Abbas: Israeli soldier to be freed

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/06/palestinians.soldier.reut/index.html



"Cpl. Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held by militants in Gaza, will be released soon, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in a television interview on Friday.

"We are undertaking efforts to free Shalit and these efforts will soon come to fruition," Abbas told France 24 television.

Shalit was seized last June in a cross-border raid from Gaza into southern Israel.

"We are optimistic. He will be freed soon," Abbas said."



seems like abbas keeps saying the soldier will be released "soon" but never gives a timetable or more information than that. this isnt the first time we heard stories about the israeli soldiers that are being held illegally going to be released "Soon"

I say illegally because neither hamas in gaza nor hizbollah in lebanon have any authority to arrest or detain anyone as they are illegal armed militas/terror groups.

...operating against the Palestinians? Surely you must recognize someone fighting for their defense?

but in this case hamas was acting independently of the PA.

Well, in the case of Hezbollah it's easier. Lebanon and Israel were not at war, and even if they were, capturing a POW is different than holding someone hostage or for ransom, which is what Hezbollah is doing. They could charge him with a crime, as Israel has done to the Lebanese terrorist Hezbollah wants to free, but that would entail turning him over to the Lebanese government and convincing them to do it. Fat chance. Legally, Hezbollah can't take it upon themselves to start crossing borders and capturing ememies on their own any more than the Branch Davidians or the Republican Party can here. But it's irrelevant because law (or ethics, for that matter) doesn't influence Hezbollah's decisions in the slightest.

But what about Palestine? Legally they are still bound to the Oslo Agreement which allows the PA to have a security force for internal matters. But they're in the weird situation of being legally obligated to use their police to hunt down the very terrorists that the PA is comprised of. So, according to Oslo, they're supposed to be arresting themselves. So since when are they hewing to the law in the first place?

That aside, the PA doesn't have any mandate or authority to start capturing Israelis unless it is to charge them with a crime. They aren't officially at war with Israel and, at any rate, he wasn't captured as a POW or because he committed a crime, he was captured as a hostage to be ransomed. And THAT, if nothing else, is surely illegal. Governments don't have the authority to cross borders to snatch up citizens of another country to be used as bargaining chips, regardless if they are military or not.

You can argue that the PA has the legal right to defend itself against Israeli incursions, which is different. However, nothing about THIS action, (or most of Hamas' military actions actually,) could be considered legal. That is not to say that all of Israel's actions in this conflict are legal either. At some point, the point of criticizing something as merely being "illegal" loses its bite when you start weighing the complex aspects of this conflict against one another. It's illegal... big deal, so's everything. I'm more interested in whether it's helpful or rational or something like that. The whole idea of caring for the law during a war is still pretty abstract anyway. (and absurd, if you ask me.)

You said that governments don't have the right to cross borders and snatch up citizens of another country as bargaining chips. I assume you are equating the PA with a government and the implication is the Occupied territories is their state.

So, can Israel cross the border legally to snatch up Palestinians? Because they do. All the time. Isn't that what 'targeted assassinations" are all about? And since in that case, they murder them, not hold them captive.

At the end you state that the legality doesn't necessarily matter in this case, given the circumstances. But one side is condemned for their actions and they other is not.

if the soldier was held as a POW by a recognized government armed force, authority.


but in both lebanon and gaza, there are soldiers being held hostage by illegal armed militas/terror groups.

. . and snatch up citizens of another country when defending its borders and citizens from attack. It also has a right to kill them under those conditions. It's in the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions.

Governments, or quasi-governments, or militias or "freedom fighters" - do not have the right to cross borders and snatch up or kill citizens of another country when not defending its own borders and citizens from attack.

Such actions are illegal and are considered war crimes.

Your argument seems simplistic and equivalent to saying, "If the cops are trying to stop a bank robbery with deadly force - why is it illegal for the bank robbers to kill some cops?"

I assumed most people would understand this principle but your repeated questions along those lines leave some doubt. Do you think bank robbers should be allowed to kill a few cops - to balance out the advantage that the cops have in numbers and powerful weapons? I am really interested in your answer.

the Occupied territories, then it certainly does explain a lot.

. . relevant to the question at hand - is the situation different from cops and robbers?

OTOH - you made a clear statement that not only is the IDF / Palestinian militant situation not anything like cops and robbers - but that my using that as a metaphor for what's going on in the territories "explains a lot".

