Report: IDF used Palestinian human shields in Nablus

[Tom Joad]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894545328&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

IDF soldiers were using Palestinians as human shields in their recent operations in Nablus, Channel 10 reported on Thursday.

The procedure, recently outlawed by the High Court of Justice, was seemingly captured on footage of an operation obtained by the television channel.

The army said it was looking into the report.

Earlier Thursday, the weeklong IDF raid in Nablus, the largest city in the West Bank, ended, the army said, after Palestinians reported that troops left the city.
______________________________________

Translation needed.
The army said it was looking into the report.

Plain english:
Nothing will happen. Army will exonerate itself.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. "seemingly" n/t

[The Magistrate]

2. Without Seeing The Footage In Question, Sir

It is hard to make any statement about it.

The practice has been engaged in the past, certainly, and it is an illegal and pernicious one.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

4. So Far, Ma'am, No Casualties Have Been Reported In Result

So it could be said it was a fairly good bet.

The practice has been to press-gang neighbors into service to knock on doors of places the Army means to enter, so that the first person at the door is not a soldier. Israel's courts have, as noted, quite properly ruled the practice illegal, as it grossly contravenes the laws of war, and the army certainly should not be doing it after that ruling was handed down.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. It wouldn't surprise me if there were still instances of it happening...

As you said, the Israeli courts were correct in ruling that practice to be illegal. But why it wouldn't surprise me if it had still been used on this occassion is because it happened during an IDF operation in Nablus, it was captured on tape, the Palestinian involved has said that's what he was being used for, and B'Tselem have complained on a few occassions since the ruling was handed down that the IDF have still been doing it, but also noted that the levels have dropped dramatically since the court ruling...

[pelsar]

7. quite the problem...

the past was that a neighbor would be sent to knock on the door and tell the guys inside that their choices are either surrender or get killed.....as well as tell the IDF if there are civillians inside.

the human touch if you will, does have its affect (many would consequently come out)

without the neighbor....no solider is going to "knock on the door"...the next options are:

send in the infantry with the usual tactics of tossing in grenades into the rooms, entering firing and see whos alive after the smoke clears.

send in a bulldozer to start knocking down walls, provided it can even get to the small areas within the narrow alleys.
_____________________

using the human shield is illegal.....the other options are simply more violent

anybody here dare to state their preferences?

(and a note..the above scenarios though simplistic and will not be relevant all the time as their are many additonal factors involved, however it does reflect the problem)

[Violet_Crumble]

8. You make it sound like there's actually a choice...

What you describe as 'the human touch' is actually the illegal and immoral use of unwilling civilians. There is no cutesy euphemism you can use to try to make it appear palatable, because it's not...


btw, thanks for admitting in yr post that the IDF does fire indiscriminately on civilians...

[pelsar]

9. avoiding the question at the end?.......

seems to me i had an inquiry at the end....asking for an opinon...care to try?

i dont want to make an assumptions or mis read..

_____
as far as the realities of urban combat....they are what they are......and its not like TV or the movies....no problem in explaining the reality for those who have neither the experience nor the understanding.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. I answered yr question, pelsar...

Is there something that wasn't clear to you? I'll repeat it. There is no choice to make. Trying to justify the use of an illegal and immoral tactic by admitting that the IDF do fire indiscriminately on civilians and using some sort of lame argument that using human shields lessens the chances of the IDF firing indiscriminately on civilians is one of the more disgusting lines of thought I've seen on this forum in a while...

[pelsar]

13. if you answered...

than its not clear...i guess your saying its "none of the above"...is that it?

(not hard to write.....)

i take it you would not want to explore the ramifications and consequences of israel not doing anything.....

[pelsar]

14. it occured to me...

that everything the IDF does is considered a war crime, or illegal from your point of view...

perhaps you can simplify things as well as make it much clearer by making it clear what is and what is not "permisable in your eyes'.

i realize you'll probably say something vague like " if its illegal..." but that would go under the heading that if the kassam shooters, the jihadnikim are "hiding" amongs civilians than the civilians deaths are not the IDFs fault..i believe that is according to the geneva convention....is it not?

which would mean entering a house "combat style" to kill an enemy combatent, hiding amongst civilians is actually "legal"

but you disagree with that......so perhaps you might be a bit more straight forward about what if anything the IDF can do?

[Violet_Crumble]

25. As usual what you claim I think is incorrect...

Obviously I don't think that everything the IDF does is a war crime and have never indicated that I think anything of the sort. Just because I point out to you that the two examples you give (and which you seem to see no problem with) which involve using Palestinian civilians as human shields or firing indiscriminately on them are illegal does not translate into thinking that everything Israel does is a war crime. In fact, just to put that particular red-herring to rest I'll remind you that when Hizbollah crossed into Israel and attacked, I clearly stated that I had no arguments at all with the initial Israeli response and believed Israel had every right to do so. Shall you be needing links to refresh yr memory?

I'm not sure how much more dumbed down I can make things than this, so if you still don't understand after this, I can't help you...

The use of Palestinian civilians by Israel as human shields is illegal under both international and Israeli law:

On 6 October 2005, the High Court of Justice ruled that it was illegal for the IDF to use Palestinian civilians during military actions. The decision was made on a petition that B'Tselem and six other human rights organizations filed in 2002. The petition followed the IDF's use of Palestinian civilians as human shields since the beginning of the second intifada, primarily during IDF operations carried out in Palestinian population centers, as occurred in Operation Defensive Shield.

Soldiers used to pick civilians at random and force the civilians to protect them by doing dangerous tasks. For example, soldiers have ordered Palestinians to:

The method is the same each time: soldiers pick a civilian at random and force him to protect them by doing dangerous tasks that put his life at risk. For example, soldiers have ordered Palestinians to:

• enter buildings to check if they are booby-trapped, or to remove the occupants
  
  
• remove suspicious objects from roads used by the army
  
  
• stand inside houses where soldiers have set up military positions, so that Palestinians will not fire at the soldiers
  
  
• walk in front of soldiers to shield them from gunfire, while the soldiers hold a gun behind their backs and sometimes fire over their shoulders.
  

The soldiers in the field did not initiate this practice; rather, the order to use civilians as a means of protection was made by senior army officials.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/Index.asp

Israel's supreme court has banned the use of Palestinian human shields in arrest raids, saying the practice violates international law.

The court issued a temporary injunction against the practice in 2002 after a teenager was killed when troops made him negotiate with a wanted militant.

Human rights groups who brought the case say the Israeli army has repeatedly violated the temporary ban.

The army cannot use civilians for its purposes, Israel's chief justice said.

"You cannot exploit the civilian population for the army's military needs, and you cannot force them to collaborate with the army," Aharon Barak said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314898.stm

As for firing indiscriminately on civilians, do you really need to have it explained to you why that would be illegal? I certainly hope not...

I recall in the past in this forum that you have stated yr strong opposition to the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields by Palestinian militants. Like you, I also oppose that. Unlike you, I also oppose it when it's done by Israel to Palestinian civilians. I fail to see how anyone could oppose the use of human shields when one *side* does it, but then do a complete turnaround when it comes to the other *side* doing it...

[pelsar]

31. tolerance for other cultures is a virture....

I'm not sure how much more dumbed down I can make things than this, so if you still don't understand after this, I can't help you.

and i believe on another post you called my questions "stuiped". I really dont take offense at it, perhaps because i am more aware of how some people in different cultures have trouble understanding that other cultures perceive thing differently.

that seems to be the case here...your impatience with my questions i suspect comes from some idea that because i speak english live in a western democratic country i must therefore understand what your writing about....not true.

