians were reviled and portrayed as lessor humans that deserved their plight. Eventually peace came when the Indians had accepted their plight and the Americans had clearly defined the limits of their expansion. Not exactly, a just solution from the Indian's stand point but with time and with some generosity on the part of the Americans eventually there was peace and there is a widespread understanding and empathy for the Indian throughout the general American population.

[zenith-nadir]

ZN, I appreciate your posting of news articles concerning the Gaza strip. But are they part of a point? Do you think those of us that have criticized Israel's expansion think that when Israel withdraws from its settelements all happiness and peace is going to erupt?I post recent news articles concerning the Gaza strip to debunk that Palestinian "resistance" = "Israeli expansion". I post recent news articles concerning the Gaza strip to debunk that IDF "retaliation" = "a cycle of violence". Those myths are sold by the useful idiots, some of whom are professional apologists for terror - See: Saeb Erekat - or have unwittingly become apologists for terror. Allow me to present my argument.

Back in 1993 Israel and the PLO - a terror organization - signed the Oslo Accords. The accords called for withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, not all of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The accords also called for the Palestinian right to self-government within those areas through the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, and Yasser Arafat shook hands on it in public. It was a historic moment in Palestinian and Israeli history, so what happened?

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/oslo1.gif

More Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorism in the 5 years after the Oslo agreement than in the preceding years. Full stop.

Here's where I generally hear the "israeli expansion/settlements = resistance" or the "IDF measures = cycle of violence" myths. But that is nothing more than being an apologist for terror. Let's call the terror what it is, terror. This terror was organized by Palestinians who belonged to terror organizations who were sponsored by Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority. They were not "resisting the occupation" they were actively, with malice aforethought, terrorizing civilians inside Israel regardless of their race, age, nationality, combat status or religion. The mandate of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is to destroy Israel.

Over 110,000 Palestinians came into Israel every single day to go to work before the Oslo Accords and tens of thousands worked on Israeli settlements, feel free to look it up. Trade between Palestinians and Israel was strong. Then came the spike in terrorism after the PLO signed the Oslo Accords.

Strangely Israel's new peace partner, the Palestinian Authority never ever seemed to arrest the leaders of these terror organizations, here and there they arrested a few low-level militants but eventually they ended up releasing them quietly when no one was looking. Then it became well known and documented that Arafat through the Palestinian Authority was supporting the terrorism. It became well known and documented that the Palestinian Authority was sponsoring incitement against jews and Israelis in official PA-controlled media, schools, and mosques.

So who was left to stop the terrorists responsible for the spike in terror after the Oslo Accords? The IDF.

From 1993 through 1999 the IDF began to attack and kill the Palestinian terrorists who were responsible for the spike in terror after Oslo. These terror organizations were allowed to use Palestinian civilians areas for cover and concealment, and they used Palestinian Authority interests as bases of operations and firing positions.

Arafat's two-stage strategy of negotiation with Israel while sponsoring the terrorists resulted in the much-debated system of restrictions on the movement of Palestinian goods and the Palestinian people. This much-debated system of restrictions on the movement of Palestinian goods and the Palestinian people became - through the rhetoric of the useful idiots - worse than the terrorism itself. Then in "great-moments-in-turnspeak" the useful idiots apologized for Palestinian terrorism as an inevitable side-effect of restrictions on movement of Palestinian goods and the Palestinian people.

Eventually the Palestinian economy suffered one of the deepest recessions in modern history because of Arafat's two-stage strategy of negotiation with Israel while sponsoring the terrorists. The Israeli checkpoints and closures to prevent Palestinian terrorism - which the PA was sponsoring - raised the cost of doing business, caused wide-spread unemployment and disrupted the predictability needed for orderly economic Palestinian life. Then came the failure at Camp David and the "second intifada". From there it just went downhill until the disengagement from Gaza.

The historic - though one-sided - disengagement from Gaza had one beneficial effect, it exposed the Palestinian terror organizations for who they truely are. Terror organizations. I post news articles concerning the Gaza strip as evidence of that fact. Even after the removal of all restrictions on movement of Palestinian goods and the Palestinian people in Gaza the terrorists still terrorize Israel by firing rockets and sending their suicide bombers. Now not only have they continued to terrorize Israel they have begun to terrorize foreigners in Gaza, they terrorize other Palestinians in Gaza and the very Palestinian Authority who supported them all those years.

Right now, there is a clear cut border between the Gaza Strip and Israel. There are not Israeli settlers in the Gaza Strip to muddy the waters between terrorist attacks incited because of Israel's placement of settlers into the Gaza Strip and terrorist attacks which are aimed at the destruction of Israel.Exactly. And the rockets and suicide bombers still come.

The people of Gaza now have a clear cut choice. End the chaos or deal with the repercussions of not being able to prevent terrorist attacks from their soil.They have had that choice since 1993 and I shall not be "told" that they have not. The Palestinian Authority working as an agent for the Palestinian people signed many treaties obligating them to prevent terrorist attacks from their soil. And the perpetrators of the "chaos" - Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's-own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades - have been operating in Gaza for over 10 years.

