Palestinian homes demolished without warning

[Tom Joad]

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/YSAR-7CNT3B?OpenDocument&rc=3&emid=ACOS-635PFR

The Israeli army demolished more homes in Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank on Tuesday morning. The homes and property of Palestinian families in the villages of Hadidiya, Jiftlik and Furush Beit Dajan, in the Jordan Valley area of the occupied West Bank, were demolished.

Amnesty International's researcher on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories witnessed the demolitions. Donatella Rovera described the scene:

"In all the places, most of the people are children. These homes mostly have three generations – the grandparents, parents and children. In Hadidiya, there were four families, in Furush Beit Dajan, five families.

"All of the people have had homes demolished before, but this time they had no warning. The people were very, very upset. They were running to get their things out of their homes, but the bulldozer just went on demolishing."

Soldiers of the Israeli army arrived early in the morning in jeeps accompanied by a bulldozer and then demolished the buildings where the four families were living. The destroyed properties belonged to Mohammed Fahed Bani Odeh, Mohammed Ali Shaikh Bani Odeh, Ali Shaikh Musleh Bani Odeh and Omar 'Arif Mohammed Bisharat and their families – at least 34 people, including some 26 children.

(snip)
"The family of Mahmud Mat'ab Da'ish, his wife and seven children were given a tent by the Red Cross and they started planting vegetables again. Today, the army has been bulldozing the green plants.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Crunchy Frog]

2. I'm looking forward to seeing all the convoluted justifications

as to why this is a necessary and correct policy, or at lest why it's not so bad.

[Tom Joad]

4. I am wondering if this were not just an attempt to get the "peace process" going

In fact, i pretty much equate the demolition of Palestinian homes, the expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank, as being synonymous with what is called the "Middle East Peace Process", since that is pretty much defined by Israel and the US.

Orwell would not believe even his cynical ears.

[breakaleg]

3. Disgusting.

[Tom Joad]

5. Routine.

That is the word that comes to mind for me. Just the usual routine of ethnic cleansing.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. It's been ongoing for 40 years. I think that qualifies it as "routine." nt

[azurnoir]

7. So will the it still be a

"closed military area" when the settlers move in? I betting not.

[number6]

8. Palestinian homes demolished.

there's absolutely no justification for this ........

Palestinians have every right to a armed resistance.

[oberliner]

9. Does that include targetting civilians? Children as well?

If not, please clarify what you mean by armed resistance.

[subsuelo]

10. Ah yes

When someone writes that Israel has every right to defend itself, nobody questions. Everyone agrees, outside a tiny minority.

But when someone comments that Palestinians have to defend themselves too - well ok now we have a problem. Now the flags are raised. Now we have to question what exactly is meant by that. We demand clarifications, and make absolutely crystal clear that we are not talking about killing children and civilians. Because to talk about "armed resistance" in regards to the Palestinian side is so obviously suspect.

But as for Israel? Someone states that Israel has the right to defend itself, and there are no questions, no demands for clarifications, all we get are excuses excuses and more excuses. Children and civilians are killed along with extremists and militants, all under the enormous umbrella of Israel "defending" itself. Never anything suspicious about that.

Nope no double standards here.

For the record, I question the supposed justifications both sides claim as excuses for targeting and killing civilians and children. Neither is valid for me.

Yes both sides have a right to armed resistance in the face of an hostile enemy. And yes both sides have a right to defend itself. That doesn't mean that either side has a right to go after the children and civilians. Unfortunately, we know the score. Both sides are doing it with raging hatred and enmity for the other.

When will it end

[oberliner]

13. The specific phrase "armed resistance" is used by Hamas to describe the Qassam attacks

I was merely asking for clarification - and received it - regarding that term.

"Armed resistance" is a very specific phrase. In the context of the I/P conflict it is very often used by Hamas as a descriptive phrase in relation to those very attacks I've described.

Thankfully, that is not the definition the poster was using.

[subsuelo]

28. I know, I understand.

I was just venting a bit. Sorry to take it out on you. I know you are one of the more reasonable contributors here.

[msmcghee]

39. You have yet to make a coherent argument for this premise.

Simply repeating over and over that it's true is not an argument. This last attempt is just smoke and mirrors again. Just picking a couple of your more outrageous claims . .

"For the record, I question the supposed justifications both sides claim as excuses for targeting and killing civilians and children. "

You have never shown any reasonable evidence that Israel targets civilians and children. Aside from that, just what are these "supposed justifications" by Israel for targeting civilians and children? Can you provide one statement from any Israeli leader at any level who said that targeting of Palestinain civilians when there is no clear and compelling defensive purpose by the IDF is justified? Or, one statement by any IDF commander who said that they are justified in targeting Palestinian civilians? Why would they need to justify something they never do? (You're still welcome to prove me wrong by providing some reasonable evidence.)

Added: In case you are including me or any other members of this forum in that indictment - then show where anyone here has ever said that Israel is justified in targeting civilians and children.

"Yes both sides have a right to armed resistance in the face of an hostile enemy. And yes both sides have a right to defend itself."

