The battle within

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/812598.html

I was just wondering where are the various Human Rights Organizations, the UN committees, the journalists.....are Palestinian lives somehow worth less when Palestinians are killing and torturing Palestinians? where is the outrage? where is the ISM?

All they did was blow up my house. The Hamas activists executed him with smiles, with pleasure. They laughed and joked among themselves and then shot him to death. Afterwards they tied up his nephew and held him for several hours, a boy of 16. At one point he asked for water. They returned a few minutes later with a suspicious-looking liquid and the boy understood that he shouldn't drink it. Then they poured it on his hands. Do you know what it was? Acid.

According to R., another survivor of the attack, "they fired about 50 RPG missiles at the big house

Even the Israelis who arrest a suicide bomber treat him with respect compared to what Hamas did to Gharib.

G., a member of Gharib's family, joined one of the processions of unarmed civilians that was organized in an attempt to create a human barrier between the Hamas gunmen and the house. When the gunmen opened fire at the marchers, wounding dozens, he managed to escape into the surrounded building. "I went in and went upstairs, where everyone was. There were about 50 people there, in two rooms. The firing continued, and after each explosion another part of the wall or the ceiling fell," G. related.

guess unarmed civilian protests dont do so well against the palestinians.....

If there cannot be peace among the Palestinians then peace with Israel is equally lost. I found this quote to be particularly poignant.

Two Fatah men - Hussein Abu Khalil and Ihab Al-Mabhouh - were killed in the course of the battle. After the fact it turned out that one of the Hamas gunmen who shot Ihab was his brother. Both were masked and were unaware that they were shooting at one another.

You have a point about the double standard. There is no question that Israel is held to a totally different standard than her neighbors, that's plain to see. The more interesting question is, "why?" and "is it right to do so?" I think many people, especially europeans, suffer from a kind of collective guilt over the problems wrought by colonialism and try to alleviate it by lashing out at anything that resembles colonialism especially if the collective third world chooses to identify it as such.

Europe also bears most of the responsibility for the circumstances that led to the creation of, and the need for creating, Israel. They failed in their humanitarian responsibility to protect their Jewish citizens in the past. So, to be able to now point their fingers at Israel and state that the Jews are no different than the Nazis themselves, that Israel is just as bad, or maybe worse even, than the villians of european history, relieves them of the responsibility for their past failures. There is also a dash of anti-semitism thrown in for good luck too, I'm sure.

And America... America feels they have a responsibility to judge Israel because their taxes are used to fund her to such a large degree. (And there's a point to be made there.)

As for the Palestinians... well, no one really cares about the Palestinians. If they did then they wouldn't still be stuck in refugee camps 50 years after the fact. It's all about Israel, for good or ill. The Palestinians are just a means to an end for the greater Arab world. If it were otherwise then they would be sending them butter instead of guns.

that by being used by so many different countries/movements/ even "good hearted people"....the palestinians have created a society that is now tearing itself apart. And its pretty obvious that fighting "jews and israelis" gave them the glue to stick together.

At every turn of the page, from wife beating to "lack of health care in jordan" israel has been blamed for the woes of the arab/Palestinian world. The occupation is such a news item, that many have seem to have forgotten that there was a time before any occupation and israel was still attacked by people crossing the borders and killing israelis for the single sin of being israeli. (its easier to blame the occupation-never mind the facts).

The withdrawl from gaza was a brilliant move. Not because we didnt expect the kassams to continue firing (I dont know a single person who doubted that they would continue), but because it "cleared the moral air". Not so much for those who believe there is no greater wrong than the occupation, but for those of us who live in the real world.

Gaza has made it clear, that in the present the PA has little if any influence on the Palestinians, that it cannot control its various militias and furthermore that all they're screaming about human rights is simply using western values as a tool against israel. The Palestinian society does not have civil rights as any kind of corner stone of its society, and from the silence from all those human rights groups and Palestinian/western groups that constantly decry israel for its "human rights violations, it seems little is expected of them.

a form of racism isnt?..expecting less of the palestinians than of the israelis?

but great points, Pelsar. Really, where is the outrage? Expecting less of them does make it seem like a form of discrimination against them. Sort of like, "We expect better behavior from the 'civilized' Israelis but not much from the Palestinians".

in 2002 palestinians were not attacking each other in gaza. in 2002 ISM had a presence in gaza. you ask where the ISM are/were? they were shot and killed by the IDF. they were run over with bulldozers, arrested, beaten and deported. thats where the ISM were and as a result this is happening.

its only after the IDF closed the gaza strip for years under intense and brutal military occupation that you assholes are shitting yourselves because the shits blowing up in there. well you created this mess!

so what happened in gaza is now happening in the west bank. are you going to let the same record lay there? kick out all the intl peace movement and put the civilian population under assault for years only to end up with a zoo? if so dont be surprised what you get and dont go crying to the world that you cant find peace because youre the ones who fucked it all up.

seems that many of the palestinians realize quite the opposite: that blaming israel for their problems is "not the proper attitude" and in fact will get them nowhere. Its usually one of the first lessons that our parents try to teach us: that no matter what happens the bottom line is, that its up to us to make the best of the situation and do what we can.

The spokesman of Hamas believes its the palestinians of gaza that have "fuck it all up".....

PA gov't spokesman: People are to blame for situation

Palestinian government spokesperson and Hamas official criticizes chaos, violence in Gaza, says Israeli occupation couldn't be blamed for all; calls on Palestinians to admit to mistakes
"The chaos, pointless murders, the plundering of lands, family feuds ... what do all of these have to do with the occupation?" Dr Hamad wrote in an article published on Palestinian news websites. "Gaza is suffering under the yoke of anarchy and the sword of thugs. We've been attacked by the bacteria of stupidity and don't know where we're headed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=FA5F1ZKITDGW1QFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/30/wmid130.xml

read the whole thing....he understands probably a lot better than the "foreigners.."

check into Al Mezen...center for human rights in gaza.....

http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=568

seems the palestinian organization also "gets it".....

the year is 2007....access (off and on depending upon the egyptians/israelis and europeans) is via rafah. The ISM has attempted to enter and in one of their reports blamed the Egyptians for not letting them in. .....so it appears its not "all israel".

as far as "shitting ourselves"...actually were not:...every israeli i've spoken with, outside of those who were evacuated from gaza, find it quite the relief. The palestinian society is now going through a very difficult phase that leaves us with a very clear picture that is not "muddled" by checkposts or settlements. Either the palestinians develop a society that "works" or they develop a failed one......either way its their problem. They send too many missiles over the border and eventually they'll be a retaliation as before. The Hamas spokesmen figured it out, if you read what he published, others have as well.

the palestinians have a golden opportunity in gaza...blaming israel for when they blow up their own homes to kill each other, is really pathetic, it will be difficult to find an israeli who feels responsible for the Palestinians that give a 16year old kid acid and tell him to drink it, or for the palestinians that shoot up children at a school.