I just want to point out that again you've come close to the basis of the problem - and when I ask for an answer to the next logical question along that line - when I ask what you mean by "explains a lot" - the conversation stops.

But, this is the core question isn't it? You see the Palestinian militants as justified in their actions - and I see them as criminals.

Can you just admit that if it's true? Do you see the Palestinian militants as justified in their actions against Israel?

And if so, what principle of law or morality do you think applies in this case? I explained my premise already but I'll even lay it out for you more simply to give you the best possible target.

a) Attacking innocent civilians with the purpose of killing and injuring as many as possible using clearly offensive weapons is a criminal terrorist act.

b) Defending innocent civilians from those attacks - even if some civilians on the other side are killed incidentally - is an honorable and legal act that deserves the support of all peace loving people.

Agree or disagree with a) or b)? If you disagree - justify your conclusion.

Or, if you think I am asking an unfair question - you can say that too - but you should justify that conclusion too.

I'll leave this open for anyone who'd like to offer some input. Here's a chance to get down to the basic assumptions underlying almost every post in this forum and see who's assumptions hold water and who's don't. Any takers?

. . where you say, "The whole idea of caring for the law during a war is still pretty abstract anyway. (and absurd, if you ask me.)"

That's something I have been trying to explain for many months here.

During war no commander is going to make a decision that clearly means that more of the citizens of his country (or his military) are going to die - even if that decision means that more of the enemy's civilians will die as a result.

In the context of this conflict that means that when IDF lives are at risk - as when attempting to arrest or kill militants involved in firing rockets or attempting suicide attacks, etc. - that commander will make decisions that may result in Palestinian civilian deaths.

There are several over-riding concerns in this case that determine moral responsibility for those deaths.

1) The primary responsibility for all deaths that occur in an armed conflict are the responsibility of the party that initiates the violence - for reasons that are obvious to even five year olds. According to this criteria there is no question that all deaths in this conflict are the fault of the Palestinian side. Israel has never stated the intention of attacking Palestine and has never done so except in defense - which is completely legal according to both the UN Charter regarding armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions. Various Palestinian factions including those comprising the PA have continuously reaffirmed their belief that they are justified in attacking Israeli civilians within Israel and have taken credit for those attacks. Every such attack, every Qassam fired into Israel, is a war crime and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

2) When armed conflict occurs, if both sides wish to minimize civilian deaths and injuries they can voluntarily adhere strictly to the Geneva Conventions on warfare and civilian protection. In the context of this conflict, the Palestinian factions see Palestinian deaths as a propaganda tool to elicit sympathy from other nations. They purposely hide in civilian neighborhoods and homes and use those homes for manufacturing weapons and planning operations. When pursued by the IDF they call upon civilians to stand between them and the IDF - inviting the IDF to either kill their civilians - or fail to apprehend their targets. The IDF repeatedly call off their pursuit and allow the terrorists to escape rather than harm Palestinian civilians. There is no question which side operates within self-imposed moral restraint - and which side uses that restraint to their military advantage. And of course - the Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians are the reason that the IDF is there in the first place.

3) The excuse that the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves from "the occupation" is BS. The occupation is completely legal and its mandate is spelled out in UN Res. 242 - which also provides a means to end it. The Palestinians have rejected every offer by Israel to do so.

4) The excuse that the IDF uses disproportionate force in apprehending terrorists is a possible complaint. There are war crimes courts and other venues where charges can be brought if those allegations had merit. The fact that no such credible charges have ever been brought against Israel - except by Israel against its own IDF occasionally for infractions of its own rules of engagement - says much. Another obvious indicator is the relatively low number of Palestinian casualties. A total of about 4000 Palestinians - both militants and civilians - have dies in the conflict over the last seven years. In contrast, Jordan wiped out 10,000 Palestinians in three days (Black September). The UN and Geneva Conventions both give much leeway to the party that is defending the lives of its citizens and its territory from attack. Aside from any legal considerations - no state can be seriously asked to moderate its defense for any rules or laws that would risk a failure to defend its citizens and its sovereignty. When a state can't defend its citizens and sovereignty from armed attack it effectively no longer exists as a state - which is of course, the intention of the Israel's Arab enemies.

5) The excuse that more Palestinians die in these clashes or that Israel has more powerful weapons is also completely beside the point. I invite anyone who favors this view to provide an example where a court has ever determined culpability for war crimes based on those factors - or any Conventions on War that say that states with larger armies are not allowed to defend themselves against attacks from states with smaller armies.