Can you imagine that it might have been difficult to develop a significant consensus in the Gaza strip that the peaceful accomodation of Israel's territorial goals might not be the best way to go?Hamas and Islamic Jihad want to destroy Israel. They say it over and over and over again. Israel's "territorial goals" are an excuse for terror.

So there was violence before and there is violence now. Does this mean that Israel should just keep expanding?Even when Israel leaves all of Gaza it is still "expanding". Next step in that evolution is even when Israel is no longer in Gaza it is still occupied.

To me it is just evidence when a country is founded with massive immigration on land that other people see as their own there will be violence.That's an apology for terror. Sorry dave.

Eventually, violence will subside as it becomes in the best interest of everybody to accept the new status quo.60 years and still counting dave...

But if Israel never defines stable borders and continues to expand...Back to the expansion excuse for terror. Hamas and Islamic Jihad want to destroy Israel. They say it over and over and over again. Israel's "territorial goals" are just an excuse for the terror of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

...then it is pretty reasonable to expect that the process of acceptance and the end of violence is not going to start.The disengagement from Gaza and the failure of that move to end Palestinian violence in Gaza is your red flag that it's time go beyond blaming Israeli expansion and Israeli immigration for Palestinian terrorism.

It is obvious, that Israel has no choice to do what is necessary to stop them.And the IDF has had that responsibility since Israel was formed in 1948.

There is undoubtedly an overwhelming consensus in Israel to do what is necessary to prevent them.Israelis don't like buses, restaurants, shopping malls and nightclubs to be blown up by fundamentalist Palestinian suicide bombers just like Iraqis don't like insurgent suicide bombers blowing up there or Londoners don't like suicide bombers in London either. Crazy huh?

And the Gaza strip citizens realize that there can be no stability in the Gaza strip while rocket attacks on Israel take place from Gaza Strip territory.Honestly Dave, if they haven't realized that already since 1993 and through two intifadas than I dunno what to say.

I wonder if you personally want them stopped....and here comes the strawman...

You seem to find solace in stories of Palestininan violence.Strawman #1.

It seems that in the stories of Palestinian violence you see a justification for the establishment of Israel and its continued expansion.Strawman #2 and the expansion excuse for terror again.

Something like the Palestinians are so bad that they deserve whatever has happened to them.Strawman #3, I do not think all Palestinians are terrorists.

To me, your views are exactly analogous to how the American settlers felt about the Indians. The Indians felt that they needed to resist the American expansion into territory they considered theirs. The Indians resisted with the same kind of brutal terrorist attacks that must be deployed by the side in any dispute that is outgunned. At the time of the American expansion the Indians were reviled and portrayed as lessor humans that deserved their plight. Eventually peace came when the Indians had accepted their plight and the Americans had clearly defined the limits of their expansion. Not exactly, a just solution from the Indian's stand point but with time and with some generosity on the part of the Americans eventually there was peace and there is a widespread understanding and empathy for the Indian throughout the general American population.Emphasis mine. With all due respect that was nothing more than attacking your three previous strawmen.

[webfusion]

Z-N, I'm copying that and keeping it in a text file. You covered it all with a well-conceived and forthright posting. I am sure your analysis will come in handy at other forums I participate in, where the anti-Israel sentiment is much stronger and more virulent than anything offered at JREF.


One sentence stands out in davefoc's post:
"You seem to find solace in stories of Palestinian violence"

Z-N dismisses it (correctly) as a strawman.

But I want to go one step further ----- there is one thing that we Israelis are really upset about. We are upset that our good neighbors, Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, who we work with, who we trade with, who we know on first-name basis, have been hijacked by their doofus leaders into a confrontation that leads them to face our Army.
The Palestinians do not just exist in enclaves that were outside the standard Israeli 'borderlines' agreed to by the War Armistice in Rhodes during 1949 (the Green Lines that were crossed in June 1967, now defined as "The Occupation" or "The Expansion") -- You must take into account that the palestinians are Israeli citizens, they are physicians, teachers, truck drivers, engineers, police, dentists, farmers, etc.

There is no solace in the continued conflict.
There is no aim to continue it, from our perspective.
By the end of 2006, the Palestinians can have their State if they so desire, and Israelis of all walks of life will support it.

Under one condition.

It is disarmed, it is demilitarized, and it operates under the hegemony of Israel, much like the people in Lichtenstein.

[gnome]

Z-N, I'm copying that and keeping it in a text file. You covered it all with a well-conceived and forthright posting. I am sure your analysis will come in handy at other forums I participate in, where the anti-Israel sentiment is much stronger and more virulent than anything offered at JREF.


One sentence stands out in davefoc's post:
"You seem to find solace in stories of Palestinian violence"

Z-N dismisses it (correctly) as a strawman.

But I want to go one step further ----- there is one thing that we Israelis are really upset about. We are upset that our good neighbors, Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, who we work with, who we trade with, who we know on first-name basis, have been hijacked by their doofus leaders into a confrontation that leads them to face our Army.
The Palestinians do not just exist in enclaves that were outside the standard Israeli 'borderlines' agreed to by the War Armistice in Rhodes during 1949 (the Green Lines that were crossed in June 1967, now defined as "The Occupation" or "The Expansion") -- You must take into account that the palestinians are Israeli citizens, they are physicians, teachers, truck drivers, engineers, police, dentists, farmers, etc.