No, they don't. If you rob a bank and the cops come to arrest you - you do not have the right of armed resistance. If you shoot a gun into your neighbor's house and the cops come to stop you - you don't get to kill the cops and claim self-defense. That's not how it works in US cities and it's not how it works in international law. The UN Charter says explicitly that member states have the right of armed self-defense if they are attacked across their borders. Israel has never attacked the people of Palestine in the sense of aggression with no defensive purpose - ever. (You're still welcome to prove me wrong by providing some reasonable evidence.)

"That doesn't mean that either side has a right to go after the children and civilians."

Only one side here is "going after" the children and civilians of the other. (You're still welcome to prove me wrong by providing some reasonable evidence.)

"Unfortunately, we know the score. Both sides are doing it with raging hatred and enmity for the other."

Yes, it is the Israelis that hand out sweets on the street corners in Tel Aviv whenever the IDF manages to kill some Palestinian civilians and children - the civilians and children they targeted of course.

(I have no expectations of convincing you that you are wrong. I'm sure you're well aware of what you're doing. I just post this in the spirit of opposing continuous propaganda with reason - which I believe will win out in the end. I can last longer than you can.)

[subsuelo]

40. I'm not wrong, you are.

And I've contributed plenty of evidence previously to back up everything I stated above.

What is more reasonable:

1) The claim that both sides are guilty of war crimes committed upon the other? (my argument)
or 2) The idea that only one side is evil and wrong and the other side is pure and right (and only 'defending' itself)?

Any honest observation of the situation has to conclude that both sides are committing atrocities. Not this ridiculous fairy tale of one side being the aggressor and the other side this innocent victim whose only interest is in protecting itself.

By the way, your bank robbing analogy is absurd, since it's the Israeli side that is doing the stealing with robbing land from the native Palestinians.

[msmcghee]

41. What is more reasonable? . . you ask.

The most reasonable premise is the one that's supported by the evidence. You've provided no reasonable evidence for yours.

"And I've contributed plenty of evidence previously to back up everything I stated above."

Like the evidence of a news reporter who "was there" and "is sure" that Israel targets civilians? Or that HRW "suggests" that Israel targets civilians because they "think they do". I'm asking for actual evidence, not the opinions of people on the "internets" who agree with you.

"Any honest observation of the situation has to conclude that both sides are committing atrocities."

I never said that Israel has never committed any atrocities. That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing aggression vs. defense. If you want to discuss atrocities I'm not interested as it's very subjective as to just what an atrocity is. To many Palestinians, Israel's existence is an atrocity.

"By the way, your bank robbing analogy is absurd, since it's the Israeli side that is doing the stealing with robbing land from the native Palestinians."

We are discussing Israel's incursions into Gaza to stop the rockets. Despite dozens of incursions into Gaza to stop the rockets over the last two years there are no Israelis in Gaza sitting on any land they have "stolen" from the people of Gaza. It's your whole premise that's actually absurd.

[subsuelo]

42. What atrocities has Israel committed then?

Since you've never said they haven't, now is your chance to name a few and step up to denounce them.

[subsuelo]

43. Hopefully it's not too much to ask?

I've spent plenty of time providing evidence and presenting what I think is a reasonable case to show that civilians have been targeted for attack by Israeli forces. It's my conclusion based on reading news reports from a variety of sources as well as the findings of various human rights groups, that civilians have been specifically targeted, not just 'collateral' killings or 'accidental' deaths. You are welcome to read over those previous threads if you like. I can provide the links to them - one turned out to be a long and engaging discussion with several regular contributors.

It's really your turn now. Which atrocities that Israel has committed are you willing to admit to and list here? (I assume denounce as well)

[msmcghee]

44. I said I'm not interested in discussing "atrocities".

One person's atrocity is the next person's existence.

We were discussing targeted killings of civilians. We can do that without getting into the definition of "atrocities" - which would just be another way for you to avoid providing any reasonable evidence that Israel engages in "targeted killings of civilians" as a matter of policy.

But wait, you recently said that you didn't even mean that Israel does this as a matter of policy. If it isn't their policy, then what is it? You have refused to answer that question. You prefer to make unspecified accusations that really don't mean anything that you're willing to support when asked to do so.

Are these "targeted killings of civilians" an accident? A violation of orders? A renegade army making its own rules? You have never even attempted to describe how Israel manages to do something like this if it is not a matter of policy. And you've been asked to explain this several times now - each time refusing to do so.

I think if you were interested in making a serious accusation like this - you would be serious about what you mean - but we both know what you're doing.

[subsuelo]

46. This is getting ridiculous

1) I've posted several times my opinion on targeting of civilians by Israeli forces. You can read through the old posts, some of which were responses to your questions. I asked before, during those discussions, (and I ask again) that you please pay attention to what you are responding to.

2) You posted above "I never said that Israel has never committed any atrocities." - well since that appears to be an admission that they have committed atrocities, it can't be too much to ask that you name some of them. Can you name any? That's just a yes or no - can you do it?