i always under the impression that the ISM believed in human rights being some kind of universal right........given the silence on the happenings in gaza, it doesnt appear so.....

im under the impression you have more fun playing games than actually taking responsibility for your govts actions. i agree with you that theres a time to blame israel and theres a time to grow up. i also think that if your a bad parent and do a shit poor job of treating and raising a child its your fault that child is fucked up. and when the child becomes an adult they must take responsibility for their actions and should no longer blame their parents.

israel has 2 kids. theyve already fucked up gaza and if they continue on the path their on now theyll do the same to the west bank.
this is the point i am trying to make. by removing intls who are trying to help and continuing with settlements and settlers and the wall they are traveling the saem path as gaza. but the thing is youre correct. israelis dont care. you really dont give a shit if youre imprisoning people as long as you can look the other way. your govt continues this wall and sits on a "peace plan" for two years while the US with the nod of the israeli govt give money to abass to fight hamas and for you this is ok. that i understand.

since the possibility of kassams and mortors on the surrounding israeli cities is very high...it wouldnt be too bright to offer that option.

lets reverse it: the PA is a weak govt, with a low level civil war going on and multiple gangs/jihadnikim running around. Lets say israel leaves parts or has a negotiation with whatever part of the PA govt and leaves. No doubt at least one armed group will not be satisfied and starts using mortars on jersualem, hadera etc.

then what?.....as in gaza the PA cant find/control/use force to stop them (many daytime PA security are Hamas at night)

are you going to suggest that israeli citiizens just sit tight and let the bombs fall as they may?....the IDF at best can only return and reoccupy...only with a lot more destruction as a result.....

oppression. stop with the doomsday BS.

btw did you listen to that interview i posted?
im going to work and wont be on for 3 days.

interiewed on israeli TV last month...said the only reason there are no kassams in jenin is that the IDF frequently raids.....he was very clear about it, nothing to make up.

no matter what your political leanings, ignoring the fact that "gaza" can have a westbank version is putting your head in the sand. Its not a matter of "what if"....the question is "what to do..."

(israel left gaza twice, with and "without" negotiations, the result was the same: kassams, there will always be those that will find a reason to continue shooting)


missed the interview...link?

I actually dont care so much what ISM is....however if they go around and make noise about human rights etc, then i expect consistency about the happenings in gaza, that i dont see.

...as well as most other human rights organizations. But you knew that.

Bleating about the lack of "outrage" is truely a pathetic effort given the lack of "outrage" against Israeli actions. Have fun pissing up that rope.

all those human right organizations were not "chased out of gaza".....all those UN personal in gaza before israel left... (ISM excluded)...after israel left is a different story. Im not outraged at the palestinians and their actions, nor am i surprised.... I just find how human rights organizations all over the world, all of a sudden, are no longer concerned with the palestinian killings/torture etc going on in Gaza today..at least i dont seeem to hear much...perhaps you do?

or maybe its not so important now

but maybe you missed the key difference with the israeli occupation, which it it is/was an occupation. it is funded with american tax dollars. 1/3 of my pay check goes to uncle sam so he could ship it of you israel to be used to occupy the west bank and gaza.

i dont doubt a number of people working to end the israeli occupation do not like hamas religious stance, though i have to admit i was hard pressed to find a shop open on saturday in w.jerusalem... so i think you know where id go with this, correct?

in fact not just the internal violence, but the kassams are not even mentioned on the ISM website.......

as i mentioned i dont mind the ISM taking a side and proclaiming that the israelis are "bad" and the palestinians "are good" (excuse the simplistic version)....but find the cry of "human rights" to be hypocritical.

If the ISM is waving the banner of "human rights"...as a right for all etc, and they have declared the I/P conflict as their interest, then i would expect them to have quite a discussion of the killings and shoot outs in Gaza City, etc


If the ISM wants to be pragmatic and have decided that for the sake of "not getting killed" they have decided not to get involved in the internal affairs of the PA, I would expect to see quite the discussion, articles on principles vs reality....alas, I didnt see anything.(and that will open up a pandoras box on the public scale and expose a very blatant different value system).

Or and probably more to the truth, the ISM should forget the "human rights banner" and just proclaim that the the israeli/jew (for some) on the westbank is wrong and they have to leave......true, the ISM may lose some of its idealistic members, but it will be more honest.

is to deal with the ISRAELI OCCUPATION.

what do you NOT understand about this? yes many of its memebers are concerned about human rights ect but their website is not the forum to discuss it. little do you know but if/when we have speaking tours in the US, the speakers will talk about internal conflict and this of the like... but its not content for the webiste. it is linked with other websites which discuss the gaza situation but as it stands if you want to know what is happening with intls in the occupied territories check the ISM sight. if you want to hear about internal conflict go else where because they do not deal with it. this is not to say they do not care but if you want bacon go to a butcher, not the produce counter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602027.html
.....Eric Adler and Jack Langer disparaged the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a movement that I co-founded in the spring of 2001 in the occupied territories of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem to help draw attention to the human rights abuses suffered by Palestinians as a result of Israel's occupation.
_____

like i said, if ISM was just against the occupation, as is hamas, islamic jihad, al aska brigades, etc....thats fine, they make no bones about wanting jerusalem, haifa, tel aviv and dont give a shit about "human rights." But if the ISM is complaining about "human rights abuses"....as in the above letter, then it seems to me, that something is not right.

you cant have it both ways....human rights are universal no matter who is doing the abusing...If ISM is going to complain about "human rights being abused"...and go public with it, then the organization if it has any integrety has some other abuses to write about within the same conflict.

btw if ISM in other places do have discussions about the palestinians internal conflict, i would be interested in reading about it...(as strange as it may seem to you, i far more than most would like to see a strong liberal PA govt.....and at the sametime am fevertly against a dictatorship there, which i believe would be far worse than any occupation not just the palestinains but for us israelis as well.)

her writings are sometimes posted on the ISM site if they are relevant. none the less, her work is linked from the ISM site if you are interested in reading further.

http://a-mother-from-gaza.blogspot.com/

like i said earlier, the ISM deals specifically with human rights abuses by the IDF, who the US supplies weapons and machinery to. of course we all have opinions on about n.korea, e.timor or pakistan is not going to be published under the ISM name or on the ISM site because it is not relevant to the israeli occupation.
if you want to know the human rights position on gaza and palestinian internal strife i suggest you go to amnesty intl or hrw. ISM is not the vehicle for discussing such issues. this is not to say its members have no opinion on the subject... im sure they do but its not going to be discussed here. its not an ISM issue.

additionally i suggest the israelis start up a group to support a strong liberal PA govt. as it stands a lot of potential peacemakers and leaders have been jailed or assassinated by the IDF. does the IDF differentiate between a potential liberal PA leader and top PA leader targeted because he is a threat?

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

human rights abuses suffered by Palestinians as a result of Israel's occupation.

she only touches upon the internal violence, how its random, chaotic and one doesnt know who is against who. I assume that she has to protect herself and child, so staying clear of the subject is probably the safest thing to do.

she gets as close as it comes to naming names.

i had a slow link...and lost patience..i'll try later

you cant have it both ways....human rights are universal no matter who is doing the abusing...