The moral and legal culpability in this conflict is crystal clear I believe, to all but those who claim that whatever Israel does, Israel is always wrong.

The moral and legal culpability in this conflict is crystal clear I believe, to all but those who claim that whatever Israel does, Israel is always wrong.

To realise that the moral and legal culpability in this conflict lies with both sides does not mean that they're someone who thinks that whatever Israel does is always wrong. I'm going to address a few of the points you made, but first I'm going to point out that any sort of argument as to why it's silly to care about the law during a war is a flawed argument. It's not possible to pick a side, claim that the side picked is one of morality and innocence, and then to argue that while there's really no reason why that side should have to respect or adhere to laws that are in place to try to protect civilians in armed conflicts, the other side should adhere to all laws, and the fact that they don't means that Israel doesn't need to either. The argument should be that civilians, no matter whether they're Israeli or Palestinian, deserve protection, and that combatants should not be viewed as more deserving of protection than them.

1) The primary responsibility for all deaths that occur in an armed conflict are the responsibility of the party that initiates the violence - for reasons that are obvious to even five year olds. According to this criteria there is no question that all deaths in this conflict are the fault of the Palestinian side. Israel has never stated the intention of attacking Palestine and has never done so except in defense - which is completely legal according to both the UN Charter regarding armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions.

Maybe it is that crystal clear to five year olds with an interest in the I/P conflict, but older and more mature folk generally see complex issues like that in shades that aren't just black and white. First off, I've never heard of any bit of international law that states that the primary responsibility for all deaths in an armed conflict lie with the party that instigates the violence, mainly because in most cases there can be widely varying views as to which party instigated the violence. Even if what you said about Israel never attacking any Palestinian territory except in defence was correct (which it's not), that logic would lead to the conclusion that the US is primarily responsible for all deaths that occurred and are still happening in Iraq, as the US instigated the violence by invading Iraq. When yr argument is used to dole out responsibility for deaths in Iraq, it'd be laying blame with the US for every killing carried out by militants. I've always been totally opposed to the invasion of Iraq, think the US is responsible for a lot of deaths there, but there is no way I think the US is responsible for the deaths of people killed in militant attacks. The responsibility for those deaths lies with the militants carrying out the attacks, just like the responsibility for deaths caused by the Israeli military lies with Israel...

2) When armed conflict occurs, if both sides wish to minimize civilian deaths and injuries they can voluntarily adhere strictly to the Geneva Conventions on warfare and civilian protection. In the context of this conflict, the Palestinian factions see Palestinian deaths as a propaganda tool to elicit sympathy from other nations. They purposely hide in civilian neighborhoods and homes and use those homes for manufacturing weapons and planning operations. When pursued by the IDF they call upon civilians to stand between them and the IDF - inviting the IDF to either kill their civilians - or fail to apprehend their targets. The IDF repeatedly call off their pursuit and allow the terrorists to escape rather than harm Palestinian civilians. There is no question which side operates within self-imposed moral restraint - and which side uses that restraint to their military advantage. And of course - the Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians are the reason that the IDF is there in the first place.

Neither side in this conflict respects or adheres to the Geneva Conventions. And both sides see the deaths of their own civilians as propaganda tools. The use of human shields by Palestinian militants is wrong, but painting a picture of a caring IDF that goes out of its way to not cause harm to Palestinian civilians is incorrect. If there were just a few instances of Palestinian civilians being killed by the IDF and their deaths being reported in the media as being bystanders, I'd be more inclined to think the IDF does try to protect Palestinian civilians from harm, but civilians have been killed far too often for it to be down to anything else but a complete indifference as to the fate of civilians. The fact that the Israeli military last year shortened the area between their firing and civilian homes says a fair bit as to the disregard for civilians...

3) The excuse that the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves from "the occupation" is BS. The occupation is completely legal and its mandate is spelled out in UN Res. 242 - which also provides a means to end it. The Palestinians have rejected every offer by Israel to do so.

It's not an excuse and neither is it bullshit. All occupied people have a right to resist occupation, and there's no special rule that says the Palestinians luck out while everyone else gets that right...

While the occupation is legal (settlement building on the other hand isn't), 242 also calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops. And Israel has only once made any offer to end the conflict, and it's arguable as to how serious an offer that was when it came to making a realistic and fair offer...