3) If you were at all interested in serious discussion with me, you would pay attention to the answers I've provided previously, which I currently have not the time to post over and over just so you can ask over and over.

4) You post "we both know what you're doing". On the contrary I have no idea what you think it is that I'm doing. What is it that you think I am doing?

[msmcghee]

47. I agree with your title.

"1) I've posted several times my opinion on targeting of civilians by Israeli forces. You can read through the old posts, some of which were responses to your questions. I asked before, during those discussions, (and I ask again) that you please pay attention to what you are responding to."

Your posts on this are scattered over several weeks and several threads. Do you expect me to search through all of those and then figure out which ones are relevant to the claim you're making now - which is different from the claim you started with - with respect to Israel's policy?

"2) You posted above "I never said that Israel has never committed any atrocities." - well since that appears to be an admission that they have committed atrocities, it can't be too much to ask that you name some of them. Can you name any? That's just a yes or no - can you do it?

There was just a big to do in another thread about reading things into people's words. I have admitted nothing. I said I don't want to discuss it and gave my reason.

"3) If you were at all interested in serious discussion with me, you would pay attention to the answers I've provided previously, which I currently have not the time to post over and over just so you can ask over and over."

You have not provided any reasonable answers and so you can't repeat them even when I ask. If you could I wouldn't have to ask.

I prefer not to answer #4. I'd rather leave it to others to decide what's happening here without me imposing my interpretation on it. That is the only useful function being served by this exchange anyway - and is the only reason I'm still in it. I'm long past expecting you to actually address the issue in any reasonable way.

[subsuelo]

54. I've answered everything in the thread "'Eighty killed' in Tibetan unrest"

'Eighty killed' in Tibetan unrest

Some of my comments were direct responses to the same questions by you, so please don't ask me to repeat yet again.

Regarding Israeli atrocities:

First of all, I haven't interpreted your words for you - I posted that it appears to be an admission that atrocities have been committed. Get it? That is an open door to further clarification from you.

Second, if you are unwilling to further clarify, then how can you demand that others not read into your words? What else are we supposed to do? You stated: "I never said that Israel has never committed any atrocities." It's not at all unreasonable to assume you would admit that Israel has committed atrocities. Either that, or you are just unwilling to say it. Which one is it? You know, this is a discussion board. People come here to discuss and clarify their opinions. Either clarify, then, or don't expect others to not make some assumptions. The sudden silence only raises further questions as to what you meant.

Third - it really is not a lot to ask that you spell out just what your opinion is regarding atrocities committed by Israel. So I'm offering another chance.

1) What atrocities has Israel committed? 2) Do you denounce them? 3) Do you support them? 4) What steps would you recommend that Israel take in order to prevent atrocities from happening in the future?

[msmcghee]

55. Nice try.

But not good enough I'm afraid. B-)

Let's spare others the inanity of this sub-thread and agree to continue later when I don't have other things to amuse me. I'm done here.

[subsuelo]

60. Spare others the inanity, indeed.

You jump into a discussion making false accusations against me. You try to insinuate something about me but refuse to say exactly what. You demand I clarify my position on a topic after I've repeatedly clarified it in previous posts. Then you make a statement that you suddenly decide to go silent on when you get pressed for clarifications!

Spare others the inanity, indeed. This is absurd -- If you have nothing else to add to the discussion other than repeating false claims towards me while refusing to clarify your own positions ... please do continue at a later date. A much later one would be preferable.

[azurnoir]

48. Yet more null premises

You have never shown any reasonable evidence that Israel targets civilians and children. Aside from that, just what are these "supposed justifications" by Israel for targeting civilians and children? Can you provide one statement from any Israeli leader at any level who said that targeting of Palestinain civilians when there is no clear and compelling defensive purpose by the IDF is justified? Or, one statement by any IDF commander who said that they are justified in targeting Palestinian civilians? Why would they need to justify something they never do? (You're still welcome to prove me wrong by providing some reasonable evidence.)

Let's see here we the statements of IDF commanders and the Israeli government to go by. While the number of civilian causalities on the Palestinian side is exponentially higher than the number on the Israeli. Israel alternately claims either defensive measures or that they were used as human shields by Hamas.
Now I ask you what tends to be the fate of governments or military commanders that admit to targeting or having policies that promote targeting civilians? Now as for "reasonable evidence" what would be reasonable for you? Nothing so far, the numbers according to "prove" nothing , the same goes eye witnesses, so what short of a signed statement from the Israeli government or IDF would suit you? I am betting nothing.

The Israeli governments policies or statements on Palestinians civilians say one thing, but the number of dead Palestinian civilians suggest another. Having a policy of targeting civilians is not the same as turning a blind eye or making excuses when it happens is it, is it. As far as your "countering propaganda with reason" your reason is flawed as the the reasoning is based on policies that have a motive to be less than totally honest about the way they are executed in the field.

[msmcghee]

49. I'm going to have to leave in a while but I'll try to answer one of your questions . .

. . before I do so.

"Now I ask you what tends to be the fate of governments or military commanders that admit to targeting or having policies that promote targeting civilians?"