My perceptions are very different as well as the way i understand hostile and potentially hostile environments...but that could also be because i get the impression that you've never been in such situations and dont really understand how people react....(at least one gets that impression from your writing which is very "black and white"

at any rate, tolderance of other cultures is probably the basic building block for understanding......

and you should read my posts a bit slower...i was not advocating the use of human shields, i was however showing the complexity of the situation...where the "morality" can actually cost more lives

that dilemma you skipped over...i suspect because its easier to..and you can......

[Violet_Crumble]

55. I notice you didn't bother answering my question...

So, will you be needing the links to posts of mine that disprove yr claim that I think everything the IDF does is a war crime?

I'm not interested in what I said about a barrage of questions from you in another thread, nor whether you take offense or not at having it pointed out that those questions were stupid....

My disgust with yr 'question' in this thread has zero to do with cultural differences and has everything to do with being disgusted by an attempt to justify a practice that is immoral and illegal by pretending that by doing away with its use the only other option offered is even more immoral and illegal...

Let's talk about black and white thinking, and overly simplifying a complex conflict, shall we? Any time there's a thread about the killing or placing in danger of Palestinian civilians, yr always there to inform everyone that things are so very complex and to try to justify it by saying anyone who's opposed to what's been done is merely thinking in black and white, but when it comes to anything to do with Israeli civilians or Israeli troops, suddenly there's a complete backflip and things are black and white and there are no shades of grey. So, my apologies for thinking that yr question in this thread about what you claim is a very complex thing with all sorts of shades of grey, is not reflecting that complexity when you give two very extreme options in yr question and demand that people answer it even after they've given you an answer you don't like...

If you truly don't advocate the use of human shields, a different approach in this thread might more accurately reflect yr views - like, say, actually coming out and saying that yr opposed to it, instead of trying to argue that it's the lesser of two evils. If anyone were to try to same line of argument when it came to suicide bombings, I'd be just as convinced that they support suicide bombings as I'm convinced you aren't opposed to the use of human shields...

Huh? What dilemna did I skip over?? If yr talking about yr simplistic question, then I'll tell you again that I have answered it...

[wellst0nev0ter]

78. Don't You Get It Violet Crumble

human shields are only bad when civilians are around militants, not when Israeli soldiers take the civilians by gunpoint :sarcasm:

seriously, the fact that we have to entertain these nonarguments to the absurd shows how depraved the "debate" has become.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. As for the second part of yr post...

as far as the realities of urban combat....they are what they are......and its not like TV or the movies....no problem in explaining the reality for those who have neither the experience nor the understanding.

'Urban combat' is a pathetic excuse to try to justify indiscriminate firing on civilians. What's even more pathetic is when someone tries to pass themselves (and anyone who agrees with them) as the only experts on whatever they're talking about...

btw, I hope you realise that indiscriminate firing upon civilians is illegal...

[pelsar]

12. i'm making an assumption here...since its not clear

indiscriminate firing upon civilians.....i assume you mean that when soldiers enters a house in the middle of a combat operation, when those inside refuse to leave and the person inside is either firing back or has threatened to...

would that be your "indiscriminate firing upon civilians"......(I wouldnt suggest you mention your opinion to any solders with any experience in that area..it would be like telling an astronomer that the moon is made of green cheese)

_____

as far as answering my question...once again you avoid it....i believe it was:

using a civilian, using standard infantry tactics or bulldozer......not only did you not answer it, you didnt even provide an alternative.

being an expert is relative....i am by no means an expert neither in warfare nor in urban combat, i do believe however that i probably have bit more experience than many of the posters here. For those who no nothing about it, i would assume that my bit of knowledge my provide insightful, at least for those who are interested in learning about a large part of what goes on in the conflict.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. I'm using yr own words in this thread...

'send in the infantry with the usual tactics of tossing in grenades into the rooms, entering firing and see whos alive after the smoke clears. ' = indiscriminate firing on civilians...

I answered yr question, pelsar. You just don't like the answer because it doesn't fit in with a viewpoint that sees the lives of Palestinian civilians as not being worthy of the same level of protection that is afforded to Israeli civilians....

All I can say about anyone who has experience in a combat situation is that if they are incapable of understanding that the use of civilians as human shields is both immoral and illegal, nor that indiscriminately firing on civilians is also immoral and illegal, then I sincerely hope that they are never put in a combat situation as I'd fear for the lives of any civilians near them...

[breakaleg]

15. I'll answer your question.

You posed two options: One that they use a human shield. And the other that they shoot indiscriminately.

Both are unacceptable, one is illegal and the other is simply immoral.

I suggest the IDF do their damn job and go in their themselves to check if their are civilians and make an attempt to take them without firing bullets. That appears not to be an option of yours although I'm sure the rest of the world assumes it would be the first option.

I wonder why...

[rockymountaindem]

16. How on earth is someone supposed to capture an armed militant

without firing bullets? That's suicide.

[breakaleg]

17. read the post again.

[rockymountaindem]

18. Okay, done.

But I suspect that your little premise of "attempting" to take an armed militant captive without firing a shot is going to last less than two seconds after the door is breached.

[breakaleg]

19. You missed the point.

The original question was which option is preferable: to use a human sheild, or to bulldoze the house or go in shooting.

I'm simply suggesting that there is an alternative. When going into a residential home it's the responsibility of the troops to check for civilians and try to take them peacefully before they shoot. Do you disagree with this?

[rockymountaindem]

24. The civilians, yes

Not the militants. However, if the militant is hiding, armed, in a house full of civilians, I wouldn't hold any high expectations for the safety of the civilians from the fire of either side. I just don't expect the soldiers in that kind of situation to put the lives of the civilians ahead of their own by not firing first. It would be nice if they would do that, but it's hard to ask someone to risk themselves in such a way; the soldiers have lives and families too.

This is just another example of why I think the phrase "limited war" is bullshit.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. There seems to be some confusion over situations where this has occured...

Reading some of the posts in this thread, it's like some folk think that the only situation where Israel has used civilians as human shields is where the civilian being used as a shield by the Israeli troops is used to knock on a door where there is 100% certainty there is a militant inside. That's not the case at all. Here are some examples of how civilians have been used as human shields. All of them are incredibly distasteful incidents, all of them involved abuse of the civilian, and none of them can be justified...

Israeli human rights activists have accused border police of using a 13-year-old Palestinian as a human shield.
Rabbis for Human Rights say that Mohammed Badwan was tied by police to a jeep during a recent demonstration in the West Bank village of Bidou.

The police apparently hoped this would stop Palestinians from throwing stones during a protest against Israel's West Bank barrier.

Israel's Supreme Court banned the use of human shields in 2002.

Rabbis for Human Rights also say that the boy was beaten by Israeli police before being arrested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3650791.stm

Basem Maswadeh knew he was in trouble when an Israeli soldier pushed him into the barber's chair and reached for the clippers.
The humiliation of a shaved head - or, more accurately, having chunks of hair ripped out by the brutal wielding of the shears - was the start of an ordeal that culminated with Mr Maswadeh and two friends standing in a Hebron street as Israeli troops shot over their shoulders at stone-throwing Palestinians.

"The soldiers hid behind our backs as they pushed us forward," said Mr Maswadeh. "Then they put their guns on our shoulders and began shooting. We felt our eardrums burning, but when we tried to put our hands over our ears, they beat our hands away. The noise was terrible because the gun was right next to my ear."