4) The excuse that the IDF uses disproportionate force in apprehending terrorists is a possible complaint. There are war crimes courts and other venues where charges can be brought if those allegations had merit. The fact that no such credible charges have ever been brought against Israel - except by Israel against its own IDF occasionally for infractions of its own rules of engagement - says much. Another obvious indicator is the relatively low number of Palestinian casualties. A total of about 4000 Palestinians - both militants and civilians - have dies in the conflict over the last seven years. In contrast, Jordan wiped out 10,000 Palestinians in three days (Black September). The UN and Geneva Conventions both give much leeway to the party that is defending the lives of its citizens and its territory from attack. Aside from any legal considerations - no state can be seriously asked to moderate its defense for any rules or laws that would risk a failure to defend its citizens and its sovereignty. When a state can't defend its citizens and sovereignty from armed attack it effectively no longer exists as a state - which is of course, the intention of the Israel's Arab enemies.

And who defines what is a *credible* charge? The same folk who insist that killing kids on their way to and from school for example is somehow a tragic but unavoidable result of apprehending terrorists?

Can you point out where the Geneva Conventions gives leeway to Israel?

5) The excuse that more Palestinians die in these clashes or that Israel has more powerful weapons is also completely beside the point. I invite anyone who favors this view to provide an example where a court has ever determined culpability for war crimes based on those factors - or any Conventions on War that say that states with larger armies are not allowed to defend themselves against attacks from states with smaller armies.

But you just argued in point 4 that more Palestinians died during Black September than have died at the hands of Israel, so it doesn't make sense to then turn around and say that it's irrelevent that more Palestinians than Israelis have died in this conflict...

I'm not sure what view people are supposed to be holding where you'd want the examples you asked for, because to me none of what you've asked for is relevent to this conflict...

My post that you say is "totally wrong" consists of several carefully worded paragraphs in response to a post by Shaktiman - where I was expanding on and agreeing with what he said. Although I generally see the gist of your disagreement and I'd like to debate it with you - your reply mostly lays out a series of false accusations - like I think international laws are silly, for example - and straw-man arguments that largely avoid the actual points I made to support my conclusion.

In short, your post says I am wrong but fails to clearly show why in any way useful for debate. You have offered many words that could take several days to dissect and refute. Rather than waste my time to find the few points that were relevant (there were some ) and separate them from the many straw men - which would require a lot of effort and judgment calls on my part I'll just give you another shot at them.

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

There are several over-riding concerns in this case that determine moral responsibility for those deaths.

1) The primary responsibility for all deaths that occur in an armed conflict are the responsibility of the party that initiates the violence - for reasons that are obvious to even five year olds. According to this criteria there is no question that all deaths in this conflict are the fault of the Palestinian side. Israel has never stated the intention of attacking Palestine and has never done so except in defense - which is completely legal according to both the UN Charter regarding armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions. Various Palestinian factions including those comprising the PA have continuously reaffirmed their belief that they are justified in attacking Israeli civilians within Israel and have taken credit for those attacks. Every such attack, every Qassam fired into Israel, is a war crime and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

2) When armed conflict occurs, if both sides wish to minimize civilian deaths and injuries they can voluntarily adhere strictly to the Geneva Conventions on warfare and civilian protection. In the context of this conflict, the Palestinian factions see Palestinian deaths as a propaganda tool to elicit sympathy from other nations. They purposely hide in civilian neighborhoods and homes and use those homes for manufacturing weapons and planning operations. When pursued by the IDF they call upon civilians to stand between them and the IDF - inviting the IDF to either kill their civilians - or fail to apprehend their targets. The IDF repeatedly call off their pursuit and allow the terrorists to escape rather than harm Palestinian civilians. There is no question which side operates within self-imposed moral restraint - and which side uses that restraint to their military advantage. And of course - the Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians are the reason that the IDF is there in the first place.

3) The excuse that the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves from "the occupation" is BS. The occupation is completely legal and its mandate is spelled out in UN Res. 242 - which also provides a means to end it. The Palestinians have rejected every offer by Israel to do so.