You have argued that the human rights of the Palestinians have to take a backseat to that of Israelis in that sub-thread...

everyone should get them...everyone deserves them......but in war, decisions are made where not everyone gets what they deserve.

the arguement is the ideal vs reality. The subthread down below is the reality of war...human rights of the individual take a back seat for the "greater goal of the war"...of protecting ones own.

this subthread is the ideal of human rights and those carrying the banner of it

I was just wondering where are the various Human Rights Organizations, the UN committees, the journalists.....are Palestinian lives somehow worth less when Palestinians are killing and torturing Palestinians? where is the outrage? where is the ISM?

Let me get this straight. Yr claiming that human rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem haven't spoken out against attacks by Palestinian groups on Palestinian civilians??


While we're on the subject of selective outrage, my experience posting here for a few years has been that some only drag out some outrage when it's Palestinians killing Palestinians civilians, but don't once produce a skerrick of outrage when it comes to Israel killing Palestinian civilians. That's not the case for some 'pro-Israeli' posters here, but for quite a few others, that's definately what happens...

if a group goes around, such as the various human right groups, etc , criticizing israel, the IDF etc for human rights because human rights are a universal right, i would expect those same groups to be just as concerned for the palestinian citizens who are now living in a far more dangerous environment (some parents no longer let their kids go to school)

ISM is a good example: they're cry against the occupation is based partially on human rights...thats a very nice principled stand...except i dont seem to read much about their "outrage" these days at the killings, hence i question their principles.

I asked you a question and I'd like it if you could answer it :)

Let me get this straight. Yr claiming that human rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem haven't spoken out against attacks by Palestinian groups on Palestinian civilians??


While we're on the subject of selective outrage, my experience posting here for a few years has been that some only drag out some outrage when it's Palestinians killing Palestinians civilians, but don't once produce a skerrick of outrage when it comes to Israel killing Palestinian civilians. That's not the case for some 'pro-Israeli' posters here, but for quite a few others, that's definately what happens...
___________________

in between posts i was reading this:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/07/palab14496.htm

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Authorities Must Address Violence against Women and Girls

which i found to be "refreshing"....my complaint is perhaps more toward the "selectivity" of the headlines. Since the conflict is headline news, any an all IDF transgressions against the human rights of the palestinians becomes front page news...its suddenly a "mere" battle when the palestinians are shooting up each other.....no international intervention (ISM?).

Can you imagine the headlines if an IDF soldier gave a 16yr old acid to drink? (in the original article)? the stories of real torture by the palestinians in the hosptal in ashkelon didnt even make out to the intl press. There was a lot of press/ intl condemnations concerning the group of palestinians that went to intervine in the gun battle between the IDF and palestinians in beit hanon...the IDF left, when the same thing occured with the palestinians, not only did they keep on shooting but they kept on shooting at the unarmed protestors, but that didnt make much news or condemnations.

there is a difference, one can claim because "one expects more of israel" that to me reeks of nothing more than racism. Once can claim, as in the suicide bombers" what else can they do (or something to that affect, as if they have no choice.....), but that also is assuming they're "idiotes".....whatever the reason, they're remains no excuse for such actions....and that fact that it isnt reported and or condemmed as the intensity of when israel does it is hard not to see. (i would add, that i am mixing up official condemnations with the subsequent press they receive....)

as far as the posters here and their selective "outrage"......it seems to be a constant here in one form or another....

You talk as if that was a rarity. It's not. I can give you a whole bunch of links tomorrow to these "refreshing" reports and press releases on all three sites I mentioned...

Okay, so yr complaint isn't actually what you first posted, but about the media and headlines? Considering the violence by Palestinian groups in Gaza has gotten wide coverage here (again I can give you links if you doubt it), I think yr wrong on that one too...


On yr claim that "one expects more of Israel" reeking of racism. Anyone who knows the definition of racism knows it's nothing even remotely close to racism. I tend to expect more of the US because it is a democracy and holds itself to high standards than I do of militants in Baghdad. How does that translate into racism?

On yr claim that "one expects more of Israel" reeking of racism. Anyone who knows the definition of racism knows it's nothing even remotely close to racism. I tend to expect more of the US because it is a democracy and holds itself to high standards than I do of militants in Baghdad. How does that translate into racism?

i dont believe the "militants" of bagdad, the hizballa, hamas, islamic jihad, etc should be given a pass on "human rights"......

intentionally looking for and targeting civilians is exactly that: no matter if its a US marine, and IDF soldier or an member of islamic jihad.

I'm guessing your expecting "less of them" for reasons of culture......i dont give them that excuse, perhaps because as my future neighbors i expect/demand the same style of security from them that i enjoy here (as does jordan, and egypt)... (if you have a different reason please explain).

__________

i dont doubt your claim on the coverage on your "side of the world" (dont need the links), I just sure dont see the images and long opinions and articles being written about it. Granted, palestinian journalists and bloggers would be putting their lives in their hands if they do...but that doesnt excuse what i have read in the intl press, or not have read.

I said I expected more of both Israel and the US than I do of militant groups. I didn't say anything about giving them a pass when it comes to human rights violations....

What it's about is having an expectation that Israel and the US wouldn't commit human rights violations. Just because militants do doesn't mean they should. And the reason I don't expect too much from militants is that they openly work outside the bounds of international law and don't even pretend to have any respect for it. That applies to all terrorist groups regardless of whether they're Palestinian or Tamil Tigers or any other group you can think of. It's nothing to do with culture, it's about the nature of these groups and how they have always and will always operate....

the nature of the terrorist group is to operate outside of the law, i agree, but no way does it mean they get their own special standard. They may not respect intl law, but that is irrelvant. A robber, a rapists does not respect the law, but when caught he is punished to the extent of the law "he doesnt respect.".

so too it must be with terrorists....when caught they are to be punished according to the law they dont respect.....One standard.

its their choice whether or not the "want to respect it or not, just as it is any criminal"...but that has no influence on the law itself and its application. (btw were talking about western values and its application across the board: those terrorists obviously disagree with those values-something i dont accept, given that i believe the western value system is a superior system and must be universal)

but i dont understand....if you dont expect them to live up to a standard...what do you expect?..that they will target civilians?....i may "expect it", but its still criminal and i still dont accept it....just as i dont expect it out of the US or israel.

It isn't racist per say to expect a western democracy to adhere to standards that terrorists eschew. That doesn't mean that we condone terrorism. In most cases I think the outrage isn't there because we expect this kind of behavior from some groups. HRW may not spend the time citing everything that happens from them because they have very little influence on what they do. They can't apply pressure on them like they can on Israel.

I think the main reason you hear about Israel all the time but never hear much about worse stuff from places like Saudi Arabia or Indonesia is because there isn't currently a debate on the ethics of those places. As is evident here there is a split between those who feel Israel is justified in their practices and those who don't. Whereas with Iran, for example, everyone is in agreement that the government is an oppressive theocracy that the world would be better off without. But Israel offers room for debate.