There is no solace in the continued conflict.
There is no aim to continue it, from our perspective.
By the end of 2006, the Palestinians can have their State if they so desire, and Israelis of all walks of life will support it.

Under one condition.

It is disarmed, it is demilitarized, and it operates under the hegemony of Israel, much like the people in Lichtenstein.

Lichtenstein lives under the hegemony of Israel?

What if Palestine were still armed, but under sane leadership, and brought no further violence to Israel... would such a state be accepted?

[webfusion]

gnome, yeah, that sentence construction was a bit lame ---- I'm still woozy.

Lichtenstein is under the hegomony of the Swiss.
It truly provides a fantastic model for the palestinians, who have a small area (gaza) totally interdependent on Israel for survival, and the hilly areas of Judah/Shomron to share with the jewish residents living there now.

By 'disarmed' the working assumption is 'demilitarized' -- no standing army, no air force, no armored division, no anti-aircraft missiles, no land mines, etc.

Israel has already permitted a force of over 30,000 Security Personnel and the idea was to get them to act against the various terror factions, stop them, and get the violence against Israel under control. That was the premise (and the promise).

To answer your question, gnome, I think the palestinians are already under sane leadership. I have no problem with them choosing Abbas as their President, to tell you the truth, I don't even have a problem with them placing HAMAS representatives into their Parliament or local municipalities. At some level, these HAMAS people are quite sane, they stand for a lot of good things, bringing social justice and services to their communities, and having a deep concern for the tenets of islam.

There is nothing wrong with any of that. Israel supports freedom for people to worship islam, and supports efforts of the palestinians to improve their lives. If the palestinans would decide as a matter of policy that having jews as neighbors is fine, then everything would be rosy. Lichtenstein and the Swiss.

Wishful thinking, right? !!!

[Skeptic]

Incidentally, Z-N the jerusalem post had just reported there were 2,990 attempted terrorist attacks on israel during the 2005 "truce" with the PLO/Hamas/Islamic Jihad terrorists.

Needless to say, the attacks came from all factions and sections of the Palestinian organizations, whether or not they have signed a "peace agreement" with israel or not.

[Mycroft]

Incidentally, Z-N the jerusalem post had just reported there were 2,990 attempted terrorist attacks on israel during the 2005 "truce" with the PLO/Hamas/Islamic Jihad terrorists.

Needless to say, the attacks came from all factions and sections of the Palestinian organizations, whether or not they have signed a "peace agreement" with israel or not.

Whoah! Saying that makes you a genocidal war-mongering imperialist, don't you know that?

BTW, is that the same truce that's now officially over, despite the fact that the frequency of attack is indistinguishable from before the truce began?

[David Swidler]

Well, once you distort the meaning of "truth," it's only a small mispronunciation away from distorting "truce."

[webfusion]

Statistics, if looked at in their totality, indicate that the number of terror attacks, have dropped due to the truce.

From a competing source other than The Jerusalem Post:
(Ha'Aretz)
Drop in terror is due to truce with militants
The Shin Bet's statistics on terror attacks confirm that terrorist activity in 2005 dropped considerably compared to the previous four and a half years. The main reason for the sharp decline is the truce in the territories, the security service said Sunday. This is the third year in a row in which the number of terrorist acts has been reduced sharply.

Terrorist attacks claimed the lives of 45 Israelis last year, compared to 117 in 2004, marking a 60 percent reduction.
The fact that Hamas, in general, stopped engaging in terror activities changed the picture.

I just thought it might be useful to offer the perspective of the Israeli experts.
Carry on...

[zenith-nadir]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20060102/2006_01_02t070742_450x297_us_mideast.jpghttp://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20060102/capt.sge.sev38.020106114955.photo00.photo.default-384x256.jpg


Palestinian police shout after storming government offices in Rafah refugee camp, southern Gaza Strip January 2, 2006. About 200 policemen stormed government offices in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah on Monday to protest against the failure of the Palestinian Authority to fight growing lawlessness, witnesses said. (Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/Reuters)

Huh? the Palestinian police are storming government offices now?

Jan. 2, 2006 12:11 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136102656292&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

A day after eight veteran Fatah leaders called for delaying next month's elections, about 200 Palestinian policemen, shooting into the air, briefly took over several government buildings on Monday to protest the Palestinian Authority's failure to impose law and order in Gaza before returning to their positions.

No one was immediately hurt in the takeovers in the southern town of Rafah, but the policemen forced employees from the buildings and all work was halted.Now the Palestinian police are illegally taking over Palestinian Authority government buildings in protest. Why?