In a free society like Israel, they would get substantial news coverage, they'd soon be on a speaking tour to visit pro-Palestinian organizations in Europe, England and the US like ISM and HRW and they'd probably get a day in court to press their charges if they held water because targeting civilians with no clear and compelling defensive purpose is against Israel policy. They'd certainly get a book contract out of it - no matter how flimsy their charges.

If they are Palestinians they apparently get promoted to higher levels in the military or political hierarchy and they may get parades in their honor.

[azurnoir]

50. I was speaking on a more global scale as in the Hague

Those governments or more accurately their leaders and/or military commanders tend to tried for war crimes as in Charles Taylor who's trial is going on now.

Hope this clarifies

[msmcghee]

51. I don't mean to be impolite, but . .

. . sometimes I really have trouble understanding your posts. I want to respond if I can. Maybe you could explain this last one a little better.

[msmcghee]

52. Self delete

[msmcghee]

53. I think you are saying that if they admitted . .

. . to targeting civilians they'd be tried for war crimes.

Well, when was the last time this has ever happened - globally, I mean? Do you really think that's a common thing?

Hamas spokespersons, IJ, al Aqsa, etc. have been claiming responsibility for firing rockets at Israeli civilians several times a month for years now. How many of them have ever been brought up on war crimes charges? How many Janjaweed commanders are cooling their heels in the Hague right now waiting for their trial?

[azurnoir]

56. All of those mentioned are not

legitimate governments but considered terrorist groups who are illegal anyway. and entire governments are not usually put on trial. However Charles Taylor and Slovidon Milosevich(sp) are a couple of examples.

[msmcghee]

57. I've got to go now. But . .

. . let's just say you're right for now and if I understand your premise correctly, you're saying Israel does have a policy of targeting civilians but because every Israel politician, military commander, NCO - even down to the grunts who would at some level have to be aware of this - and for however long this has been happening - are reluctant to come forward because they (or their government) would be charged with war crimes.

Do you really think it makes sense that with all those people having to know about it - that they'd be able to keep something of that magnitude covered up for so long? Think about that for a while. I'll be happy to continue this later if you wish.

[azurnoir]

58. to clarify

he Israeli governments policies or statements on Palestinians civilians say one thing, but the number of dead Palestinian civilians suggest another. Having a policy of targeting civilians is not the same as turning a blind eye or making excuses when it happens. As far as your "countering propaganda with reason" your reason is flawed as the the reasoning is based on policies that have a motive to be less than totally honest about the way they are executed in the field.

So no Israel does not have a policy of targeting civilians, but that does not mean it does not happen and that it is not to a degree tolerated or excused. Saying one thing and doing another, the US does the same both in Iraq and in Viet Nam and no I am not saying because the US does it so does Israel.
IMHO it comes down to individuals for the most part in a fire fight I think most soldiers (that would mean soldiers in general) shoot at anything moving. Are there IDF who will purposely shoot civilians most likely there are, just as there are soldiers in any army who will, is there an "official" government policy in Israel stating it is OK to do this, no there is not, but will it be at some command level "explained away" in more cases than not, yes it will be.

[msmcghee]

59. Thanks for that explanation.

I think you are saying that Israel's actual policy is not to attack or target civilians - but that in a fire fight, if it happens, then no-one is going to say much about it.

OK. That's much different than what subsuelo, VC and some others were saying - that Israel (as a state) targets civilians.

As far as your premise - as explained above - I have no direct experience, but I have read a great deal about war in the way of first person accounts of soldiers in fire fights and battles. One thing I have learned from that is being in a fire-fight where your fellow soldiers are being killed around you, the deafening noise, the whine of bullets past your head, the blinding flashes and concussions, the smoke that obscures everything - must be an extremely terrifying experience.

I believe, that when a person feels they may be about to die they will do anything to avoid that if it's in their power to do so. I believe that in a situation like that, if someone is spotted who is definitely not wearing a friendly uniform - and therefore could possibly be an enemy - or someone assisting the enemy in any way - the tendency will be to shoot them if you can and ask questions later. I think anything you can do that has the slightest chance of prolonging your life for a few more seconds - you'll do it.

Despite my speculation about things that I haven't experienced myself, I put that in the category of things that happen in war that are beyond the moral judgment of those who were not there.

Then there are situations where it is not a fire-fight, where judgment is possible and where a civilian is shot - maybe out of revenge, spite, cowardice, anger, boredom, whatever. I'm sure that happens in Iraq because I've seen the videos on U-tube. Although this is a tougher call, I'm still reluctant to totally condemn a soldier who does that without knowing his mental state at the time, whether his best buddy was just blown up or shot by a sniper, things like that. It's definitely not excusable IMO to kill civilians under those circumstances - but that may still be partially understandable in some cases, as the result of putting mere humans with all our frailties in terrible situations with powerful weapons in their hands - and where those frailties are certain to be magnified.

I think that as civilians in a democratic state it's our responsibility to insist that our military operate honorably in such situations and we should try to elect politicians who support that principle and will insist that our military respect it as well.