Where the debate becomes hypocritical in my view, is when folks start making excuses for terrorism or otherwise judge the various groups' actions according to different criteria from an ethical standpoint. I agree with Violet (if I am understanding her right) that there is a difference between holding Israel to a higher standard and excusing terrorism or sadism on the part of the underdog. In other words, criticizing Israel's actions is different than defending Hamas'. A double standard of this sort is truly inexcusable; when one deems it OK for some groups to use terrorism against civilians as a tool by virtue of their situation.

Something else that this article highlights is the fact that a lot of the horror in Gaza is not due strictly to Israel's attacks but to the interfaction strife. Gaza could be much more livable despite Israel if energy was put towards making it so.

what is that "higher standard?"....we dont see israel targeting school busses of kids, we dont see the IDF planting bombs in restaurants.....we do see civilian palestinians killed.... So what is that higher standard? I get the impression here that the "higher standard" is a 100% perfect use of military equipment, in excellent condition and the right choices....as if a 20yr old, in a life and death situation, responsable for the lives of 5 other guys, directly and possibly 30 more "behind him" indirectly with powerful weapons acting on partial information and limited experience must make the right choice everytime....

for anybody who has been even near such a situation, they would snicker if not laugh out loud as such expectation. We could throw in some additional "monkey wrenches" like making a decision at night while viewing through night vision equipment, lack of sleep, faulty equipment (ever have a car not start? coffee maker not work?...batteries run out?...get the wrong mail?) wrong intel, and the decisions are even further from any perfect possibilty.

what makes it interesting is that the terrorist doesnt have that problem, perhaps thats the difference. At best he/she succeeds and kill civilians...what we expect. if they fail, and the IDF catches/kills them, that too is what we expect. So whatever the outcome with a terrorist, it is expected, meaning they meet that perfect expectation.

The "higher standard" is not really a higher standard, it is an impossibility of perfection...and there lies the problem, why are such expectations expected of israel (and the US) when in real life such expectations dont exist.

but i dont understand....if you dont expect them to live up to a standard...what do you expect?..that they will target civilians?....i may "expect it", but its still criminal and i still dont accept it....just as i dont expect it out of the US or israel.


I explained my view as clearly as I possibly know how. Yet yr still acting as though I said I find it acceptable for militant groups anywhere to target civilians....

and the post after to understand.....i just dont agree with the "higher standard"....it cant exist. For if there is such a thing, there must be a "second standard" that your accepting...even though at the sametime your not.

read my post about perfect israeli actions (22)...that i believe is the definition of the "higher standard"

If I thought that, it'd mean that I'd be saying that it's okay for Israeli civilians to be attacked and that's definately not what I think. What I've said is that I expect more from Israel or the US than I would from any terrorist group. It doesn't surprise or shock me when those groups attack civilians, but by virtue of the fact that countries like Israel and the US bind themselves to international law, are democracies where the reaction by their populations to their actions does affect their chances of holding power, etc, I do expect more from them and find it more suprising and shocking when they do violate human rights...

i simply used other words (higher standards) which is also used to explain the different expectations.......I still see the same thing.....you leave no room for mistakes.

mistakes are made all the time: like the time the israeli soldiers let the women with the medical pass go bypass the metal detector because she said she had metal in her leg.....and then she blew herself up and killed the soldiers who were trying to be nice.

or the time the soldier killed the innocent palestinian when he got confused between the guy shooting at him and this other guy.....or perhaps the tankist who put the wrong shell in the cannon.....

israel, the IDF are made up of people and machines..both are not perfect, both react differently to weather, use, pressure, age etc. Its obvious for most that israel does not intentionally kill civilians, nor journalists, nor medics etc. Any expectations would also reasonably take into account that of the 1,000s of missions the IDF undertakes there will be screwups. That too should be part of ones expectations.

that said there are also valid disagreements with the use of munitions and policies that would be inline with violation of human rights.

that you expect less of than Israel? Does Hamas qualify? How about the PLO? They've certainly committed terrorism on a vast scale.

What gets tricky here is that these terrorist groups are not just there to disrupt. They actually represent the Palestinian people to a great extent. We all knew that once Hamas assumed power that they would also be assuming a far greater degree of responsibility than they had previously. So now they have become more than a militray adverary. They are the organization that Israel has to negotiate with in order ro secure any kind of peace, be at a cease fire or a treaty.

What you are saying then is that you hold one party in this conflict to a lower standard. Expecting more from Israel, (or less from Hamas) is one thing. But if you then hold Israel more responsible than Hamas for their actions it becomes an unfair criticism. Look at the Geneva conventions for example. The whole point of them is that nations who commit to certain rules can then expect those rules to be followed by their opponent to the benefit of all. But once your opponent abandons those rules the Geneva conventions become a burden. They give your opponent an incredible advantage that, if exploited well, bind your hands completely.

Consider Gaza and the qassam attacks. One of the Geneva rules prohibits attacking from or hiding weapons in civilian areas. It also prohibits attacking civilian areas. The catch 22 here is that the latter can only be followed if the former is also followed. So if we expect only one side to follow Geneva, then it's a no-brainer for the other side. You hide your weapons among civilians, attack from that area and then mix among the civilians again, relatively safe in the knowlege that your opponent is bound by rules that you are not. If Israel chose to never stray from the high expectations that much of the world has of her then she would find herself in the untenuous position of being unable to respond militarily to any attacks. At all. Unable even to slow the military supply chain of her opponent.

Yet, if Israel did not still make a good faith effort to stick as closely to the rules as possible it would be a whole different story. No one would EVER dream of pulling shit like that except with an opponent who cared about the rules somewhat. Otherwise your citizens become worse than useless protection. They become a liability.

So, Israel is left walking a tightrope where they either have to compromise on defense or human rights expectations. This is not the scenario hoped for by the framers of Geneva. They even made it a point to state that the rules only apply if they are followed by both parties.

Expecting more from Israel is not really any different than saying that you expect them to play by stricter rules. When you then equate those rules with ethics it creates a situation where any way you cut it Israel becomes ethically bankrupt. And as cynical as it is, this effect is well noted and used to great effect by enemies of Israel despite their own stances on human rights being virtually non-existant.

What you are saying then is that you hold one party in this conflict to a lower standard.

I've explained that I don't several times already in this thread. I'm not sure that I can make myself any clearer, so maybe you should go back and reread the thread instead of telling me I'm saying something that I'm definately not saying...

I'll help you by suggesting you start with this reply of mine to pelsar, who first brought up 'standards'and go from there...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=163419&mesg_id=163762

Tell me if this is right.

What you are saying is that regardless of what any terrorist groups do you expect nations like America and Israel to never commit human right violations, right? You see it as independant of whatever terrorist groups choose to do. Just because they operate this way doesn't mean we have to, just like how police are not allowed to break the law despite the fact that the criminals they chase do not have that restriction.