Jan. 2, 2006 12:11 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136102656292&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

The police officers demanded that the Palestinian Authority grant them more authority in facing armed gangs that have taken control of government and elections offices and abducted foreigners in recent months. So the police want more authority in facing armed gangs who have taken control of government and elections offices and abducted foreigners... so they - the police - illegally took over Palestinian Authority government buildings "in protest". :boggled:

I find no "solace in stories of Palestininan violence" like this davefoc. I worries me to no end that even the Palestinian police look and act like the gunmen they are suppose to arrest and disarm. Is this the future Palestinian state? Is this what Palestinians have to look forward to where even the Palestinian police act like terrorists and storm government offices at gunpoint?

[zenith-nadir]

Incidentally, Z-N the jerusalem post had just reported there were 2,990 attempted terrorist attacks on israel during the 2005 "truce" with the PLO/Hamas/Islamic Jihad terrorists.Here's what I read:

10:58 02/01/2006 (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/664959.html)


In the past year there have been fewer explosive charges (199 compared to 592)
fewer mortar shells (848 compared to 1,231)
fewer shooting incidents (1,133 compared to 1,621)
Only the number of Qassam rockets fired at Israel has increased - 377 compared to 309 in the previous year.

[Mycroft]

Terrorist attacks claimed the lives of 45 Israelis last year, compared to 117 in 2004, marking a 60 percent reduction.
The fact that Hamas, in general, stopped engaging in terror activities changed the picture.

I question the conclusion. The reduction in death may well be due to greater efficiency of the IDF and Shin-Bet, if Ha'aretz wants to establish that it's the truce that's responsible for the fewer deaths, they need to demonstrate that there have been a corresponding drop in terrorist attempts.

[Mycroft]

Well, once you distort the meaning of "truth," it's only a small mispronunciation away from distorting "truce."

Lol!

[webfusion]

Mycroft, you're a good skeptic. Indeed, the information needs to be looked at more closely.
I question the conclusion. The reduction in death may well be due to greater efficiency of the IDF and Shin-Bet, if Ha'aretz wants to establish that it's the truce that's responsible for the fewer deaths, they need to demonstrate that there have been a corresponding drop in terrorist attempts.

It wasn't Ha"aretz trying to establish anything, it was the paper reporting what they had been offered by the Shin-Bet itself.
My fault, I guess, for not providing a link to the original story
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/664916.html
The Shin Bet and the Israel Defense Forces attribute the reduction mainly to the improvement in their joint capability to foil terrorist attacks and to act against terrorist organizations.

So, it could be said that the overall number has dropped, not for the lack of effort on the part of the terrorists, but for the lack of ability to overcome the capabilites of the IDF.

And I will venture to say 2006 will be even a 'worse' year for the terrorists, and the truce will continue to be upheld, in the main.

[Mycroft]

I think the subject teaches skepticism. You look at a few staged photographs, read a couple texts that have critical facts missing to slant the story, and you learn skepticism very quickly.

A few years ago the media was all over a three month "lull" in the violence, and I bought it just like everyone else. Then I found a tiny under-reported story about how the actual number of attempts were exactly the same and the “lull” was just a statistical anomaly where for that period of time there just were not any successful attacks.

[webfusion]

From the OP --- (does anyone even remember the OP?)

"Can the terrorists be sued? Where? In what jurisdiction?" -- posted by webfusion.


http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?id=1253
American terror victims of HAMAS are suing British National Westminster Bank in New York, which represents 'Interpal'.

[Mycroft]

From the OP --- (does anyone even remember the OP?)

"Can the terrorists be sued? Where? In what jurisdiction?" -- posted by webfusion.


http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?id=1253
American terror victims of HAMAS are suing British National Westminster Bank in New York, which represents 'Interpal'.

It looks like they should sue Interpal instead.

[a_unique_person]

Good to see the back patting, self congratulatory club enjoying a nice cup of tea here. Carry on.

[webfusion]

a_u_p, let's look at all the postings since late December, when Orwell steamed outta here in a huff, being the last 'anti-Israel' JREF member to actually think he was adding to the discussion. Let's see if our "self-congratulatory" club, as you call it, is meaningless and merely the Israel-supporters 'enjoying a cup of tea' ---


1. 28th December -- Israel continues to absorb rocket attacks, both from Gaza and Lebanon. A brief analysis ensued here as to whether or not the Qassems constituted "The Destruction of Israel" and if retailation was even necessary, or effective.

2. David Swidler encourages the thread to be left to die, since it is not convincing anyone to change their already-held opinions.

Unfortunately for Mr Swidler, violent events managed to grab our collective attention and prompted additional discussion:

3. A suicide bomber, on his way to target innocent Israelis, is stopped at an IDF checkpoint. The kidnapping of Keffiya Kate & Co. hits the headlines. The leader of the PA, Abu Mazen, issues a New Year's appeal to end the chaos (appeal #4,647, but who's counting?).

4. Davefoc throws in his 2¢ worth of strawmen and inaccuracies and then Z-N demolishes the strawmen & misinformation Davefoc posted.

5. An accusation of "finding solace in Palestinian violence" is raised against Zenith-Nadir. That is a serious charge, and was brought up in the context of Israel kind-of enjoying the Palestinans' violence, since it offers a good pretext to maintain the Israeli Expansionist Policies™

6. Was there MORE or LESS violence during the Cease Fire from the Palestinians? Statistics are bandied about, and the subject gets a bit of back-and-forth here. No back-patting, just honest skepticism, as it should be.