The soldiers fired dozens of plastic bullets, using the three Palestinian men as shields, before the crowd dispersed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,867343,00.html

B'Tselem's initial investigation indicates that, during an incursion by Israeli forces into Beit Hanun, in the northern Gaza Strip, on 17 July 2006, soldiers seized control of two buildings in the town and used residents as human shield.

After seizing control of the buildings, the soldiers held six residents, two of them minors, on the staircases of the two buildings, at the entrance to rooms in which the soldiers positioned themselves, for some twelve hours. During this time, there were intense exchanges of gunfire between the soldiers and armed Palestinians. The soldiers also demanded that one of the occupants walk in front of them during a search of all the apartments in one of the buildings, after which they released her.

International humanitarian law forbids using civilians as human shields by placing them next to soldiers or next to military facilities, with the intention of gaining immunity from attack, or by forcing the civilians to carry out dangerous military assignments.

B'Tselem has demanded that the Judge Advocate General immediately order a Military Police investigation into the matter and prosecute the soldiers responsible for the action.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp

As for yr comment: 'I just don't expect the soldiers in that kind of situation to put the lives of the civilians ahead of their own by not firing first.' Sorry, but they are heavily armed troops. Placing unarmed civilians in danger so they can avoid the danger is incredibly cowardly. A 19 year old civilian died as a result of this now illegal practice. He should never have been put in that situation in the first place, and I don't understand why anyone would even attempt to justify this now banned practice...

[rockymountaindem]

28. The acts you cite are over the line n/t

[pelsar]

29. sticking to the actual question....difficult?

i am aware of other situations..but that wasnt my question.....

there were three options with the possibility as in breakaleg to add his own....very reasonable on his part to add the addition.

'I just don't expect the soldiers in that kind of situation to put the lives of the civilians ahead of their own by not firing first.' Sorry, but they are heavily armed troops. Placing unarmed civilians in danger so they can avoid the danger is incredibly cowardly.

i believe the geneval convention puts the blame on the jihadnikim in that type of scenario for the deaths that may or may not follow..do you agree (your opinon)?

(i wont even ask how one enters a house and puts the civilian lives ahead of their own without committing suicide...i guess thats your defintion of cowadly)

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Getting the idea that this thread isn't about yr simplistic question....difficult?

I answered yr question elsewhere in this thread and have reminded you of this several times when you've popped up claiming I haven't. This entire thread isn't about whatever question you decide to hit people with, but about the use of human shields by the IDF.


As for yr newest question, did you miss my post where I said I was also opposed to Palestinian militants using civilians as human shields?

[pelsar]

62. then dont answer....

my questions are only for those who dont have a simplistic view of the situation and are willing to explore the moral dilemmas faced by those involved....such questions and interest are not for everyone.

My questions, are also for those who views seem to "stop" when their simplistic views are put into a real situation and the reality is not just contradictory but their simplistic "morality" suddenly becomes one of making moral choices that dont fit elementary school.

as per your answers....they're always partial......when I continues to "dive in a bit deeper" (when i understand them, which is not always on the first post), you seem to explain that you "already answered"...which can then go on for for several posts, when infact you answered just the beginning and dont (I believe) really want to go further..or understand the consequences for that answer. (i.e. the helicopter pilot NOT shooting the missiles....)

as far as "what this thread is about"....as far as I am concerned its about human shields used by the IDF...and the example I gave is from the field... if you dont like where my interest or my comments are in terms of the thread, you dont have to answer. I just believe that simplistic posting from those from afar who seem to have not just little knowledge of the different environments but dont even care to do any research on those environments (i.e. real options in "taking a house") to be rather narrow minded at best, at worst?....I dont know what does one call someone who simply doesnt want to learn more about a situation but prefers to stay with limited knowledge?

you should feel free not to answer my questions nor even comment on how i define any particular subject

(btw, i cant even recall even asking about Palestinians using human shields, for one its a given, and two if they dont its practically suicidal for them and three its a great way to have israel condemned for those who who rather not understand any given situation)

[Violet_Crumble]

63. But I did...back when you asked it the first time...

Why do you keep on making the false claim I didn't answer it when I did? Oh, that's right. Because I didn't give you the answer you wanted and it wasn't a simplistic enough answer to what was an overly simplistic question designed to attempt to justify the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields....

I find it interesting that you popped up in this part of the thread in reply to a post where I pointed out that the use of human shields was not the simplistic scenario you gave, but in many cases involves the abuse of civilians in scenarios that aren't even life threatening to troops, and proceed to try to fit the word simplistic as many times as possible in a reply to me in some strange attempt to make out that anyone who doesn't agree with you is merely being simplistic in their views.

As for yr continued and pretty stupid claims that anyone who doesnt' agree with you is narrowminded, living a long way away from the conflict, not knowing anything about the conflict, etc, the reality is that someone living on the spot can be narrowminded, not doing any research, and not know anything about the conflict. So instead of accusing those who disagree with you of those things, how about trying to approach the conflict from a perspective where Palestinian and Israeli civilians are seen as being equally worthy of protection?

[pelsar]

69. ..you dont complete the answers....

would you like an example?.....its easy enough....you answer once..and then when i comment and ask a second based on your first...you then start with the "'i've already answered"...which is actually true, you have, but then my next question based on your first goes unanswered......

my expression of those who prefer not to know was in reference to how combat infantry "take a house" in a hostile environment. It seems the responses wrere based on ignorence.....any one who was a bit interested in what the options are might do bit of research first...happens a lot around here, as the actual environment and limitations of human beings seem not to be part of some posters opinions.

as far as your civilians being equally worthy of protection...thats nice in a utopia...thats not the reality of the conflict...and i can remind you at one point you slipped up and also made a choice on which side should take the risk

you answered one too many of my questions......

[Violet_Crumble]

70. I completed the answer just fine...

would you like an example?.....its easy enough....you answer once..and then when i comment and ask a second based on your first...you then start with the "'i've already answered"...which is actually true, you have, but then my next question based on your first goes unanswered......

You didn't ask a *next* question in yr response to my answer to yr original question. You merely claimed I hadn't answered yr question...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=168361&mesg_id=168497

my expression of those who prefer not to know was in reference to how combat infantry "take a house" in a hostile environment. It seems the responses wrere based on ignorence.....any one who was a bit interested in what the options are might do bit of research first...happens a lot around here, as the actual environment and limitations of human beings seem not to be part of some posters opinions.

Seeing as how I'm the one who actually did a bit of research and came up with a few examples of where the use of human shields has been used, I guess you must be referring to yrself there :)

as far as your civilians being equally worthy of protection...thats nice in a utopia...thats not the reality of the conflict...and i can remind you at one point you slipped up and also made a choice on which side should take the risk

No, there's nothing of a utopian nature of demanding that all civilians in a conflict be equally worthy of protection. And as always, you remember what I said totally incorrectly. I have never deviated from a belief that all civilians are equally worthy of protection regardless of whether they're Palestinian or Israeli, so let's put that example of you *remembering* in the same category as yr incorrect claim that I think everything the IDF does is a war-crime....

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

73. Jan 30? This is March.

And that's what you call an additional question - what would you tell the families? That has no relevance to the original question what so ever.

Is that the best you can do?

[pelsar]

74. what relevant is the date?