What I am saying is that for Israel to defend herself against organizations like Hamas, (who are the elected government of Palestine now,) they have NO CHOICE but to compromise on human rights regulations. If a nation is in conflict with another nation yet only one of them is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions then it is ridiculous to expect them to follow them to the letter. They can't.

They can conduct themselves better than Hamas does. And they do. But if they refused to commit human rights violations as defined by Geneva then they would be unable to defend themselves at all. Do you see what I mean? Hamas' actions have forced Israel to commit violations. As with the qassam attacks. Israel has the choice between retaliating (into a civilian area where civilians and children will certainly get hurt) and doing nothing.

What you are saying is that regardless of what any terrorist groups do you expect nations like America and Israel to never commit human right violations, right? You see it as independant of whatever terrorist groups choose to do. Just because they operate this way doesn't mean we have to, just like how police are not allowed to break the law despite the fact that the criminals they chase do not have that restriction.

Correct...


What I am saying is that for Israel to defend herself against organizations like Hamas, (who are the elected government of Palestine now,) they have NO CHOICE but to compromise on human rights regulations. If a nation is in conflict with another nation yet only one of them is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions then it is ridiculous to expect them to follow them to the letter. They can't.

Anyone who feels that way has a respect for human rights that's very selective, imo...

its also an impossible situation:

helicopter pilot sees the "newer more accurate kassams about to be launched from an open field, children are also playing in that field and MAY get hurt if he launches a missile. The launched kassam MAY land on a school, as they have in the past.


which is the right decision..... which would you choose if you were that pilot?

id insist on equipping the craft with tear gas or something of this sort. nonviolence right?

Unfortunately, there isn't any non-violent way to assuredly subdue people in a situation like this. Tear gassing them may get them to leave for the time being but that is hardly an effective defence. I'd also like to point out what the headlines would look like if Israel was shown tear gassing children. (You think it would be reported that tear gas was used?) Remember the images of Saddam's air force gassing kurds in strafing runs? This would be a PR nightmare on a level of Israel choosing boxcars to transport Palestinian prisioners. (which they've obviously never done.)

Regardless, the real world is full of situations that don't have any pretty, non-violent options to choose from. This was only one example. Picture this... You're on patrol when you come under fire from a building known to house civilians. Your team is pinned down and can not effectively retreat without engaging. If you return fire you run the highly probable risk of hitting non-combatants. If you don't you may lose some of your soldiers. What to do?

Insisting on stun-rifles is not an option.

israel often uses tear gas against children.

as for your situation, wtf is your patrol doing in the west bank or gaza anyway? its pretty unlikely theyre pinned down as well but i think the default action is to send more jeeps, a bulldozer or two and maybe a tank or APC in and wreak some havoc. id say the damn jeep shouldnt have been there inthe first place.

That there is no rational reason for a jeep being in the WB, (presumably because occupation in itself is unacceptable.) The answer, of course, is to ask what would happen if Israel never sent jeeps into Gaza or took any of the actions you are protesting. Would the conflict never have taken shape? Is the conflict formed by the presence of jeeps in Gaza or are the jeeps in Gaza a reaction to the conflict?

Regardless, you are skirting the issue. In the end you are advocating sending in tanks or whatever to wreak havok. If that is acceptable then there's no need to call for the tanks at all as the team can just fire back themselves. The question is whether you can imagine a scenario where firing at civilian locations is the best possible choice available. The world is full of situations which demand imperfect decisions be made. Take the Qassam firings from Gaza into Israel. Without any sort of military offensive, which you are deploring here, how can Israel protect itself?

im not skirting the issue nor am i ignorant enough to think the IDF doesnt tear gas children or even bring up stun guns. what a stupid idea.
what i wrote was why is the jeep in the WB or gaza in the first place. if your ridiculous scenario of it being pinned down by gun fire wasnt stupid enough you are too are clueless of why it would be in the WB or gaza and try to "skirt the issue" by pointing a finger at me!

in the end i do not advocate to send in tanks.. that is what happens if i team of israelis in "pinned down" or whatever. to answer your ignorance, its not uncommon for special forces to be inside a house and request backup to get out. in this case they do send in more jeeps and maybe a bulldozer. depending on how out of hand the situation is more heavy eqpt is used.

do you understand now why i asked you what the jeep was doing in the first ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????place????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

using "non violent" crowd dispersal methods against people who are insistance upon killing anywhere they can, has been shown not to be very effective....they can still keep on shooting....(although a bit less accurate). Intifada I was the proving grounds for that.

if you asked what is the jeep doing in the WB, the altervative question is begged to be asked.....why are they shooting kassams and now mortars from gaza? the PA agreed to stop the attacks

and do you have a serious suggestion for the israels in Ashkelon? Sederot? and the other surrounding villages? or should the islamic jihad/hamas/fatah be left alone to fire their rockets?

i asked why the jeep was in the WB because if you give me a piece of shit scenario ill give you a piece of shit answer.

why are they shooting mortars from gaza? i dont know but im sure theyve stating their motives more than once. i suggest you listen to them. i thin ki remember hearing something about the ongoing violence in the WB but im sure thats just an excuse... though its not like israelis never use excuses to do shitty things either.

yes i had serious suggstions for rocket attacks but you and both govts shat all over my idea. to be honest the israeli govt doesnt want gaza open nor does the us govt. to actually open the shithole up to aid and programs makes too much sense. its better to starve the crazy bastards and rufuse to give them money thats theirs and when they get pissed off and fire rockets into israel pose a big fat 'gee, i dont know they must be teaching hate'.

to kill israelis and jews.......borders are not really relevant to them, nor are any actions, real or imagined (ask hizballa)...........Actually the jihadnikim didnt even give gaza a chance...you are familiar with the kassams that were launched from day one of the first withdrawl?...and continued after that correct?...the attacks on Karni AFTER israeli left?

and even after the negotiated withdrawal the second time, where the PA promised to guard the borders and stop the kassams, which was good for a single day....until the kassams started again.......

seems they "were pissed" before any money was witheld, before israel even fired a shot, before the borders were closed.....they're firing at israel no matter what israel does...

and thats the shame.....israel did a huge step by removing settlements and leaving gaza....the Palestinians not only did they not take advantage of that, they seemed to have made it clear what their priorities are...and its not the well being of their people....

furtherwithdrawls may even make their lives worse....in gaza the parents are now afraid to send their kids to school, it sure has made israeli lives on the border worse

to sentence the entire gaza strip to further despair or to try and give them an incentive to pick up the pieces and start a life? have you seen this?

slingshothiphop.com

right here, take these kids out of gaza and give them a future. there are many people in gaza who want a normal life... but they dont have the guns. they have nothing to fight back with. why not give them the power to build a society. it isnt over night but in 1 or 5 years they may have something, slowly retiring their guns for a job... but if theres no job than theres no incentive.

you cant put someone in a pile of dirt and tell them to be something. you must help them along. focus on the ones who will make it work. put greater energy into those who are worth it. know what im saying?