7. I decide to *bump* the thread, since a very relevent news article catches my attention, which directly relates to the OP. It specifically answers one of the questions asked in the OP. By bringing the news into this bulletin board, I'm keeping the record straight, which is the entire point of our particpation in the JREF forums, or so I imagine.

8. a_u_p shows up and makes no further contribution whatsoever. In fact, I have no idea what prompted him to take a moment out of his busy schedule and even bother to post here. What a waste of a perfectly good "Submit Reply" mouse-click.

=========================================

[a_unique_person]

I suspected you would take offence, Mr Fusion. My apologies.

[webfusion]

Nope, I don't personally take offense at your lack of entering the debate with some statement of value. It's no skin off my back, a_u_p.

The last point made here was about "Who to sue?" for terrorist actions?
That would be the logical place to join the conversation.

Mycroft asks -- why not bring a lawsuit directly against InterPal itself, instead of NatWest bank? That is a good question, and with a minimum of research, you probably can find out the reasons, and discover the motivation of those seeking legal redress in the case.

Critical thinking, folks, requires looking at stuff like this...

[Mycroft]

Mycroft asks -- why not bring a lawsuit directly against InterPal itself, instead of NatWest bank? That is a good question, and with a minimum of research, you probably can find out the reasons, and discover the motivation of those seeking legal redress in the case.

I've played around with Google a bit and I can't find the answer. It seems to me that NatWest's crime is dealing with InterPal, which the United States has designated as "a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) organisation", but which the UK still sees as a legitimate charity. Looking a bit further, it seems there is quite a controversy over this organization.


http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/12_04/interpal.htm

[davefoc]

webfusion wrote:4. Davefoc throws in his 2¢ worth of strawmen and inaccuracies and then Z-N demolishes the strawmen & misinformation Davefoc posted.

webfusion,
Since you were kind enough to give me your appraisal of my post and Z-N's response I thought I might give you my thoughts on the issue.

While, as always, I appreciated the effort that Z-N took with his response I found it in the main devoid of intellectual honesty. By that I mean that Z-N did not show a hint of addressing any biases that might effect his opinions in his response, he presented all evidence without the slightest hint that there were interpretations less supportive of his opinion than the ones he was presenting, and he failed to address what were the main points of my post.

He chose to dismiss as a straw man my comparison of territorial expansion of the US and the responses by the indigenous population to it and the territorial expansion of Israel and the responses by the indigenous population to it. Perhaps it was something of a strawman given the original topic of this thread, but it was absolutely not a strawman as it related to the idea that in all such conflicts as the Palestinian/Israeli one both sides are populated with true believers that can spit out the rhetoric of their side without catching a breath. My suggestion was and is that Z-N rhetoric is exactly analogous to all such true believers in these conflicts.

Obviously, all of this played well to a true believer such as yourself but to anybody that was looking for some reasoned, objective analysis it was a pretty useless response.

[Mycroft]

Obviously, all of this played well to a true believer such as yourself but to anybody that was looking for some reasoned, objective analysis it was a pretty useless response.

Do you define "reasoned objective analysis" as being someone that agrees with your comparison?

[davefoc]

Mycroft,
I was pretty much done with this thread, but you have asked a question in a reasonable manner and I will attempt to respond reasonably.

The short answer is no.

Obviously, the comparison is not perfect and I would expect that people might disagree to the extent that is a valid comparison.

I would be particularly impressed with a response that started off something like this. "While I can see that there are similarities between the expansion of Europeans into the US and the expansion of European Jews into Israel I believe the comparison is more flawed than valid for these reasons:"

I was particularly unimpressed with Z-N's response.

[webfusion]

I was particularly unimpressed with Z-N's response.-- davefoc

Let's roll the videotape:

davefoc posted Jan. 1st with this proposition:
"Do you think those of us that have criticized Israel's expansion think that when Israel withdraws from its settelements all happiness and peace is going to erupt?"So there was violence before and there is violence now. Does this mean that Israel should just keep expanding?"

[[[[[ Violence before the settlements even existed, you mean? Sure, you must have meant that, davefoc, because it follows the facts. ]]]]]

then, in a continuation of that posting ---
You seem to find solace in stories of Palestininan violence. It seems that in the stories of Palestinian violence you see a justification for the establishment of Israel and its continued expansion. Something like the Palestinians are so bad that they deserve whatever has happened to them.

Justification for the establishment of Israel is not found in anything the Palestinians did or did not do, or will do.
Also, there is no "continued expansion" of Israel. The 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines are disputed, they were Cease-Fire Lines only, not International Boundries. Israel can really claim the land, under the rules of war, and it is not Palestinian Land.
In case you missed that -- I repeat -- it is NOT Palestinian's Land.
At no point in history was it the Palestinian's land.
That is a critical fallacy in the entire viewpoint of yours and others.

Nevertheless, the post by Z-N proceeded to respond to that point, and concluded:
"Strawman #3, I do not think all Palestinians are terrorists."