4) The excuse that the IDF uses disproportionate force in apprehending terrorists is a possible complaint. There are war crimes courts and other venues where charges can be brought if those allegations had merit. The fact that no such credible charges have ever been brought against Israel - except by Israel against its own IDF occasionally for infractions of its own rules of engagement - says much. Another obvious indicator is the relatively low number of Palestinian casualties. A total of about 4000 Palestinians - both militants and civilians - have died in the conflict over the last seven years. In contrast, Jordan wiped out 10,000 Palestinians in three days (Black September). The UN and Geneva Conventions both give much leeway to the party that is defending the lives of its citizens and its territory from attack. Aside from any legal considerations - no state can be seriously asked to moderate its defense for any rules or laws that would risk a failure to defend its citizens and its sovereignty. When a state can't defend its citizens and sovereignty from armed attack it effectively no longer exists as a state - which is of course, the intention of the Israel's Arab enemies.

5) The excuse that more Palestinians die in these clashes or that Israel has more powerful weapons is also completely beside the point. I invite anyone who favors this view to provide an example where a court has ever determined culpability for war crimes based on those factors - or any Conventions on War that say that states with larger armies are not allowed to defend themselves against attacks from states with smaller armies.

The moral and legal culpability in this conflict is crystal clear I believe, to all but those who claim that whatever Israel does, Israel is always wrong.

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

If you actually want to debate my conclusion stated at the beginning and again at the end - with very clear supporting evidence in between - please pick what you see as the crux of my argument and show clearly why you think it is wrong. Maybe we can get somewhere with this. I hope you take me up as I am interested in a clear statement of your beliefs at this level of moral culpability.

You claim I said yr post was totally wrong, yet I started my post by saying that yr LAST STATEMENT was totally wrong. And it was such a completely wrong statement that I'm going to ask you to go back and read my post...

I addressed each point you made in yr post clearly and rationally. I have pointed out why I think the points are wrong, and I'm not sure why I'm being asked to respond to each point when I already have...

As for claiming that I'm incorrect for thinking that you see international law as silly and not something Israel should have to adhere to, maybe you can clarify what you meant by this comment where you agreed with Shakti "I agree with your statements. Especially where you say, "The whole idea of caring for the law during a war is still pretty abstract anyway. (and absurd, if you ask me.)"

However, that was my summary statement and in that sense you are effectively saying that my whole post was wrong.

After re-reading the two posts my observation still holds. Your post is very difficult to decipher and does contain many straw men. I am telling you that I am eager to address your (relevant) points. And I am politely asking that you summarize them or pick the most relevant.

Your posts tend to hit in many different directions at once and it is difficult to sort out the parts worth responding to. It requires judgment calls that I'd rather not make since it was your post.

So, I'm asking again. In the interest of good debate could you rewrite your post so that your main point is stated first - followed by evidence that supports it - and then perhaps a restatement of your main point (that you just laid out the evidence for). That way I can focus on your main argument (which I am sure you'd prefer) and not become distracted by so much extra stuff.

VC: "As for claiming that I'm incorrect for thinking that you see international law as silly and not something Israel should have to adhere to, maybe you can clarify what you meant by this comment where you agreed with Shakti "I agree with your statements. Especially where you say, "The whole idea of caring for the law during a war is still pretty abstract anyway. (and absurd, if you ask me.)"

This is an example of what I was discussing above. While Shakti's statement could be taken to mean that Shakti and I both agree that international law is silly and not something Israel should have to adhere to - I don't think that's what Shakti meant and I know it's not what I meant.

Shakti's was a philosophical statement about the absurdity - that people involved in a war where their lives and the life of their state is under attack - would make a decision that would potentially give victory to their enemies rather than break some law. It is a nuanced question that requires some thinking on different levels. It requires the ability to put yourself into the position of someone facing questions of the life and death of themselves, their families and their enemies.

Your insistence on taking it in a way that shows some desire to excuse Israel of any need to comply with international law - IMO shows a recurrent theme in your posts. Rather than focus on the main thrust of your opponents' words - you tend to search for statements that could be taken in some way to discredit the person or their argument - no matter how obvious it is that they meant it differently - sometimes even after they explicitly clarify their meaning.

You show a good ability to put your thoughts into written words so I know it's not careless writing on your part. I just think conversations with you would be more productive if you would put more energy into understanding your adversaries' meaning and argue against that meaning (you can always ask for clarification if it is not clear) - and not choose some malevolent interpretation of it which may be easier to argue against and that serves to sidetrack the discussion - perhaps away from areas that would be more difficult for you to address.

Good debate requires a charitable interpretation of your opponents' meaning. That way when you disprove their assertions you are disproving the meaning they prefer and not some straw man you have erected.