First off, Gaza wasn't always closed off like it is now. There used to be a lot more free flow of traffic and goods. The wall was built to cut down on the incidents of terrorism from Gaza, which worked. The Karni crossing which is often closed is a frequent target for attack. When it isn't attacked it stays open.

Secondly, Israel has donated more money to UNRWA than most Arab nations combined. One third of their budget is paid for by America whereas the rest of the Arab world's combined donations equal only 3%. America has been much more involved in the peace process than any other single nation and the current peace process is being pushed forward by the Quartet, America, NATO, the EU and Russia without any real help from any Arab states at all.

When Israel left Gaza they transferred power to the Palestinian Authority, which they helped create, and left infrastructure like economically beneficial greenhouse complexes in place which were stripped for raw materials by Palestinian mobs. International aid organizations are allowed in Gaza and the West Bank by Israel, they don't even usually throw out protesters. However some organizations have had to leave because of violence, such as the Temporary International Presence in Hebron, who were pulled out for awhile following Palestinian attacks sparked by that stupid cartoon thing.

The Egyptian/Gaza border is not controlled by Israel but by the PA and Egypt. Egypt is keeping it closed, not Israel.

The tax receipts you are talking about are going to be transferred, just not to Hamas. Israel is giving it to Abbas instead. He is still the Prime Minister.

The fact of the matter here is that America and Israel have more vested in a peaceful resolution than anyone else aside from the Palestinians themselves. I have no idea what the solution is but there's no way the situaution can be blamed on Israel or America alone. Most of the fighting happening now is an internal struggle for power that has very little to do with the occupation. It's not like they are fighting over resources or food. The leaders of Palestine have famously always had plenty of food and cash. (If you don't believe me just check out Suha Arafat's pad in France. Swanky.) No, they are fighting for control. It's stupid and self-destructive and there is very little that anyone from the outside can do about it. You can't force anyone to desire peace over power.

The peace movement there has always been held captive by the fringe movements. It is easier to disrupt peace than it is to build it. And as long as some individuals have something to gain by fighting and continue to act in their personal best interests instead of everyone's collective best interests the Palestinian movement will be doomed.

Israel, the Quartet and magnanimous Arab states like Jordan can only give the Palestinians the opportunity for peace. Actually achieving it will ultimately fall to them. And unless a Palestinian MLK or Ghandi hops out of the woodwork soon their circumstance may become irreperable.

Israel ultimately controls the border with Egypt and denies access of Gaza Palestinians to the West Bank. The rest of the Gaza is surrounded by a very large electric fence. The vast majority of Gazan Palestinians have no way to leave this 3 mile wide/28 mile long strip. It should be remembered that much of the Palestinian Authority security forces and civil administration was targetted by the IDF both during the second intifida and earlier :

“The crossings agreement (“Movement and Access from Gaza”) signed on 15 November 2005 specified that Rafah crossing would be used for the passage of people in and out of Gaza—but that goods, vehicles and trucks to and from Egypt would have to pass through the Israeli crossing at Kerem Shalom, under full Israeli supervision. As far as people traffic is concerned, entry to the Strip would be permitted only to those holding Palestinian ID. Any foreign nationals would only be allowed to enter “by exception in agreed categories with prior notification to the Government of Israel….The Palestinian Authority will notify the Government of Israel 48 hours in advance of a person in the excepted categories—diplomats, foreign investors, foreign representatives of recognized international organizations and humanitarian cases…….Although there would be no direct Israeli presence in the Rafah crossing, it was agreed that “cameras will be installed to monitor the search process, so that Israel would be able to monitor all movement from its inspection point to a few kilometers away. Effectively, therefore, entry to the Gaza Strip would continue to remain under Israeli control.” Pages 134-135

“The Gaza Strip depends economically on its contact with the West Bank, which involves trucks and goods passing through Erez and Karni crossing on the Gaza-Israel border, making their way to the West Bank through Israel. According to the World Bank’s representative in the occupied territories, Nigel Roberts, “before the Intifada broke out…some 225 trucks a day passed through the crossings, compared to only 35 a day in the six months prior to disengagement. Since the disengagement, however, the situation deteriorated even further…only about a dozen trucks per day have bee allowed into Israel to travel to the West Bank.” Page 136

“The 15 November 2005 agreement did indeed specify that “Israel will allow passage of convoys (to and from Gaza and to and from the West Bank). However this plan was frozen. “Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, said he was disgusted with the situation. There’s no security issue for Israel.” He said. “They will have names submitted in advance, they (Israel) screen the passengers, no one leaves the bused and they’re escorted by Israel to Tarquimiya (in the south of the West Bank)….And how should the Palestinians expect to make an agreement if someone so high up as (Secretary of State) Rice arranges something of so little risk to Israel and nothing happens?” page 137

“The situation in Gaza remained as Mahmoud Abbas described it shortly after the Israeli pullout: “ The Strip is one large prison, and the army’s departure does not change this situation” page 138

from -- The Road Map to Nowhere by Professor Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University -- http://www.amazon.com/Road-Map-Nowhere-Israel-Palestine/dp/1844670767/ref=sr_11_1/002-4750258-7334423?ie=UTF8
_______________

UN report: “Israel violated all articles of Crossings agreement”

"The United Nations office for Human Affairs in the West Bank published a report on Thursday morning accusing Israel of violating every article of the Crossings agreements, and stated that Israel imposed strict siege and closure on the Palestinian people.

The report, marking one year since the agreement was reached, stated that border crossings remained closed most of the year.

Also, the report revealed that the closure caused a significant increase in unemployment in the Gaza Strip since the level jumped from 33.1% in 2005 to 41.8% in 2006." link: http://www.imemc.org/article/22996

.

Thank you. I didn't know that. I've actually been looking around for some more info on what was going on with that border and I've had trouble finding much so I assumed the arrangement was basically being followed except for the few instances I read about.

“The 15 November 2005 agreement did indeed specify that “Israel will allow passage of convoys (to and from Gaza and to and from the West Bank). However this plan was frozen. “Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, said he was disgusted with the situation. There’s no security issue for Israel.”

Well, I'm not so sure about that. Gaza has been a mess lately, I'd imagine there's a pretty big security concern. The problem I have with the accusation that Israel is creating this prison environment in Gaza not for security reasons but on purpose to punish the Palestinians is that it is missing an adequate motive. Israel doesn't want Gaza for itself. Having increased strife and humanitariuan issues there creates more problems for Israel than it solves. Despite what many cynics say it doesn't really benefit Israel in any way to have Fatah and Hamas duking it out. Instability like that ultimately leads to more headaches for Israel and ends up requiring engaging militants in Gaza more often, and Gaza is really dangerous for IDF troops. (And any nation that has mandatory service like Israel does ABSOLUTELY cares about keeping their casualties as low as possible. Nothing hurts a politician's career in Israel like military ineptitude. Just look at Golda or Begin. Or watch what happens to Olmert.)