(i normally dont save threads, but that one was special....violet actually ventured forth an attemped to apply her values....) nor do i understand what your question is all about. Violet asked me a question which is not really relevant to the original thread, but is relevant to the side discussion.

whether you agree or not whether my question is important or not is not really the issue is it?....i asked a relevant question that an israeli would ask, I guess its one of those cultural things that keep popping up..(you know where some "white person" from across the sea keeps telling us locals whats important and whats not.....).

but i did notice a similarity in "non response"...just when the questions get real interesting and values have to be applied i get the "disappearing act..or its new variation: i've already answered or...i guess the latest: telling me that its not relevant.

lots of bandwidth wasted in not answering.......

(btw if neither you nor others want to answer...i do understand, just dont make up excuses, tell me what is important/relevant, what is obvious, etc. i prefer the disappearing act)

[breakaleg]

75. again....

the second question you asked sounded more like "oh yeah, then what". Little to do with the when to shoot or not vein of the thread. And that's likely why it wasn't answered.

[pelsar]

76. then what....?

thats exactly what it was.......is there a problem with actually applying ones values and looking at the consequences?

[pelsar]

30. i applaud the response....

it gives us some common ground of what to discuss.

I suggest the IDF do their damn job and go in their themselves to check if their are civilians and make an attempt to take them without firing bullets. That appears not to be an option of yours although I'm sure the rest of the world assumes it would be the first option

the "rest of the world"..i assume your not including the armed forces and other security forces of the "rest of the world"....except on TV and in the movies, entering a hostile building is virtually suicidal. (especially if your checking first...)

and its not a civil environment. The soldiers have a limited time there, if they spend too much time, the local jihadnikim will find firing positions in the nearby building and start shooting...and thats to be avoided at all costs as the return fire will cost a lot of lives.

The civilians inside (if they're are) are in a tough situation. They cant always leave voluntarily....and entering a house/building without firing as you enter is bascially sucidal..and even then.....talking to the IDF via bullhorn doesnt work very well, and whether its moral or illegal or not, having a neighbor go and talk, does actually get better results.....so that is actually the real dilemma.

so the problem is a moral, legal, or can be defined as "too much force" either way the local commander only has bad options....and people who are unfamiliar with the situation or prefer not to understand will obviously condem all the actions.


there were some comments or hinting at that the soldiers should risk their lives more than they have to...thats not going to happen, the commander would never allow it for one.

[Bryan Sacks]

35. Pelsar, something about your last comment needs reply . . .

there were some comments or hinting at that the soldiers should risk their lives more than they have to...thats not going to happen, the commander would never allow it for one.

You realize, I am sure, that what the commander "allows" may itself either be in keeping with, or against, the conventions of war? When you say "that's not going to happen," you are shifting the conversation from a prescriptive to a descriptive one. You ask, first: "what should be done in these cases?", and then delimit the answer by saying "well, that won't be done." But "won't" is not relevant to a question of what 'should' be done.

I have no experience with war, thank God. I have experience with obedience, however, as does every single person alive. Everything you have ably described above points to the impossibility of the situation a soldier/commander faces. The commander, seeing an impossible situation, can refuse to serve. Soldiers can refuse to fight in a criminal war. Many, many have done just that. People laugh at the suggestion, but that is because they have accepted the immoralities of war as 'unavoidable'. They are not.

[pelsar]

37. i agree on many counts....

but this is an extremly complex and gray area where "pat" black and white answers simply dont exist.....


and this sums it up nicely:
Everything you have ably described above points to the impossibility of the situation a soldier/commander faces.....yes soldiers can refuse to fight....and may refuse to serve......and some have refused to shoot..and in a perfect world we would all lay down our arms. The problem lies in reading the future and trying to understand the consequences of ones actions. That is the problem is it not? If all of the IDF lays down their arms, will peace break out or will their be an invasion? The soldier who refuses to go to checkpoint and a suicide bomber gets through and kills people....is his refusal moral?....maybe, but at the sametime people may have been killed because of his "moral" choice.


I offer a simple yet very real situation: Kassams are being shot out from gaza (as they have been from before the withdrawl). Some land in the negev some in the cities. The helicopter pilot when he spots one to be launched has the option of shooting a missle or not.....if he/she feels that innocent palestinians may be killed then he/she may choose not to..and the kassam may very well land and kill innocent israelis.

should the helicopter pilot then be arrested for failure to do his/her duty?...the choice, of refusing to shoot caused the deaths of innocents?...

which is the moral choice?

(my comment about what a commander would allow, was the answer to what i believed was a mistaken belief that soldiers should risk their lives to save civilians.....though it does happen, its more of an individual decision, not one that comes from a commander in the field)

[Bryan Sacks]

38. I understand the difficulty with pat answers

It all comes down to what responses are possible, since they are the only ones which are worth our time. The term "possibility space" is apt: what are limits of the space of realizable possibilities? All responses within the possibility space should be considered.

The IDF need not lay down its weapons, but Israel, as the militarily stronger party, simply must announce that it is leaving the West Bank and Gaza unilaterally, and then do so. - completely. And giving back the Golan heights too, just to be clear.

There is no other way to reestablish trust other than the stronger party taking a unilateral step to "weaken" itself for no other reason than peace. This is the minimum. Trust has been so polluted that any action will be met with suspicion, but over time the act will come to be seen for what it is, if in fact it is a genuine act. Israel, in giving back Golan in particular, makes itself vulnerable. It must do this. It must learn to depend on its neighbors for its survival if it is to ever have real peace. Of course this is not wanted remotely by its leaders.

I recognize this is not exactly likely, to say the least. It almost certainly lay outside the current possibility space, given the political climate inside Israel. But I don't think anything less has a chance to reestablish trust. Israel must take the lead as the militarily superior side, and say, in essence, "we are making ourselves vulnerable." Then the ball is in the court of Palestine and Syria. What do they do with that vulnerability?

Israel goes first, though. Have to.

[pelsar]

40. taking the first step....

its been said over and over again..the cycle of violence must be stopped...taking the first step etc.....

from an israeli point of view...that was exactly what gaza was all about...leaving, taking the first step....lebanon as well....leaving itself vulnerable to attacks from lebanon

both moves were obviously not returned in kind.

_______

your scenario of israel leaving completely the west bank and golan leaves little room for a mistaken belief doesnt it?.....what if your wrong that such moves will be taken as a way of reestablishing trust and taken as a move out of weakness?

and the attacks continue? (as in pre 67)......I can understand the belief...but i also want to know what plan b is, seeing as that I am not a religious person.

[Bryan Sacks]

42. Let's not kid. Israel did not leave Gaza.

I mean LEAVE. Open borders, complete independence, everything.

Israel possesses nuclear weapons. It has a multi-multi-billion dollar military. Neither Syria nor what will be Palestine will ever be able to get nuclear weapons with Israel on the watch. Thus neither can ever present a true existential military threat to Israel. This must be acknowledged, and gained from.

The way to gain is for Israel to say (better than I am saying it, obviously): "Here is the land back we wrongfully occupied. Full right of return (where there is still something to return to) from 1967. To those who want right of return from 1948, we can only say: we understand your position, but it is not on the table. Israel will vigorously defend its 1967 borders, and will not consider any greater concessions.

"This concession is unilateral, remember. It would be a mistake to think that there is further movement to be had as the result of further struggle. We moved as far as we will move, all at once, MUCH MUCH farther than almost anyone in the international community expected us to move, and farther than ayone believed we would move as part of a negotiation. We certainly hope that those in the international community recognize the unique nature of this move and support it.

But this is no negotiation. That has failed. We have instead chosen an enormous, unilateral step for peace, one that goes beyond what any negotiation would have yielded. Whether it is fully accepted or denounced as inadequate, we have searched ourselves and done what we believe is fair and what can sustain a peaceful future. We are firm in our resolve."