. . statement of your argument, there are some parts that I think I can comment on while I'm waiting. Especially those concerning the larger question of culpability for starting wars of aggression and overall moral questions. I started gathering this stuff piece by piece but then found that Wiki had already done a pretty good job of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace

Definition

No legal authority exists for the definition of the terms "territorial integrity", "political independence" and "sovereignty". However, their face value would seem to disclose the following:

* a - The "territorial integrity" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent permanently to deprive a state of any part or parts of its territory, not excluding territories for the foreign affairs of which it is responsible;

How else could one define attacks specifically designed and carried out to kill the citizens of Israel to deprive Israel for carrying out its responsibility for the disputed territories - among other aims.

* b - The "political independence" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to deprive a state of the entirety of one or more of the prerequisites of statehood, namely: defined territory, permanent population, constitutionally independent government and the means of conducting relations with other States;

* c - The "sovereignty" rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to overthrow the government of a state or to impede its freedom to act unhindered, as it sees fit, throughout its jurisdiction.

The disputed territories occupied by Israel are part of Israel's lawful jurisdiction. What else are attacks against the IDF and attempts to smuggle bombs into Israel and the firing of rockets into Israel from those territories?

This definition of the crime of aggression belongs to jus cogens, which is supreme in the hierarchy of international law and, therefore, it cannot be modified by, or give way to, any rule of international law but one of the same rank. An arguable example is any rule imposing a conflicting obligation to prevent, interdict or vindicate crimes which also belong to jus cogens, namely aggression itself, crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, slavery, torture and piracy, so that a war waged consistent with the aim of repressing any of these crimes might not be illegal where the crime comes within the limit of proportionality relative to war and its characteristic effects.

This means that no rules or laws that limit Israel's defense (other than laws on the same level such as laws against targeting civilians with no military purpose) are permissible because Israel is the defender - not an aggressor. That is the answer to your question about the laws favoring Israel.

Kellogg-Briand Pact

In 1927, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, known as the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, said:

The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

Nuremberg Principles

In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used by Finnish courts to prosecute the aggressors in the War-responsibility trials in Finland. The principles were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

The PA has agreed several times over the years to halt aggression against Israel - and has violated all those agreements and continues to do so as we speak. Hamas came into power specifically stating that they had no intention of honoring any previous agreements of the PA with Israel.

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under .

The PA that consists of Hamas that has taken credit for deadly attacks against Israeli civilians includes in its charter a pledge to continue doing so and calling upon other Muslims and Arabs to help. (Conspiracy.)

For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II. One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law of jus cogens. It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after 1945.

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

United Nations Charter

The United Nations Charter says in Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations' Charter, which states in article 2, paragraph 4 that

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 33

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

They did this specifically in Res 242 which the Palestinians and Arab states involved rejected with the Khartoum Resolutions. "No recognition, no negotiation, no peace."

"The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country."

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

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

Unless you want to claim that the UN repudiates its own Resolution (242) then the PA and the Arab states supporting it are generally in violation of war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. I'd like to see any other way to credibly interpret these laws.

especially the children.

so you feel that all 9000 Palestinian prisoners should be released, regardless of why they ended up in an israeli jail?

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

1. How many Palestinian prisoners are there?

As of August 8, 2006, there are 9,273 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons or detention camps. (2) Of these prisoners, 351 are children under the age of 18, (3) 75 are women and 42 are over the age of 50. Of the total number of prisoners, 433 Palestinians, who were imprisoned prior to the signing of the Oslo Accords, remain in prison despite the Accords’ call for their release. (4) The prisoners include members of the elected Palestinian Legislative Council.

2. Haven’t Palestinian prisoners been convicted of serious offenses against Israel?

In fact, of the 9,273 prisoners currently held by Israel, only an estimated 1,800 have actually been put on trial and convicted of any offense at all. According to Amnesty International, these trials often fall short of international standards for fair trials. (5)

Israel currently holds an estimated 800 Palestinians detained in prison camps who have not been charged with any crime under what is called “administrative detention.” Administrative detention violates international law. (6) Administrative detention orders may last for up to six months, with Palestinians held without charge or trial during this period. (7) Israel routinely renews the detention orders and may renew the orders without limitation, thereby holding Palestinians without charge or trial indefinitely. (8) During this period, detainees may be denied legal counsel. While detainees may appeal their detention, neither they nor their attorneys are allowed access to the State’s evidence, or know the purpose of the detention – thereby rendering the appeals procedure virtually useless.