That said, from watching videos of the IDF and videos of the US and British forces in Iraq - my impression is that the IDF are more careful with Palestinian civilian lives than we or the Brits are with Iraqi civilian lives. I think the Israelis are quite compassionate people and I think the soldiers of the IDF show that compassion quite frequently. But, that's just my impression from my limited exposure and I could be wrong.

I think the important thing to consider is that when two enemies, armed with high explosives and lethal weapons get involved in a war, terrible things will happen. Innocent civilians will die. That's why I am so insistent that the initiation of violence against others is what has to be stopped. Only by removing that as an acceptable alternative for solving disagreements between states or peoples can wars be reduced or prevented. Once wars start, terrible things will happen - civilians will die.

And therefore, only by making the initiation of violence against others a serious crime that all peaceful people in the world vigorously condemn and are willing to stop - with counterforce if necessary - can the civilian deaths that always are part of wars be prevented. There can be no justification for attacking another people except in self-defense against violence. Period.

That has to be the rule that we live by. But it is not. Many people believe that their (non-defensive) cause is so important that they are justified in attacking and killing others in its name. And the free world usually stands by - wringing our hands and posturing, often looking for political advantage.

That's what has to stop - the use of violence to achieve non-defensive aims. Once the killing starts, criticizing the soldiers will have little effect. That's my view. Thanks for explaining yours.

[subsuelo]

61. Bullshit

"That's much different than what subsuelo, VC and some others were saying - that Israel (as a state) targets civilians."

No it isn't different. What azurnoir posted is exactly what I posted in a previous thread, in which I was responding to you.

azurnoir:
So no Israel does not have a policy of targeting civilians, but that does not mean it does not happen and that it is not to a degree tolerated or excused.

me responding to you (in this thread, little more than 2 weeks ago):
I do not make any charge about what Israeli policy is. Israel cannot have a policy of targeting civilians. The good citizens of both Israel and the United States would not be supportive of that.
My charge, is that targeting of civilians occurs. Despite the policy, despite any stated intentions, and despite claims being made for the media to report on. I've never claimed it is an ongoing policy either. I submit that targeting civilians has being occurring for years, and there is in fact plenty of evidence to back that up.

Enough with the false accusations. Enough going around to various threads and sub-threads wrongly telling others what you think my position is (especially when you haven't been paying attention).

How about just sticking to posting your own opinions, rather than going around telling others what you think mine is?

[msmcghee]

63. You have made a variety of statements on this . .

. . many of them appearing to me as contradictory on their face if not in spirit. The overall tone of your comments has been that Israel is guilty of serious crimes in this matter - which most would interpret as meaning that the state of Israel intentionally targets civilians (something you said several times), which could not practically happen in a modern democratic state where the military is under civilian control - unless it was a matter of state policy - or willful negligence - which bears the same war-crimes liability as I understand it.

So, when I mention in a post to someone else what I think your position is, that's what I'm likely to say - because that's what I believe you mean. It's just my opinion and others are free to have their own. I think people understand that I'm expressing my opinion - and that I have some reason to have that opinion - even if they might not agree with me. You have some opinions about my positions that I disagree with strongly. That's what happens in these forums. It's not the end of the world and I see no reason to get angry about it.

However, since it seems so important to you that I get it right, to help me understand your current position on this, can you make one statement at this time that summarizes your current position. It would help me immensely if you could include the words, "Israel is (or is not) guilty of the war crime of intentionally targeting Palestinian civilians as described in the Geneva Conventions." In fact, that one sentence would do the trick for me.

For reference, the following are some of your own words. From reading them I think you can see how I could could reasonably conclude that you believe that Israel has an official policy of targeting civilians and is guilty of those crimes. It's that question of criminal liability according to those accords that I'm concerned about and I'd like you to clear up for me.

(I don't want to make a bigger deal about this than it deserves. Don't bother to reply unless it is important to you that I get this right. I doubt anybody here really cares that much what I believe you meant. But, if you can make one conclusive unambiguous statement on it at this time I'll accept whatever you say.)

6. Why should anyone be held accountable? It was just another 'rare and severe failure in the artillery fire system' - the Israeli military would never target civilians intentionally. :sarcasm:

1. Now we await the excuse makers. Who will it be first. What excuse will be thought up? It's their own fault for being Gazans? It was a mistake, after all, Israel just would never target civilians, no way, not in a million years. Maybe it's Hamas' fault? It can't be the fault of the killers, of course. Not ever is it the fault of the killers.

1. "The Israeli army had in fact targeted civilians" Edited on Sat Mar-01-08 08:22 PM by subsuelo Under the guise of defensive operations. They're even ignoring the rocket launchers and just shooting down anything that moves. Someone please explain to me why the U.S. supports this so strongly?

8. hypocrisy of Israel's UN Ambassador <snip> Of course, Levanon is also ignoring the essential fact that Israel's military intentionally targets civilians. Talk about inability to assess objectively! I understand that Israel's ambassador can't just come out and say such a thing. But I couldn't help but note the hypocrisy. Problem is that hardly anybody involved in this conflict talks honestly.