Set aside the rhetoric for a moment. Israel isn't a country that can afford to gamble on security. They may make unpopular decisions but they seldom make senseless ones. The only reason I've seen anyone put forward for why Israel is oppressing Gaza, (from someone who doesn't buy into the security motive,) has been something like, "Israel hates them and is trying to get them to leave" or "Israel is punishing them for voting in Hamas" or some similar nonsense.

Help me out here. If there isn't an actual security issue, then why is Israel keeping the borders tightly closed and restricting movement in and around Gaza?

at this point in the game neither side knows how to do anything different. israels stalling to get its pieces in order... its finished with its military ops in gaza and just needs to finish up with the WB.

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

Help me out here. If there isn't an actual security issue, then why is Israel keeping the borders tightly closed and restricting movement in and around Gaza?

bigger security issue for the Palestinians. And frankly I believe that in spite of my personal semi-pacifistic inclinations, the security issue will only grow worse and worse as time goes on; perhaps with hills and valleys but the overall trend will only get worse.

I believe Israel has basically four options:

1. They can continue to maintain and expand the colonization of the occupied territories by creating a series of "Gazas" around the West Bank through unilateral disengagements with tightly controlled movement thus nonviable economies. But even Mr. Olmert acknowledges that unilateral disengagement policy has been a disaster. One should remember that the Gaza is not a separate nation from the rest of Palestine anymore than Fallujah is a separate nation from Iraq.

2. They can expel the Palestinians. But one can only guess what they would lead to.

3. They can negotiate the creation of a genuinely viable and independent-sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. But this needs to be done quickly or the two-state solution will not be viable anymore and this solutions will no longer be an option.

4. They can negotiate the creation of a federated Israel-Palestine with full and equal citizenship rights for all.
______________

Note: The reference to Mr.Saeb Erekat's comments were in regards to the chaperoned convoy arrangements making the one and a half hour trip from the Gaza to the West Bank.

.

you know very very little of what actually happens with the occupied territories.

I seem to remember that you are pretty thin on the most basic facts about this conflict.

And you've been there, remind me, how many times?

please help me remember which basic facts am i thin on?

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

heres some additional numbers for you:

District

Rafah

sept 2000- dec 2004

Number of houses completely demolished
1461

Number of houses partially demolished
1087

Number of Palestinians whose houses were totally demolished in Rafah
15360

Number of Palestinians whose houses were partially demolished in Rafah
13457

Source: (Palestinian Center for Human Rights) - PCHRGAZA 2005

Mostly around east Jerusalem because it's most accessible, and then only once to any WB settlements and once to the Golan Heights. (Which, admittedly is a whole different thing. More labneh tasting, less hardship.) I haven't been to Gaza.

Thanks for the house demolition info but I'm pretty up on that stuff. You realize that they haven't been demolishing houses in Rafah since 2004, right? I don't think that just throwing out stats for either side is really helpful in learning about the conflict. I could respond with stats about Israeli deaths from suicide bombing but it's counter productive. More important is understanding the reasons and motives on both sides to realize what is helpful or necessary and what is not. There's been a lot of hardship for everyone, no one side has a monopoly on it.

Douglas, I went to the site for the EU BAM Rafah and it seems like the Rafah crossing is not quite as insane as those quotes made it out to be. Ultimately, sure, Israel has a hand in the security there, but they really aren't physically involved there anymore. I had trouble finding more info on that UN report the website you linked up mentioned. I'm not too sure about that website, dude. Check out EU BAM Rafah's site, there are two press bits on the page I'm linking.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1022&lang=en

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815070.html

snip:"Pistolese urges Israel to ease restrictions on Egypt-Gaza crossing
The head of the European mission monitoring operations at the Egypt-Gaza border, Lt. Gen. Pietro Pistolese, urged Israel on Thursday to stop restricting operations there, saying disruptions only promote "extremism and terror."

Pistolese said Thursday that no weapons have been smuggled through the crossing since it was opened, and that all weapons that were discovered were destroyed.

Since the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June, Pistolese said, the crossing has been open only 39 days. During that time 80,000 people have passed through it, he said, though 550,000 could have used it if it had been open the entire period.

Israel, citing security alerts, has kept the Rafah terminal - Gaza's main gateway to the outside world - closed for about 80 percent of the time since Shalit's capture.

The European monitors at Rafah were deployed as part of a U.S.-brokered agreement of November 2005 that was to ease movement in and out of Gaza. The agreement was reached two months after Israel withdrew from the coastal strip."

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815070.html

If I were an Israeli pilot working under direct orders I'd fire. If I was an Australian pilot I'd be able to refuse to fire because a scenario where there is a possibility that civilians will be hurt allows the pilot to refuse the order to fire. If I were someone in the position of giving the order, the multiple MAYs in that scenario would have me not giving the order to fire...

its up to them to make the decision.....

of course there are mulitple "mays" thats the nature of a low level war. But since your not "firing"...what do you say to the parents of the kids in the school who are now dead? (The kassams are now reaching Ashkelon and have already hit a school)



(thanks for answering...i find it far more interesting than mere statements as well as informative)

and if i'm being presumptious/arrogant i shall apologise if you do answer the post..but heres why i dont believe you will:

because it means that proclaiming your principled values of human rights for all, is flawed in the real world. That real world choices that some people face require decisions that will in fact cause human rights of one group to be violated in order to preserve that of another.

i dont believe you can accept that.....

I've already been through this with you many times, pelsar. A belief that the human rights of Israeli civilians outweighs that of Palestinian civilians is one that's abhorrent to me...

in the past you didnt go into detail...as you stated above about NOT firing to a missile that may hurt palestinian kids in order to stop a missile that may hurt israeli kids.

you made a choice that favors one nationality over another. You prefer the israeli kids take the risk as opposed to the palestinian ones.....isnt that just as abhorrent?

the chances that palestinian many kids will die from a direct missile strike is great. the chances someone will die from a kassam are much much less. if the odds were the same than it would indeed be a much different story.

a large part of the kassams missing is the simple fact that the kassam shooters have very little time to set up, shoot and get out.

Its called bracketing: one shoots one missile, mortar, shell, watch where it falls, adjust fire to go to the other side...after that fire is adjusted, then one fires the larger amounts. This can only be accomplished when the shooters have time.

In gaza they dont, the second one is fired israeli radar records it, and knows where it came from, if there is a helicopter in the air its sent to return fire, hence all they can do is shoot and get out.

if israel were to stop with the pressure....the kassam shooters would have a holiday....and israeli deaths would skyrocket. Furthermore, the kassams range is now increasing to reach the port where chemical tanks are stored. A direct hit may very well kill thousands....and we wont know if its prevented or perhaps israel should just "let it happen" since the odds are less?

However, at least you've come forth with a decision, a moral decision that does actually "rank" who should get the greater risk.