None of us on the JREF forum think the Arab-palestinians are all terrorists, or all terrorist supporters. That is the biggest '****** strawman of 'em all.

[zenith-nadir]

He chose to dismiss as a straw man my comparison of territorial expansion of the US and the responses by the indigenous population to it and the territorial expansion of Israel and the responses by the indigenous population to it.Because "zionists" did not come to the middle east and slaughter the "indigenous population" wholesale and steal their land as the Europeans did to the native Americans. To draw a parallel between the wholesale slaughter of indians by Europeans and and an ideology that supports a Jewish homeland is wrong.

The ones who started the slaughter Dave were the followers of Haj Amin al-Husseini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_Al-Husseini) who followed him in violent anti-Zionist riots. And when that tactic failed Haj Amin al-Husseini conspired with Hitler to do his dirty work - wipe out the jews - in Palestine. This all transpired before Israel exsisted.

While, as always, I appreciated the effort that Z-N took with his response I found it in the main devoid of intellectual honesty.In your opinion.

Obviously, all of this played well to a true believer such as yourself but to anybody that was looking for some reasoned, objective analysis it was a pretty useless response.Reasoned objective analysis does not apologize for 60 years of Palestinian terrorism in the 20th & 21st century by saying "well they are just logically reacting as the native Americans did back in the 18th & 19th centuries". Especially when their situations are entirely different.

Here's a lesson for you Dave in the Palestinian issue:

Jan. 10, 2006 11:31 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361051044&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Egypt threatened to withdraw its support for the Palestinian Authority if the PA did not act to control the rampant anarchy in the Gaza Strip, according to a report in the London Arab newspaper Al Quds.

The report claimed that following the incident at the Rafah border crossing in which two Egyptian soldiers were killed, Egyptian authorities delivered the threat to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas as part of a specially delivered message.

Egypt also threatened to withdraw its support for the peace process if the PA did not take the proper steps to restore order to Gaza.Even Egypt tires of the endless excuses, anarchy and chaos to the point where they "specially delivered a message". No zionists or resistance to Israel's expansion involved Dave yet this third party - Egypt - is already tiring of the Palestinian Authority games and terror.

{edited to add}

12:33 10/01/2006 (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/668494.html)

The Palestinian Authority, the largest employer in the territories, is facing a fiscal crisis that could result, as early as next month, in it being unable to pay the salaries of its 130,000-plus officials and security staff, Nigel Roberts, the World Bank's man in the West Bank and Gaza Strip said in an interview to Haaretz.

"The Palestinian government needs the continued assistance of the international community," Roberts declares, "and to secure that, it must begin to assume its responsibilities." Raising salaries at a time when resources are unavailable for this, he notes, is precisely the opposite of demonstrating responsibility and reliability.

Roberts notes that the amount of assistance the Palestinians are getting - $5 billion in five years, or $300 per capita annually - is the highest granted to any entity since World War II. "To maintain the deep involvement of the donors, and their diplomatic attention, as well as the desire of the private sector to invest additional money, the PA must improve its performance," Roberts states.

"At the beginning of 2005, when Abu Mazen was elected president, we hoped for new momentum in the direction of governmental reforms and the fight against corruption, and in legislation - the most essential steps for encouraging private investments," explains the senior representative of the World Bank. Arafat died, but everything pertaining to the corrupted system of government, the "Arafatism," is still alive and kicking, Roberts says. "Arafat created a system that was tailored to a liberation movement, but not for a state at a time of reconciliation. We did not think that becoming accustomed to new norms would take so much time."(emphasis mine)

Even a fourth party - Nigel Roberts, the World Bank's man in the West Bank and Gaza Strip - tires of the Palestinian Authrority's inaction and corruption Dave. Neither of which have to do with zionists or resistance to Israel's expansion.

At some point Dave you have to address what you refuse to address, that the Palestinians make their bed and sleep in it regardless of zionists or resistance to Israel's often-touted-as-the-cause-for-everything "expansion".

[webfusion]

** bump **


In the OP, I asked if there was a jurisdiction or method for suing the terrorists for their acts ---

I just came across the answer. Sorry it took so long.
http://www.terror-lawsuit.com/index.htm?sckw=palestinian%20terrorism&src=google&sccrtv=stt-uar-iviuc
A team of leading American and Israeli lawyers are working together in representing Israeli victims of terror. Lawsuits seeking hundreds of millions of dollars have been filed in federal court in New York against defendant "Arab Bank" for its involvement in terror financing. Families who have suffered from these attacks are continuing to join these lawsuits.

[webfusion]

BREAKING NEWS:
New York federal judge clears Avi Dichter in war crimes suit (Reuters)

[a_unique_person]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0241698520070502


The lawsuit accused Avi Dichter of "war crimes for his participation" in the decision to drop a one-tonne bomb in a residential area of the Gaza Strip on July 22, 2002.
The target of the bombing was Hamas leader Saleh Shehada, but the strike also killed 14 Palestinian civilians, including nine children, and wounded many others.
At the time of the attack, Dichter, now Israel's internal security minister, was the director of the country's Shin Bet internal security agency.
...