31. I asked the same question this past week over and over When Gazans were being slaughtered. As a Haaretz reporter gave an eyewitness report from Gaza, that Israeli forces were targeting civilians. I asked the same question: How can anyone excuse this? Yet, that is what we have seen this past week. Oh, but NOW it's a problem. When it's Israelis dying, NOW the excuses are a problem. Oh, ok. No hypocrisy there.

29. Israel has also attacked obvious civilian targets There have been numerous situations where no sort of defense excuse can be at all acceptable, yet that is what we hear constantly. Ultimately, my point is to say this: No more excuses. I don't excuse these horrible crimes today, but I also don't excuse the horrible crimes we saw over the past week, committed by Israel. How many people are standing with me on saying that? It's a small number, LeftishBrit. I appreciate your comments.

13. Haaretz reporter in Gaza just this past week reported on Israeli forces targeting civilians What more do you want? :shrug: No serious observer of the region can any longer deny it - Israeli forces target civilians, and they murder them with the same bitter hatred harbored by the Hamas terrorist. The only difference between the Hamas terrorist and Israeli forces is the means with which they have to kill one another. That's it. Both are as low as the other. If there ever was a moral high ground held by either side - that high ground was lost. Years ago.

38. The Israeli side purposefully targets civilians all the time - There goes your case. Next!

[subsuelo]

64. Was or was not my statement the same as azurnoir's

You make this claim that I've said things that are "contradictory". Yet, when you asked for my specific clarification, I provided it, in the post cited above. It's an identical statement to what azurnoir posted.

What's the problem?

Quit following me around from thread to thread claiming that I don't answer your questions and posting that I've said things I have not said.

[msmcghee]

65. So then, do I understand correctly . .

. . that you believe that Israel is not guilty of the war crime of intentionally targeting Palestinain civilians according to the Geneva Convention? Can you answer yes or no to that?

If you can't I think that proves that my suspicion that you are being intentionally ambiguous on that issue is justified.

[subsuelo]

66. You tell me

If targeting of civilians occurs, even though it is not an outright policy of the military or of the state - you tell me. Does the state bear guilt?

Can you answer yes or no to that?

My opinion - yes. Just because the policy may or may not exist does not excuse the attacks on civilians. The state must bear the responsibility and the guilt for crimes such as these. It's not like targeting of civilians is this abnormal deviation either. If it's a small number, say one or two cases, then maybe you say ok the state is not guilty. But not when it's a frequent occurrence, as it is in the case of Israel.

[msmcghee]

67. I'm starting to get the feeling that you . .

. . don't intend to answer the question. The discussion is about what you believe to be the case. You came into this subthread calling bullshit about what I understood your position to be. It was not about what I think on that issue of criminal liability.

I have no problem discussing that with you and I'll be happy to address that issue after we clear up the question that you raised in this sub-thread. To discuss that other unrelated issue now would be a diversion from the topic.

I'll repeat for you one more time.

So then, do I understand correctly that you believe that Israel is not guilty of the war crime of intentionally targeting Palestinain civilians according to the Geneva Convention? Can you answer yes or no to that?

If you refuse to answer then I believe it's reasonable to conclude that my original understanding of your position on this was correct. And to think I was all ready to change my mind.

[subsuelo]

68. o.k.

Out of curiosity, did you happen to read the post you just responded to?

[msmcghee]

70. I don't see why it's so hard for you to answer a simple question.

You issue dozens of comments ranging from Israel is guilty of the worst crimes to Israel has no official policy to commit these crimes. So to clear things up I ask if you think their guilt extends to actual violations of the Geneva Conventions regarding the crimes you accuse them of - which means are they guilty of an actual crime or guilty of doing something that you don't like. And you refuse to answer.

I don't really care if you don't answer. It just seems that for someone with such strong opinions on this you'd want to make this part clear - the part that if true - would expose Israel to the charge of actual war crimes. The Geneva Accords on the targeting of civilians were very carefully crafted to protect civilians in war time. If a state is guilty of violating them they deserve condemnation and punishment. If they are not - then whatever they did may be something you don't like but does not rise to the level of an actual crime.

I'm only asking on which side of that very clear line you think Israel's actions lie.

[subsuelo]

71. I haven't refused to answer anything.

Why, after I answer your questions, do you continue to comment that I didn't answer the questions?

Seriously, this is becoming quite bizarre.

Are you not reading the entire post? Are you playing games? What is it?

:shrug:

The answer, again, is yes. Here is my above post:

If targeting of civilians occurs, even though it is not an outright policy of the military or of the state - you tell me. Does the state bear guilt?

Can you answer yes or no to that?

My opinion - yes. Just because the policy may or may not exist does not excuse the attacks on civilians. The state must bear the responsibility and the guilt for crimes such as these. It's not like targeting of civilians is this abnormal deviation either. If it's a small number, say one or two cases, then maybe you say ok the state is not guilty. But not when it's a frequent occurrence, as it is in the case of Israel.

[msmcghee]

72. OK - you're not going to answer. I get it.

All this time I thought you were accusing Israel of an actual crime that they might have to answer for in some international venue some day. Now, I see that you're just accusing them of the "crime" of doing something that you don't like. I would never argue with you over what things you like and don't like so I don't have much further interest in this discussion.