Obviously there is going to be a higher casualty rate on the Palestinian side as they are at a severe military disadvantage. But I disagree with the thought that the discrepency in the amount of people killed or the odds of Israeli vs. Palestinian collateral damage can be factored into these decisions. The end goal is not to achieve an even number of casualties.

Obviously the objective in warfare is to limit casualties to your own side as much as possible. All of the difference in military capability aside, does it matter at all that the Palestinians are essentially waging an offensive war as opposed to the defensive war being waged by Israel? If you disagree with that premise consider that the Palestinian militias are targeting Israeli civilians with the intent of doing as much collateral damage as possible whereas the IDF takes pains to limit collateral damage and strike solely at militants. Obviously if Israel's intent was the same as Hamas' there would be a very different ratio of casualties. So then, considering that the militant's goal is to kill Israeli civilians and the IDF pilot's goal is to stop the militant, how much responsibility for the deaths of Palestinian civilians should fall on the IDF pilot and how much on the Palestinian militant? Does the militant who fires qassams from a densely populated area bear greater responsibility for subsequent collateral damage than the militant who fires his qassams from a more isolated place? Or does the responsibility for preventing civilian casualties fall entirely to the IDF pilot?

If I were someone in the position of giving the order, the multiple MAYs in that scenario would have me not giving the order to fire..

but this is new territory for me to learn and understand. In all my time here, no one has ever taken the discussion this far and made some definitive statements, so please have patience. Its one thing to make nice statements of principle, its very different to apply them in a conflict. So far your the only one who is willing to do it so stay with me.


the "multiple Mays" are on both sides: your missile as the helicopter pilot (or person in charge) may or may not hurt the children in the area, the kassam may do the same to the israeli children.....you have some idea as to what your missile may do, but you have no idea where the kassam may go (for better or for worse).

as i understand your preference is to have the israeli civilians take the greater chance, by not shooting.....is that a fair conclusion?

violent attacks committed by the other side as a result of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

I don't think it is possible or moral to make a judgment especially when it comes to children .

links: http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html

http://civiliancasualties.wordpress.com/2006/12/

I don't think it is possible or moral to make a judgment especially when it comes to children .

if its nothing is done (gaza)...then israeli children/civilians are killed......so the "lack of making a decision" is every much the same as "making a decison"
______

the scenario is real and it has happend and will happen.

jihadnikim launch kassams, with the intent on killing israelis (and when they reach the port with its chemical tank, and the potential to kill thousands?). The helicopter pilot has a choice based on unknowns as i wrote above.


by telling the pilot NOT to shoot (as i believe is your standing)...you've made a moral judgement, your preference is for israelis to take the chance of being killed than palestinians. I have no problem with the your preference, i do with your pretending because you cant make a difficult moral decision, you say "it cant be made".....

given their total lack of accuracy. While Israeli-fired American made missiles fired from an American made helicopter has a very high probability of hitting the target. So in this regard I think the IDF is making the responsible decision.

If one checks the record of both death and injuries in the Gaza and elsewhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories it is quite clear that most of the deaths and injuries, are not the result of preventing either ticking time bombs or stopping the launch of missiles.

this website which I also listed above provides circumstances of all the deaths of all children on either side--killed by either by side in 2006 whether the 152 Palestinian children or 2 Israeli Children -- with further reports going back to 2000 covering the deaths of the 869 Palestinian Children or 122 Israeli children.- link:

http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html

If one checks the record of both death and injuries in the Gaza and elsewhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories it is quite clear that most of the deaths and injuries, are not the result of preventing either ticking time bombs or stopping the launch of missiles.

that makes no sense what so ever.....the main complaint against helicopter missiles is the colllateral damage they cause

the question at hand is should the pilot fire or not....whos children/civilians lives should be risked:

so far by NOT firing which is your position your saying that israelis should be put at risk, not palestinians....let the kassam fall where they may.....

http://www.btselem.org/English/Israeli_Civilians/Qassam_Missiles.asp

"Israel has the right, and even the obligation, to protect its citizens from the attacks. However, in doing so, it must comply with IHL. The laws of war require the sides to direct their attacks only against specific military objects, to take cautionary measures to prevent injury to civilians, and to refrain from acts that are likely to cause incidental loss of civilian lives, when the loss is excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated.

B'Tselem's research indicates that, over the past two years, from June 2004 to July 2006, fourteen civilians (six of them minors) were killed by Qassam gunfire fired by Palestinians into Israeli territory and at settlements in the Gaza Strip. Eight of the casualties were Israelis, five were Palestinians, and one was a Chinese national. The Qassam fire increased appreciably in June and July 2006, causing property damage for the most part. In the four-week period from 26 June – 24 July, IDF actions in the Gaza Strip to cease the Qassam rocket fire caused the death of 126 Palestinians, sixty-three of whom did not participate in the hostilities. Twenty-nine of the casualties were minors.

B'Tselem calls on the prime minister and the minister of defense to order the IDF to take all means of caution necessary to prevent injury to Palestinian civilians resulting from the army's response to Qassam rocket fire. "

link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Israeli_Civilians/Qassam_Missiles.asp

________________________

And again I think this is a good website to look at the circumstances of all deaths of all children from both sides since 2000:



http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html

.

BTselem answer does nothing for the helicopter pilot.....

B'Tselem calls on the prime minister and the minister of defense to order the IDF to take all means of caution necessary to prevent injury to Palestinian civilians resulting from the army's response to Qassam rocket fire. "

that is a very vague answer that means nothing:....the question is simple: shoot and maybe kill civilans, dont shoot and maybe have civilains killed:

how does their "all means of caution necessary" fit in to the pilots decision?....we used to laugh at those kind of orders, making jokes about needing a lawyer next to us.

____

but i am repeating myself, i believe the answers have been made clear: dont shoot, let the kassams fall where they may, have the israeli civilians take the risk. Thats fine, now at least we can stop pretending about being "justice for all"......as i've stated all along, there is no justice for all, and there is a "pecking order" of who should take the risks of being killed.

but you seem to want me to "admit" that I don't consider Israeli children's lives as important as Palestinian children's lives. But I can hardly admit something that I simply don't believe. I simply do not believe that.

One of the whole reasons for wanting a political settlement that will satisfy the need for Palestinian self-determination is to bring security and an end to the killing on both sides.



http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html


.

or that you believe that have israeli children killed is anything worse than having palestinian children or civilians for that matter, i dont either. In a war decisions are made that cost lives and situations arise where decisions have to be made.

Its great for some who dont have to make those decisions, they're lucky (your lucky).....but for others there are decisions that have to be made and arent afraid of making them.

i think for those who refuse to even look at the hypothetical aspects, that they should also limit their criticisms as well.....since they dont actually have answers for those who are playing the game for real.

forced by much grander higher level decisions into making bad lower level decisions -- no matter what decision they make. My fundamental criticism goes to decisions at the very top of policy making. Decisions that put the combatants in that position to begin with. But as far as the individual on the ground or in the case of the pilot in the air, as Bob Dylan's song goes "they're name to blame they -- they're just pawns in the game".




http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html