Does this solve everything? Not even close. But it cannot help but improve the situation dramatically, though.

Plan B is: Plan A. That's the beauty of it. Israel has not retreated as part of any "deal". It makes a unilateral move, one that offers profound concessions. Once they are made, Israel need only defend its borders with a sense of proportion. Support for extremism inside the West Bank and Gaza will be seriously weakened. A whole new attitude will (eventually) emerge. Peace could actually become an honest possibility with such a move or something close.

[pelsar]

44. i see your a believer....

Plan B is: Plan A...you dont have a plan b.....there is no beauty in that, just a religious type belief.

what does this mean? A whole new attitude will (eventually) emerge

does that mean kassams on hafia, tel aviv, hadera?.....until the whole new attitude emerges?...and what would be your "sense of proportion" in terms of response? if kassams are being launched from Bethlehem....can israel send in tanks? helicopters? sniper teams? (with the civilian casualties that will follow)

btw we did this:
But this is no negotiation. That has failed. We have instead chosen an enormous, unilateral step for peace, one that goes beyond what any negotiation would have yielded. Whether it is fully accepted or denounced as inadequate, we have searched ourselves and done what we believe is fair and what can sustain a peaceful future. We are firm in our resolve."

we called it pulling out of gaza and lebanon. Notice how you believe it wasnt adequate, nor did hamas nor did hizballa (lebanon)...but thats how perceptions work...we did an enormous unilateral step for peace......and its got us nothing in return......nothing but more missiles.

Peace could actually become an honest possibility with such a move or something close...have you any idea of the blood bath that would follow from a failure?...

i live in real world where we attempt to put words into deeds and see what follows......and when plan A doesnt work we go to plan B....not having a backup or an understanding that the first plan may fail is foolish (that TV line about failure not being an option is nothing more than TV.....).......I'm afraid yours is based on nothing more than some kind of belief that it "has to work" You dont allow for its failure and a way for israel to defend itself if it fails......

[Bryan Sacks]

47. I wish you good luck

Perhaps you did not understand. Israel actually gives up control Gaza and the West Bank, as if they never had it. It still defends its borders. If it comes under any kind of sustained attack, it has the capability of defending itself better than any other nation near it. A country does not have the right to subjugate an entire people illegally, even if it believes that is what is necessary for its own safety. The neocons in the Bush administraion believe that about the whole rest of the world.

An illegal occupation: THAT is Israel's 'Plan A,' and it has not, cannot work and never will bring peace. But you do sound sufficiently troubled by the human cost of that. I hope I am wrong - I'm new here.

If you didn't see this article and response, you might take a look:

http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein08172005.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08262005.html

Pelsar, in my view Israel does not have the right to control the situation. That is what my proposal addresses. It gives the Arabs countries significantly more rope. If they hang themselves with it, so be it. Israel will be there at the gallows. But a new chance is needed.

I'm sure all of this has been covered here, but do you believe there is a parity of suffering between the Israelis and the Palestinians? You can't, can you?

If you think that Israel can somehow avoid increased suffering and just have a nice peaceful future, you'll have to tell me how. Pain is coming to Israel. A poisonous atmosphere has been created. The form of that pain can, to a certain extent, be chosen. I have proposed an economic hardship that may soothe inflamed grievances. What do you propose?

You miss that Israel is under no substantial threat. Its existence cannot be seriously threatened DESPITE the giving up of control under my proposal because, of course, Israel will still remain vigilant on matters of its national security, and will have superior military might for the indefinite future.

If I was making policy, Israel would not retaliate to any attacks that failed to meet a certain threshold that Israel could establish (and keep secret) prior to enacting the new policy. This would be more of a show of good faith. The enormous good faith Israel garnered by failing to respond to Iraqi missile attacks in 1991 went a very long way.

If you are looking for a solution that immediately provides peace, well, that possibility is lost. I trust you agree?

I admitted a step like the one I propose is virtually impossible, but it is not me that has the religious belief. Take off the killing pressure, and the radicalism aligned against you will ultimately subside.

For the record, I felt safe when I was in Israel in 1993, leading a Jewish youth group on a tour. I will never forget the conversation I had with a group of Israelis who were completeIy resigned to the racist arrangement in their country. They did not favor it, but felt there was nothing that could be done about it. I understood then, but I don't anymore.

[pelsar]

52. on one point i agree...

If you think that Israel can somehow avoid increased suffering and just have a nice peaceful future, you'll have to tell me how. Pain is coming to Israel. A poisonous atmosphere has been created. ........ What do you propose?

the occupation is "poisen" to our youth......that said, i'm not willing to commit myself nor my son to a scenario where we have missiles falling on our cities (again and more than sederot gets presently), nor to urban combat in our own cities.
_________

lets makes this simpler...a scenario which is probably 99% sure to come if your proposal would take place: You did mention that it would "take sometime" for the dividend of the withdrawl to sink in....so in the meantime.......

one of the various jihadnikm (whos perception is unlike your own and wants Haifa as well) launches some kassams at a now nearby city or Ben Gurio Airport....747 is hit..or an apt building which then collapes (given the shoddy construction of some of them...). Israel has now earned enough "death points" as we call them here for a military retailiation.

the kassam shooters are now obviously back eating dinner.....now what? What "defensive measure" as you put it would you support, that would work?

and bear in mind, unlike gaza, the westbank is mere miles away from major cities..no place for the israeli population to withdraw too....

[breakaleg]

53. It's funny...

you always talk about the possible dire consequences if Israel chooses peace and it fails. But you don't seem to give a lick about the actual daily consequences on the other side.

While I get that you only care about your own interests. You have to recognize that this position you choose to take makes you not at all credible.

[pelsar]

54. I'm very aware of the palestinians...

probably more than many of the posters here....however the only thing i have to offer the palestinians is a suggestion is that the change tactics:

try non violent protests, start developing gaza and show us israelis that they really can live with us (oh yea, and stop trying to kill us with their kassams, etc).

other than that i and many like me have little to offer them. Their strategy of the last 50+ years has been nothing but one failure after another, if they and their supporters cant see that, there is little i can do.

BTW, My interests include the palestininas, a failed palestenian state, with a weak leadership or one run by hamas, as in iran, is in neither my interests nor theirs...and the opinion that its "none of my business" is at best a short sighted and express a bizarre liberal view that supports via "hands off" the development of theocratic dictatorship.....see iran for "short sighted bizare liberal views inaction.

just out curiosty..what would you prefer: the shah or khomeni as the dictator of your country?...sometimes the options are only bad....

[Shaktimaan]

46. I was waiting to see what Pelsar would write first.

Because I think that you have so deeply misread the motivations and intentions behind this conflict that I was unsure how to respond initially. I think you have described here what may be the single worst plan I have ever read out of an endless stream of awful, misinformed proposals. Seriously, I think this idea is guaranteed to do nothing other than initiate a huge increase of attacks on Israel, fortify the munitions and ability of terrorists to wage war while simutaneously erasing most of the hard won defenses that Israel posseses.

What makes you think that this plan would dramatically improve matters? I'm serious, I want to know if it is something you just know in your heart or if you have evidence that supports it or it just makes sense to you, or whatever.

I also find it a little callous that you think the risks are worthwhile because they do not include Israel's wholesale destruction. The risks to Israel's citizens are very real. Remember, Hamas is not aiming for Israel's destruction. It isn't their goal. Their goal is to massacre as many civilians as possible. I am not interested in a plan that exposes my family to such an expanded risk for nothing in return at all, (other than fulfilling your requirements for Israel to finally justify defending itself.)