If you ever change your mind and come to think that Israel has committed the actual war crime of targeting civilians in violation of some statute with a number on it - let's talk again. That could be educational.

[subsuelo]

73. What part of "The answer is yes" are you having trouble with?

You asked for a yes or no.

I gave a yes.

Then you respond that I'm not going to answer?

:crazy:

[msmcghee]

74. Lost interest. But thanks. n/t

[msmcghee]

69. I see you're stil here and yes, I did read it..

So then, do I understand correctly that you believe that Israel is guilty of the war crime of intentionally targeting Palestinain civilians according to the Geneva Convention? Can you answer yes or no to that?

[number6]

11. no

"If not, please clarify what you mean by armed resistance." certainly


military targets

morals aside suicide bombers are a poor tactic from a military stand point
its a waste of people and explosives
(also morally unacceptable one)

aimlessly firing rockets is utterly useless in every way, now if you can fire a rocket
and destroy a Tank or Bull Dozer thats militarily useful.

now if I was advising the Palestinians, I would dissolve Hamas and build a regular secular Army

I would also stick to any cease fire, even if Israelis violated it. (unless repeated violations)

[oberliner]

14. Thanks!

I would encourage you to reconsider using that particular phrasing as it has potential implications that you clearly did not intend.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. There's a few phrases I'll encourage you to reconsider using...

After all they have potential implications that you might not intend. Let's start with 'Israel has every right to defend itself'. If you ever do get the urge to use it, please reconsider it as it's used by extremists to argue that Israel has the right to defend itself by illegal means outside the bounds of international law (eg carpet bombing civilian areas of Gaza, etc). And not using it would save me the time of having to ask and clarify, coz you can never be too careful to make sure that those nasty extremist types who support attacks on Palestinian or Israeli civilians surface here at DU...

[oberliner]

27. I try to be very careful

I don't believe I've ever used that phrase you mentioned, but I appreciate the heads up.

I do try to avoid using the language used by extremist elements on either side.

[breakaleg]

29. I find that phrase places no limits on Israel. It seems to be a catch all excuse for anything

they do. I've even seen it used when discussing children getting killed by the IDF.

[oberliner]

30. Have you found the same with the phrase "armed resistance"?

Would you agree that both should be avoided?

[breakaleg]

32. I haven't seen posters here use that phrase. That's something, as you pointed out,

Hamas officials would use to describe their actions. Whereas the one I mentioned is something used by posters here, with the intent to excuse all Israel's acts of killing. There is a distinct difference. Since we are talking about this forum and it's posters, I'd say the one we see here is the issue.

[oberliner]

45. See post #8

The poster wrote "Palestinians have every right to a armed resistance."

That is what elicited my response.

[breakaleg]

62. That's the first time I've seen that used and from someone who isn't a regular around here.

It's not like it's a common occurrence.

[oberliner]

75. Precisely

That is exactly why I was so taken aback when I saw that phrase being used here and that is why I asked for clarification.

[msmcghee]

31. It would be interesting to hear you explain . .

. . how "Israel has every right to defend itself" really means that "carpet bombing civilian areas of Gaza" would be an acceptable tactic. Also, I'd wonder what the beliefs of some imaginary right-wingers have to do with this forum and why you'd try to equate members here with their views.

Your attempts to paint Israel's defense of its civilians' lives as evil by targeting the people who shoot rockets at them is falling apart as we watch.

[LeftishBrit]

34. I don't know whether 'you' means Oberliner or everyone...

I assume it means everyone, since I don't think Oberliner has ever used this phrase.

I don't care for either phrase myself; since, while anyone does have a right to 'defend themselves' or 'resist' if actually attacked, I don't think that they have a right to do ANYTHING if this can be seen as 'defence' or 'resistance'.

[msmcghee]

37. Where do you draw that line? n/t

[bemildred]

12. Well, of course not.

But the IDF really ought to stand out in a field somewhere so that they could be rocketed without endangering civilians. This habit of theirs of hiding behind civilians and using human shields is most reprehensible.

[oberliner]

15. There are plenty of opportunities for Palestinians to kill IDF soldiers if they are so inclined

Aren't they manning those checkpoints and otherwise patrolling around the West Bank?

[bemildred]

16. Well yeah, but that can get you killed.

"Soft targets" are much more attractive, something where you can stand off at a safe distance and kill some enemies without much danger to yourself.

[oberliner]

17. Armed resistance doesn't come without risks

Hopefully Hamas will eventually eschew that particular approach and choose a less violent one.

[bemildred]

18. Right after the IDF does, I expect. nt

[oberliner]

19. I don't know about that

I have a feeling that would actually lead to more rather than less armed resistance from Hamas.

As you mentioned, one of the limiting factors in their ability to kill Israeli soldiers is just how dangerous that endeavour currently is.

If the Israeli army laid down their arms...

I guess one can only speculate as to the outcome.