In a ruling issued at U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Judge William Pauley found Dichter could not be sued because he was acting as a government official at the time.



?????

[webfusion]

What's the question?

He was acting in an official capacity, and violated no international law.
It seems clear to me.

[a_unique_person]

She made no finding on if it was legal or not, just that since he was acting in an official capacity, he had no responsibility. IIRC, other courts have found that not to be a valid excuse.

[webfusion]

She made no finding on if it was legal or not, just that since he was acting in an official capacity, he had no responsibility. IIRC, other courts have found that not to be a valid excuse.


Who is "she" ?

Your reading of the ruling is totally different than how it was presented by the New York District Court Judge William Pauley. He found that U.S. courts only have jurisdiction in cases of damages caused by actions that violate international law.

The Judge accepted the argument offered in motions by Israel and the U.S. State Department that no international law was deemed to have been violated by the Israeli government, and as Dichter was acting for that government, he could not be tried.

I think you are just not understanding the ruling, and making it into something that it's not.

[davefoc]

Are these posts referring to the article about the decision or the actual decision. If somebody has seen the actual decision would they provide a link?

From the article linked to here it sounds like the decision was just a straightforward rejection of the lawsuit because according to this judge, US law doesn't allow somebody to sue when the alleged crime was committed by somebody "acting as a government official".

But that understanding does not make complete sense because apparently the law that the suit was brought under was intended to allow people to sue who had suffered at the hands of the Nazis and clearly a lot of them were acting as government officials.

So, it seems like the information in the article is not clear (and so is the information in other articles that I found on the decision) or I am just not getting what is going on here.

[mijopaalmc]

Here is the full text of the Order to Dismiss: Matar v Dichter (http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/07-01987.PDF)

I don't pretend to understand it all, but it seems that the force of the order lies primarily on the immunity granted by the United States to "agencies or instrumentalities" of foreign entities. Thus, it does not mean that Dichter did not violate any international. Rather, it means that Dichter cannot be prosecuted under US law because such prosecution is forbidden by US law.

I myself am not clear on why Dichter is covered under the Foreign Service Immunities Act (FSIA), or why, in this case, the FSIA overrides the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA), a point which the judge seems to gloss over in his order. It seems, though, that it may have something to do with maintaining diplomatic relations with an ally, which was not an issue in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in so far as the government from which they derived the agency or instrumentality both lacked diplomatic relations with the US and no longer exists.

[davefoc]

mijopaalmc's link doesn't go directly to the text of the decision. I don't know why but it doesn't seem to be possible to post a direct link to the pdf file.

But selecting William Pauley and a date of 5/02/2007 brought up the decision for me.

[mijopaalmc]

never mind

[a_unique_person]

Here is the full text of the Order to Dismiss: Matar v Dichter (http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/07-01987.PDF)

I don't pretend to understand it all, but it seems that the force of the order lies primarily on the immunity granted by the United States to "agencies or instrumentalities" of foreign entities. Thus, it does not mean that Dichter did not violate any international. Rather, it means that Dichter cannot be prosecuted under US law because such prosecution is forbidden by US law.

I myself am not clear on why Dichter is covered under the Foreign Service Immunities Act (FSIA), or why, in this case, the FSIA overrides the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA), a point which the judge seems to gloss over in his order. It seems, though, that it may have something to do with maintaining diplomatic relations with an ally, which was not an issue in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in so far as the government from which they derived the agency or instrumentality both lacked diplomatic relations with the US and no longer exists.

It depends, apparently.

[gumboot]

I love how wantonly arrogant the USA is, that they think their courts and laws can just be forcibly cast upon the whole world.

The Israel/Lebanon war is none of the USA's damn business.

-Gumboot

[mijopaalmc]

There is however a little thing called international law.

Also, did you criticize the Spaniard for trying to imprison Pinochet?

[a_unique_person]

I love how wantonly arrogant the USA is, that they think their courts and laws can just be forcibly cast upon the whole world.

The Israel/Lebanon war is none of the USA's damn business.

-Gumboot

There is also the corollary, no ICCJ.

[webfusion]

It depends, apparently.

No. Read the decision itself, not someone's parsing of it.

(the link to the pdf provided by mijopaalmc works fine in my browser, thank you)

Right there on pp 12 -- Section C -- Scope of Lawful Authority:

"The plaintiffs allege that extrajudicial killings violate jus cogens principles of international law... This court disagrees." (bolding mine)


In any event, I found it worthwhile to bump the thread, and illustrate the conclusion to this particular case.

[davefoc]

(the link to the pdf provided by mijopaalmc works fine in my browser, thank you)



I can't imagine what is going on but the link works just fine for me this morning also.

[davefoc]

My interpretation of the decision is somewhat different than what is implied by the section Mycroft quoted.