[Bryan Sacks]

50. Mine is "the single worst plan"? I'm honored. Tell me:

Was turning the other cheek stupid in 1991? The whole world lined up behind Israel when it did not retaliate while Scud missiles were crashing down on them. The same would be the case here, I believe. Israel, by admitting in front of the world what everyone knows it is already guilty of, will score points with all involved - the international community, the Palestinians and even other Arab nations. I do not know how far that good will would extend.

It's apparent you believe Israel can emerge unscathed from this. How do you think that can happen? I ask you honestly. I only see one way: to sacrifice what it does not 'have' to.

Your concern for your family is perectly understandable. Have you considered how your concern for your family's well-being translates to the Arab world, who sees the lives of Palestinian families turned upside down every day? They have no choice, those families, to expose or not expose themselves to danger. Right now, the discrepancy in suffering is an obscenity, and that discrepancy ensures that anything the Israelis propose short of an end to the Occupation will not be seen as satisfactory. Try to see this.

Your government (and mine) is responsible for the horror the Palestinians live and die with. Do you understand?

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

Israel routinely kills civilians in 'defense' of itself. It uproots homes with bulldozers without warning. It subjects grown men to the humilitaion of checkpoins and curfews. No one disputes any of this. The pain this causes does not just go away.

I am advocating a complete ceasing of hostilities initated by Israel, backed up by a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories. But apparently you believe nothing would change from that, except israel would become more vulnerable.

You write:

"Remember, Hamas is not aiming for Israel's destruction. It isn't their goal. Their goal is to massacre as many civilians as possible."

This really beggars belief. If you think that this is true, then what can I say? I will remind you of plank #5 of Hamas' politican platform published a year ago:

5. n case the occupation state recognizes our people and their national rights and honor them and in case it offers a serious proposal to implement them with assurances on comprehensive withdrawal from the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem then we can consider mechanism of negotiations.

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/historicaldocuments/428.shtml

Consider 'mechanisms of negotiations' with a group whose goal is to massacre as many civilians as possible? Please. If you are concerned about massacres, does it trouble you that whatever the IDF's goals, in practice it SUCCEEDS at creating massacres? And that those 'indirectly rersponsible' for them can become heads of state 20 years later? By what corruption of decency does that happen?

The Occupation predates Hamas by 20 years. Hamas is the child of the Occupation. My proposal (impossible though it is) would test the words of Hamas' leaders when they say things like:

"Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and his messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him), to be respected and protected."

"Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

As far as Israel knows, what he says is true, because there has never been a moment when Hamas has existed that Israel has not been an Occupier. Facts is facts.

[Shaktimaan]

41. so your view is

that the first step that anyone has to take in this conflict is for Israel to concede to every single demand made of them, then see what happens? Is there any doubt what will happen?

You say that Israel must learn to depend on its neighbors for survival. What have Israel's neighbors ever done to make you think they are interested in Israel's survival? A peace treaty is an agreement to not attack. Any aspect that involved preventing attacks from terrorist groups based on their land though has never been taken seriously. And no terrorist group has remotely agreed to recognize Israel even under the circumstances you described, which are generous to the point of delusion.

And we have seen that any unilateral withdrawl is not only interpreted as weakness and a victory for terrorists but can be seen in the West as a negative, like when Gaza's strife, internal fighting and basic collapse was attributed to Israel, the pullout suddenly becoming yet another example of anti-Palestinian oppression. And as evidenced by the Lebanon pullout, (which, by the way is a great example of Israel pulling out completely, fulfilling their obligations in full, only to see an increase in terrorism and a total lack of help from the UN), there will always be a "reason" for continued terrorism. In this case, Shebaa Farms.

Imagine Israel does what you suggest. That would include abandoning the Western Wall, the holiest site for Jews, to the PLO, who categorically deny any Jewish ties to it. (Goodbye wall! We had a nice few millenium.) Yet, the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendents to ALL return to Israel would still be an issue. In fact, back when it was the ONLY issue it warranted terrorism and that was before there were all of these groups who need this fight to exert political influence. It is their reason for existing, you know. There is no shortage of players in this conflict who RELY on the conflict continuing. Iran for example. Or Islamic Jihad. They do not desire peace on any terms.

So, Israel could make peace with the PA, maybe, if they exposed themselves like this. Would it make anyone more likely or even more able to end terrorism? Or would it bolster the image of groups like Hamas and validate their methods? (Hint: Look at Lebanon and Gaza for the answer.) Would a unilateral withdrawl that didn't even require concessions from anyone else garner thanks and respect from the surrounding Arab nations or would it inspire scorn and assumptions of weakness? (This one's easy.) Would the UN, seeing Israel's fulfillment of UN resolutions to their expectations then insist on similar Arab compliance? (Why start now?)

One more question. Have you spent much time in Arab countries? I am not asking to be obnoxious. It is just that your plan seems to hinge on the very Western concept of humility being interpreted as a sign of trust and respect, and that the reaction will be equally in line with what makes sense to many Westerners. I mean, do you recall even one speech given by a Palestinian leader to other Palestinians following the Gaza pullout that described the pullout as Israel and the west saw it?

[Bryan Sacks]

43. I clarified a bit above. But I'll note . . .

your attitude would seem to ensure there will never be peace, and is what leads many to suspect that a real and lasting peace, one that respects the humanity of all involved, is not wanted by Israel and its defenders.

There is muchtto respond to in your post, but I'll touch on the last part:

It is just that your plan seems to hinge on the very Western concept of humility being interpreted as a sign of trust and respect, and that the reaction will be equally in line with what makes sense to many Westerners. I mean, do you recall even one speech given by a Palestinian leader to other Palestinians following the Gaza pullout that described the pullout as Israel and the west saw it?

May I saw two things about this? First, I hope you are not claiming that Arabs do not have a concept of humility as it related to trust and confidence. I do not myself believe that a move of this kind I call for from Israel would unanimously be seen as a sign of weakness in the Arab world. I think it is racist to believe so. Further, Israel never relinquished control of Gaza. We have to deal in reality. I mean for Israel to HONESTLY do what I am saying. Let's not insult anyone on these boards by pretending Israel has ever done anything remotely approaching the actual relinquishing of control of "greater Israel" since 1967.

Second, it does not matter whether or not it is seen as humility or weakness. That is part of the strength of such a move. Israel should be indifferent to "how it is perceived", because the move is not done for the sake of perception, or to further a negotiating position. It is done for peace. Israel remains the more powerful side. If they are seen to be weaker for the move, that is a mistake that can only be blamed on those who would provoke Israel in the future.

If, after a short but reasonable period of time, it becomes clear that the unilateral move has not yielded a change in the situation, Israel may feel justified defend in using its military advantage DEFENSIVELY should its borders be breached. As it stands today, Israel has no such justification to draw on. It is an occupying power and rightfully despised for this. It must remove the source of legitimate hostility before any peace can happen. To do so on its own, without being forced as it one day will be, is the best way.

[pelsar]

45. you just got us "killed"

Israel may feel justified defend in using its military advantage DEFENSIVELY should its borders be breached

i nor do my neighbors nor do my friends feel like fighting in our own cities.....thats a receipe for getting us all killed...no thanks.....we prefer to do it on our neighbors land...it will keep our families safe.

mortars and kassams "breach" the borders by flying over them...as hizballa and islamic jihad have shown....your solution does not seem to provide much of an answer to what would be.

and your wrong:......perception is every bit as important as action....in fact perception is what leads to action or inaction....just take a look at your everyday life.....