[bemildred]

20. I'm not suggesting anybody lay down their arms, certainly not the IDF.

But bombing densely occupied areas, using artillery similarly, collective punishment of civilians, some other things, it weakens any argument one might have about the morals of ones opponents ...

You don't have to be "pro-Palestinian" to see that you ought to walk the walk you talk.

Edit: I don't see that as being a problem that YOU have in particular.

[oberliner]

21. Well I agree with you that either side could radically change things if they so chose

Israel could change the approach you've outlined above.

Similarly, Hamas could announce that it is completely abandoning violence as a resistance tactic, stop its hateful rhetoric, and declare that it will recognize Israel.

Thus far, no one in any position of power in the region has chosen to take that kind of radical step.

And there is no guarantee that the outcome would be positive, but it sure could shake things up.

[bemildred]

22. Well, some have (taken the radical step), peace was made with Egypt, for example.

Rabin tried too. Arafat was a weasel, but he could have been pushed into a corner with a real effort to resolve the outstanding issues in a fair way, there was no real effort to do that after Rabin was killed. Israeli politicians got the message there. It's interesting that Sadat and Rabin got the same treatment for their peacemaking efforts, but at least Sadat got it done before he was killed.

The "Arab Peace Offer" is along those lines. Not perfect. I think the sticking point is the terms of the settlement. Neither side is willing to give up the minimum which the other side requires, and both sides are internally quite divided about that issue too. I think there are parties on both sides that would like to work things out, but they are not strong enough to affect the "facts on the ground". Forceful intervention by outside powers could do the job, again as with the settlement with Egypt, but nobody seems interested in the job at this point. Bush has chosen to just let it fester, and the Israeli and Palestinian refuseniks have both prospered as a consequence. Meanwhile the political situation on both sides is "amusing", that's the only word that really comes to me.

I'm just thinking it's going to wind up like the place formerly known as Yugoslavia, or some such, and the people on both sides largely deserve better.

[azurnoir]

23. Ah well yes that was a rsdical step

except that Egypt had a few things Hamas does not like an air force, tanks, you know military toys much like Israel, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with it, the peace making that is.

[bemildred]

24. Well. Mao had that right, didn't he?

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

But it still seems true to me that it was Carter's forceful intervention that made it work. The way things are, this just grinds along for another 60 years, sinking deeper into the mud. You can argue that the combatants on either side ought to do differently, and you'd be right, but nothing is going to make it happen. Look at Turkey, the "Kurdish problem" is still there, and so are the Armenians.

Edit: quotes around "Kurdish problem".

[azurnoir]

38. Of course Mr Carter had a great deal of influence

Without him the deal would never had happened.

[Shaktimaan]

25. I would hesitate to chalk any single thing up

as being the key difference between the Israeli/Egyptian peace process and the Israeli/Palestinian one. The two conflicts, though related, are entirely different, both in their beginnings as well as in their obstacles for resolution. Not least of them being that peace with Israel didn't cost Egypt anything in real terms. It was ultimately win-win for both nations. Peace with Israel will require some serious Palestinian concessions, and vice versa. There was no way for Arafat to actually sign a peace deal without abandoning a large segment of his people and their long-held belief in their right to return home. In making peace with Israel Egypt got back ALL of the land it believed to be its own. Sadat didn't have to face any hard choices like Arafat did.

And to some extent you're right, Israel doesn't face the same kind of threat from Hamas that it did from Egypt. But this was also why peace from Sadat was so much easier to accept. Sadat never needed to make peace the same way that the Palestinians do. Refusing peace didn't burden Egypt with the same kind of trauma that it does for the Palestinians. Thus it was far easier for Israelis to accept an Egyptian peace as being "real," and not merely a temporary, tactical decision of the sort that, in the end, was all that the Palestinians were able to offer Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

33. Agreed!

[msmcghee]

36. Just wanted to say that you and oberliner are both . .

. . extremely careful to avoid condemning either side in this conflict. That adds some calming vibes to the discussions here and that's a good thing. It also makes me question some of my assertions when attacks from my opposites would only goad me on.

I think you could both be called relativists regarding this conflict - in that whatever one side does you go out if your way to show that the other side may be similarly guilty. As a means of fostering calmness and encouraging a quest for a more peaceful future - that can be a useful tactic in many cases. Especially, when two sides find themselves in a violent confrontation and they'd both like to get out of it without losing face.

I'm more of an absolutist. But I'm not absolute about which side is right and wrong. I'm absolute about the wrongness of initiating the use of violence against another state - no matter how justified one side thinks it is in achieving it's aims. If it seems that I'm always ready to condemn the Palestinain side and excuse the Israeli side - it's because I see only one side here consistently respecting that principle for the last 100 years or so. I believe that is the only principle in international relations that has the potential, if respected, of reducing the terrible destruction of war where innocent people are always killed. If nobody starts a war there won't be one.

I'm aware that my opinion on this conflict could be biased. I'll keep exploring that possibility (as best I can because it's never easy to recognize one's own biases) thanks in some measure to the extreme even-handedness of both of your comments.

[LeftishBrit]

35. This is unacceptable.