A longer cut from the section that Mycroft quoted from:
Plaintiffs allege that the extrajudicial killings alleged in the complaint violate jus cogens principles of international law. On this basis, Plaintiffs argue that the FSIA does not apply to Dichter because jus cogens violations are necessarily beyond the scope of an official's lawful authority. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs cite several cases in which a foreign official alleged to have violated jus cogens principles was denied immunity under the FSIA. However these officials did not act in their official capacity. None of the cases cited by Plaintiffs involved a situation where, as here, the foreign government had expressly ratified the defendant's actions and affirmed that the defendant was acting pursuant to his official duties.

What the court seems to be saying here is that even if an individual does violate jus cogens they are exempted from prosecution by the terms of the FSIA. Based on this paragraph it appears the court is not making any decision whether the defendant violated jus cogens.

I wasn't familiar with what jus cogens meant prior to reading this decision. Apparently the UN has decided on a legal principal that there are some things that are so obviously bad that if an individual does them even when acting in their official capacity that they can be tried for a crime.

My personal opinion is that the headline stating that the court had "cleared" Dichter is misleading. Under the most likely interpretation of that statement there is an implication that the court had found that defendant was not guilty of what the plaintiff was charging but that is not what the court found. The court found that the defendant was exempted from claims by the plaintiffs for his actions because he was acting in an official capacity. But I also agree that under an entirely reasonable interpretation of the headline that the court did "clear" Dichter in that it found that he was exempted from the claims of the defendant.

Based on my understanding it seems that mijopaalmc's interpretation was correct but I, like him, don't understand the legal basis for suing people under the FSIA is when those people were working in their official capacity. It seems that according to this court that hasn't happened, but it seems like it has happened when people have sued the Nazis for damages.

[webfusion]

My interpretation of the decision is somewhat different than what is implied by the section Mycroft quoted.

(Mycroft is not here, you are confused slightly.)


The court found that the defendant was exempted from claims by the plaintiffs for his actions because he was acting in an official capacity.

Not entirely accurate, davefoc, if you read to the last part of the decision ---

The Court said, that even absent any FSIA exemption whatsoever, the State of Israel performed within the realm of their political authority and jurisdiction, and Dichter couldn't be held to account for his acts in service of the Israeli government (which are ostensibly legitimate in the pursuit of terrorist fiends).

(see: Section III -- Political Question Doctrine)


Case closed.

[davefoc]

My apologies for my confusion when I misidentified Mycroft as the source of my quotes of Webfusion.

Note that the PDF document is coming up as an image and it is not easy to be able to cut and paste from it. The quotes below were hand typed and may contain errors.

From the decision:

Even if the FSIA were inapplicable, this Court would dismiss the action pursuant to the political question doctrine. The Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr articulated six situations in which a nonjusticiable political question may exist:

[Note items 1,2,3, and 5 below were not copied because the subsequent argument didn't refer to them]

(4) the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government

(6) the potentiality of embarrassment from umltifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

...

The Baker factors-and particularly factors four and six-strongly suggest that the action involves a political question. The defendant is a high-ranking offical of Israel, a United States ally. The Complaint criticizes military actions that were coordinated by Defendant on behalf of Israel and in furtherance of Israeli foreign policy. For this reason, both Israel and the State Department, whose opinions are entitled to consideration, urge dismissal of this action.
...
Plaintiffs contend that because the administration did not condone the al-Darj bombing, adjudication of this matter could not exhibit a lack of respect for the political branches. This Court disagrees. The Government has urged the Court to dismiss this action regardless of whether it approved of the attack.
...
Consideration of the case against this unique backdrop would impede the Executive's diplomatic efforts and, particularly in light of the Statement of Interest, would cause the sort of intergovernmental dissonance and embarrassment that gives rise to a political question.
The bottom line here is that for reasons unrelated to whether or not Dichter* engaged in violations of international law or whether or not Dichter actions were justified (the US government was critical of them) this case was dismissed. IMHO, that seems to be the right decision. If this case had been allowed to go forward I can imagine the US courts being overwhelmed with politically difficult, unresolvable suits about the actions of foreign militaries. The practicality of the situation here seems to be that if the Executive Branch thinks that a government is doing bad stuff they are going to allow suits like this on occasion to go forward. If the Executive Branch doesn't think these suits should go forward they will oppose them as they did in this case.

* The decision spells Dichter's name two different ways. I used the spelling from the front of the decision here.

[webfusion]

davefoc, yeah, your conclusions seem accurate...

kudos for typing out the quote, it is indeed relevant.

Based on the underlying principles, I am now convinced that the court actually did not make the ruling based on a finding that ex-GSS head Dichter had not violated international laws, and leaves that issue open.

It would not surprise me that with the NY court case over, Ra'ed Mohamed Ibrahim will pursue other avenues open to prosecute Israel and those who serve in official capacities. Watch and see --- the ICJ (the Hague) is going to be busy hearing the suits.
Now even Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as the Winograd Report lays blame at his doorstep, would seem to be eligible for this treatment. Just today, none other than Hezbollah leader Nasrallah, in Beirut, praised (yes, praised) (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/855134.html) the Zionist Occupation Government for concluding that Olmert deserved blame for the failures of last summer's war. The glee in Nasrallah's pronouncement was palpable, even as he tells the audience that he will "not gloat" !