[UndertheOcean]

48. Like what Bush said : "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"

...figures.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. It's remarkably similar thinking, isn't it? n/t

[pelsar]

58. lets see...

distance from jenin to afula.....15 minutes by car

tulkarim to netanya.....without a traffic jam....25 minutes by car

bethleham to jerusalem.....10 minutes by car
_______

bombs on our buses, in our resturants, kassams and katushas on our cities, sniping on the lebanese border...yea i'm really dreaming this stuff up.....

[Violet_Crumble]

59. So? They're doing exactly what you said you prefer...

Taking the fight away from their towns and cities. Or is that thinking of yrs only applied to Israelis?

[pelsar]

60. my comment was directed....

Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"

...figures.

and the comments that followed as if somehow its was all just made up.......as if israel itself, its citizens, villages etc havent been attacked no matter what the borders have been since its inception.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. And? You haven't explained why you hold a very different standard for Palestinians...

After all, if you believe in that 'fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here' stuff when it comes to Israel, then why would it be wrong for Palestinians to want to take the fight into Israel?

[pelsar]

68. i dont...i believe its you who does..

i have one standard..if they believe its right to take the fight to inside our cities (and they do) that is their right...and i have no problem with the principle.

we too believe in the same....and it appears were better at it now....



I believe its you have in the past expressed a "lower standards" for the palestinians...i.e.. two standards...i.e. a double standard.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Wrong again, pelsar

You do have two different sets of standards. You have consistantly complained when the Palestinians take the fight to Israel, and of course someone who had no problem with it in principle wouldn't have spent so much time and energy complaining...

And no, I have never expressed a lower standard for the palestinians, so do you think you could actually stick to what is being discussed in this thread instead of constantly claiming I've said things I've never said in the past here at DU?

[Phx_Dem]

67. "your attitude would seem to ensure there will never be peace..."

Pot meet kettle.

"Let's not insult anyone on these boards by pretending Israel has ever done anything remotely approaching the actual relinquishing of control of "greater Israel" since 1967."

I take it you think that 50+ years of negotiations with the Palestinians amounts to nothing, including the creation of the PA and resulting FRDs.

"It is an occupying power and rightfully despised for this."

Why did Israel occupy the West Bank? I seem to recall a war or something.

"It must remove the source of legitimate hostility before any peace can happen."

So Israel should just pretend that a permanent agreement is reached with the Palestinians?

[Bryan Sacks]

77. You talk as if there are two parties who suffer equally

This false premise must be given up.

If you want an agreement that is not coerced, remove the source of the coercion. No other kind of agreement has a chance to succeed long-term, because any agreement emerging from an asymmetrical power situation will be rejected by those who have felt the brunt of Israel's illegal and immoral domination for two generations.

Let me put what I am suggesting a different way. Something radical is needed. I am calling for the mighty Israel to unilaterally humble itself - to do what it most detests doing, simply because it is the only thing that can clear the poisonous atmosphere quickly. The epidemic of fear in Israel forbids the possibility of such a gesture at the moment, but I think the idea should be reconsidered and given time to take root in the national psyche.

Israel is the stronger party, Phx_dem. Nothing it does rhetorically will change that. And surrendering occupied land will not change the military balance of power much, either. It will level the economic playing field quite a bit, however, which arguably needs doing more than anything else.

As it stands now, Israel is responsible for an historic injustice and not made restitution for it. Every day it compounds the injustice. If Israel wants a lasting peace, it must unilaterally act to equalize certain aspects of its relationship with the people who it has dominated for two generations. As I see it, if Israel is not willing to 'equalize' its position with the Palestinians to a significant degree, then Israel does not truly want a just and lasting peace.

I'm suggesting a self-imposed humility with painful land concessions as its core element. In this act, Israel shifts onto itself some of the burden of suffering it has inflicted on the Palestinians. I am not saying Israel should give up its military superiority . I am saying that, paradoxically, if Israel wants true security, it must expose itself to greater risks, and learn that it is safe despite having risked. Otherwise it consigns itself to a ruinous state of constant alert - a path down which it has already travelled a considerable distance.

Any country that would be foolish enough to provoke/attack a country like Israel after it has HONESTLY made significant restitution will be seen as a pariah by the rest of the world. Israel must trust in that, in my view.

Things could be worse for Israel. There could be an actual, credible existential threat to Israel today. You have to remember, there simply isn't one . Israel must act to make peace while that's the case, so that the impetus to create such a military threat is diminished. That's what is behind all of this for me. Better Israel should humble itself (with a sense of proportion), rather than strengthen en a dynamic in which its enemies burn to humble Israel on their own terms.

[Phx_Dem]

79. Unilateral withdrawal from WB

There was a time when the GOI considered your approach, but the Gaza pullout did not work out as expected. Putting opinions aside, the GOI considered the Gaza withdrawal complete, but what resulted was violence and claims from Palestinian supporters that the withdrawal was incomplete. So Israel must concern itself with not only it's actual actions, but others perception of their actions. Given that reality, it's very unlikely that a unilateral withdrawal from the WB will occur.

[pelsar]

81. careful...

Israel must concern itself with not only it's actual actions, but others perception of their actions.

...if your claiming that perceptions may differ perhaps due to culture etc your walking in to the land mind of "colonialistic ethnocentric thinking"......many here seem to believe that everyone in this conflict adheres to the western "left" perception of events and to declare that other cultures may have a different take is not always accepted so nicely (a bit short on tolerence here at times....)

[pelsar]

80. your "plan a"...

seems to have a small problem:....no answers to the problems that it causes

see reponse #52...cant answer those........ you have little chance of getting most of the israelis to to do more than shake our heads at your Plan.....

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Very true.

Which is why I pointed to that specific word in the report. Sometimes, things aren't what they seem, sometimes, they are. Then again, I'd say more than half of the current posters here were convinced that Israel used DU in Lebanon, despite the accusations were nothing more than speculation. However, many here were oh so quick to believe that it was true. Now that it has been proved to be inaccurate...chirping of crickets has replaced the chorus of "Burn the Witch."

[Tom Joad]

20. given that Israel dropped one Million cluster-bomblets on the people of Lebanon,

it seems quite clear that Israel's action in Lebanon constituted crimes against humanity. so to imply that Israel's actions in Lebanon have somehow been vindicated is really a stretch.

It was "insane and monstrous", just as the Israeli commander admitted. As was it's bombing of nearly every village in Southern Lebanon. It's admitted strategy being to convince the civilian population to blame Hezbollah for their fate, and not the aggressor. Didn't seem to work.

I think Israel's use of "human shields" in the past is not a matter of dispute, but something the Occupation forces has admitted to, and now supposedly outlawed, because it also was a war crime, and was getting some negative publicity. But we may see that these tactics are still being used.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. No one was talking about the cluster bombs.

It has nothing to do with the topic, nor anything I wrote, nor did I "vindicate" Israel.

As for the use of "human shields" by the IDF, I also don't see anyone disputing its past use. I don't see anyone dismissing this outright. What I said is that it is too soon to tell and sometimes, things aren't always what they seem to be.

[Tom Joad]

22. and sometimes things are as they seem to be. In fact, most of the time they are.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Which I also said in the original post to which you responded.

However, to state it is fact is not accurate as there is no way to measure that assertion.

[Recursion]

61. DU (ironicly) makes DUers go insane

I'm still not sure what exactly people thought the IDF would be shooting with DU rounds... all those Hezbollah tanks and armored personnel carriers?

[Scurrilous]

32. Filmed raid raises questions on military practices

Scene caught by AP raises suspicions army still using Palestinian civilians during military operations, despite Supreme Court order barring practice. Human rights groups call tactic a violation of local, international law that places innocent civilians in line of fire; army pledged it will 'pursue a thorough inquiry' into case

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3372145,00.html

<snip>

"The young Palestinian man was dressed in shorts and a T-shirt on a cold winter morning as he walked in front of heavily armed Israeli soldiers on a door-to-door sweep of three apartments in a crowded West Bank neighborhood.

The scene – caught by an Associated Press Television News camera – has raised questions about whether the Israeli army is still using Palestinian civilians during military operations, despite a Supreme Court order barring the practice."

<snip>

"In the AP video, the young Palestinian man is seen leading soldiers to the door of a home. He stands outside as troops move in, then leads the soldiers up some stairs to the apartment's main entrance.

The man enters the home ahead of the soldiers. Gunshots are heard as several soldiers stand guard outside. The man then leaves the home, walks down the stairs and escorts the soldiers around the side of the building, where he said he led soldiers into two more apartments out of view of the cameras.

Later, he is seen on the footage being led down stairs with several suspects. He and the other men are all placed into a military vehicle.

In interviews with the AP, the Palestinian man, Sameh Amira, 24, said he was awakened at about 5 a.m. by soldiers and ordered to go with his family to a neighboring home. About an hour later, he said he was forced to lead troops into three apartments, including his own. He said he was not allowed to put on warmer clothes.

“They asked me to walk in front of them against my will,” he said, adding that he was occasionally prodded along at gunpoint."

[breakaleg]

33. This account seems pretty clear, and is on video. Let's see if anything comes of it.

[Tom Joad]

34. Gush Shalom Ad

The biggest
Military operation
For more than a year
Has been carried out
In Nablus.
A whole town
Has been paralyzed.

The government
Is putting fire
To the occupied territories
In order to divert attention
From the disclosure
Of its corruption.

Gush Shalom ad published in Haaretz, March 2, 2007 ,מודעת "גוש שלום" ב"הארץ", 2 במרס

המבצע הצבאי
הגדול יותר זה שנה
התבצע בשכם.
עיר שלמה שותקה.

הממשלה מבעירה
את השטחים הכבושים
כדי להסיח
את דעתך
משקיעתה בשחיתות.


באתר שלנו אינפורמציה מעודכנת על פעולות ביוזמת אירגונים שונים

פעילות & מאמרים
04/03/07 מעודכן

[breakaleg]

36. A Day in the Life of Nablus Under Curfew

A Day in the Life of Nablus Under Curfew
Kirsten Sutherland writing from Nablus, occupied Palestine, Live from Palestine, 1 March 2007

Nablus, 26 February 2007

Dr. Ghassan Hamdan, Director of the Palestinian Medical Relief Society in Nablus, got up at five o'clock this morning after just two-and-a-half hours sleep. Until that time, he had been distributing medicines and food and providing emergency healthcare services to the residents of Nablus' Old City, who had been under an Israeli-imposed curfew and thus forbidden from leaving their homes since early Sunday morning.

He was woken up by a call saying that a house just outside the Old City had been set on fire by Israeli soldiers and that there may be civilian casualties. When he arrived at the scene, he was told that Israeli troops had arrived at the residential apartment building at around 04:45 and had forced all the building's residents out onto the street. One of the residents, Mona Tbeileh, was accused by soldiers of harbouring 'wanted' men in her home. Mona adamantly denied this, telling the soldiers that her husband was abroad and that she and her son were the only people in the ground-floor apartment. She told the soldiers that they could search the apartment as proof, and even offered herself as a human shield. They refused to search the apartment, and at around 05:15, they tossed explosives through the door of the apartment, setting it on fire. <1>

--snip--

Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi MP, who visited the family later the same day, said, "this is yet one more example of how the Israeli military believes it can act with impunity. This family's home and belongings have been destroyed. And for what? What will they do now? No one will compensate them for the loss of their home. Nablus has returned to the days of 2002.

--snip--

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6609.shtml

[sabbat hunter]

39. it is always wrong

to use civilians as human shields. but i wonder why the outcry isnt the same when the palestinians hide behind civilians and launch missles, fire guns, etc, as when the israelis do it.

[Tom Joad]

49. They do not "hide behind civilians".

[sabbat hunter]

51. are you telling me

that you dont believe that palestinian terrorists/militants do not fire missiles/rockets from civilian areas? that they dont launch terror attacks from civilian areas, then hide in the same terror areas?

[Shaktimaan]

65. Then what's this?

Gazans gather to foil air strike

Palestinians have again flocked to a home in Gaza to prevent a possible Israeli air force attack.
The house belonged to a senior member of the ruling Palestinian militant group Hamas. Israel has not confirmed it planned an attack there.

Similar action on Saturday caused Israel to call off an air strike on the home of another militant leader.

-snip-

The BBC's Alan Johnston says the air force often telephones a warning 10 minutes before a strike to keep down casualties.

Mosques in Gaza called on volunteers to assemble to protect the house.

A crowd gathered in the street and young men with Hamas flags sat on the roof, our correspondent reports.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6164666.stm

[oblivious]

66. Google images: "sign bombs with love" for an example of hiding behing civilians

http://images.google.com.hk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&q=sign+bombs+with+love&btnG=Search

[Scurrilous]

82. B'Tselem: IDF used Palestinian girl as human shield in Nablus

<snip>

"Israel Defense Forces soldiers used an 11-year-old Palestinian girl as a "human shield" during an operation against militants in the West Bank town of Nablus last week, an Israeli human rights group said on Thursday."

<snip>

"B'Tselem said the girl, Jihan Daadush, told its interviewers that IDF soldiers had entered her family home and questioned her and her relatives about the whereabouts of gunmen who had fired at them during the raid.

The soldiers, she said, threatened to arrest her unless she led them to a nearby house.

"(A soldier) ordered me to go towards the house," B'Tselem quoted the girl as saying. "Three soldiers walked behind me. When we reached the house, there were a lot of soldiers. The soldiers ordered me to go inside the house and I went inside."

B'Tselem said Jihan told them the soldiers shone flashlights and asked about the rooms of the house. There was no mention in the report of whether troops found militants inside. The girl said two soldiers then returned her home.

"(One of the soldiers) told me, 'Thank you, but don't tell anyone,'" the girl said, according to B'Tselem. "I was afraid they would kill me or put me in jail. I am still afraid the soldiers will invade the city again and take me away."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/834937.html

[breakaleg]

83. This is outrageous. They have to draw a line somewhere and using an 11 year old girl should be it.

[Eugene]

84. Israel army to investigate "human shield" charges (Reuters)

Israel army to investigate "human shield" charges
16 Mar 2007 09:52:46 GMT
Source: Reuters

-snip-

JERUSALEM, March 16 (Reuters) - The Israeli army will investigate allegations
its soldiers misused Palestinian civilians during an operation in the West Bank
town of Nablus two weeks ago, the army said on Friday.

The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said in at least two incidents, Israeli
soldiers forced Palestinian civilians to lead them in house-to-house searches
for wanted militants. Israeli law bans the military from using human shields.

The army said in a statement it had "ordered the opening of an official Military
Police investigation into the alleged misuse of civilians during an IDF (Israeli
Defence Forces) operation in Nablus two weeks ago".

An army spokesman would not provide further details on the investigation.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L16589401.htm