3. Don’t most Palestinian prisoners have “blood on their hands”?

No. The vast majority of Palestinian prisoners are political prisoners who have been arbitrarily imprisoned or detained for no legitimate security reason, but for political expression, peaceful resistance or simply because they are Palestinian. According to B’Tselem:

“Security is interpreted in an extremely broad manner such that non-violent speech and political activity are considered dangerous... is a blatant contradiction of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion guaranteed under international law. If these same standards were applied inside Israel, half of the Likud party would be in administrative detention.” (9)


Furthermore, of those Palestinians currently being held, the overwhelming majority have not been put on trial.

Many Palestinians are arrested arbitrarily. For example, from February to March 2002, approximately 8,500 Palestinians were arrested arbitrarily. In many cities, all Palestinian males from the ages of 15 to 45 were rounded up and detained or imprisoned. Palestinians were blindfolded, handcuffed tightly with plastic handcuffs and forced to squat, sit or kneel for prolonged periods of time. Mass arrests and detention of this type have been condemned by Amnesty International as a breach of human rights.

http://imeu.net/news/article002597.shtml

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

are being held. Whatever. The fact is, if ANY person is being held without charge they ought to be released.

or charged/brought to trial.

lets not forget that latter part.

Or do they get to hold people for exorbitant amounts of time for no reason? That sounds like Guantanamo type justice but certainly not democratic justice.

US incarceration rate = 5/100,000 = .5 percent
Palestinians in IDF or IPS prisons = 9000/3,000,000 = .3 percent

Israelis only incarcerate 60 percent as many Palestinians as the US incarcerates their own citizens.

"As of 2005, drug offenders accounted for 55 percent of the federal prison population. About 45 percent of them were in prison for possession, not trafficking."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/06/02/con-nation-illustrated/


The Palestinian prisoners in question are classified as "security detainees" and many would be considered political prisoners. Approximately 20% of the total Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories have spent at least some time as "security detainees" in Israeli prisons. According to Amnesty International, tens of thousands have been tortured. link: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engact400012003

This is entirely different than the kind of prisoners in U.S. prisons. Although I would have to agree that the U.S. record for locking up so many people even for drug offenses and other matters is shocking.

http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Factsheets/Miftah/English/Prisoners.pdf

http://www.addameer.org/index_eng.html

http://sumoud.tao.ca/

"By Gideon Levy, Haaretz, Thu., March 22, 2007
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/840943.html

What won`t the Shin Bet security service do to break the spirit of a Palestinian detainee? Before, interrogators used threats and told detainees that their loved ones were being arrested because of them. Now they even put on the show. Under false pretenses, agents brought the wife and the aged father of a security detainee to a Shin Bet interrogation facility, where they forced him to remove his kaffiyeh in order to humiliate him, then dressed him in a prisoner`s uniform, held him by both arms and, through a window, displayed him to his son, who has been kept for weeks in isolation, without the opportunity to meet with a lawyer. The result: Prisoner M. launched a hunger strike. He has attempted to kill himself in his cell three times, twice by bashing his head against the wall and once by hanging."

"The statistics presented above indicate the number of Palestinian minors who are residents of the Occupied Territories held by the IDF on the specific date listed. B'Tselem does not have statistics on the total number of minors held by the IDF in a particular month. B'Tselem also does not have statistics on minors held by the Israeli Police. "

http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Minors_in_IDF_Detention.asp

However Defense of Children International: Israel/Palestine Division came out with this recent report:

link to full report from Defense of Children International: Israel/Palestine Division:

http://www.dci-pal.org/english/doc/Reports/2007/ChildPrisoners2006.doc

"In 2006, Israel continued its policy of arresting and imprisoning Palestinian children. Some 700 Palestinian children (under 18) were arrested by Israeli soldiers over the course of the year. Of these, around 25 children were held on administrative detention orders, imprisonment without charge or trial. The overwhelming majority of those arrested in 2006 were boys; there were eight girl child prisoners who served sentences at different points during the year. Of these, four had been arrested in 2006.

At any given point during the year, there were between 340 and 420 Palestinian children held in Israeli prisons and detention centers in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), with around 380 held at the end of the year. Of these, around 300 were being held in central prisons, either pending trial or after having been sentenced. The remaining 80 were being held in interrogation and detention centers. The number of children arrested in 2006 brings the total number of Palestinian children arrested by Israel since the beginning of the second Intifada in September 2000 to approximately 5,200.

Palestinian child political prisoners routinely face violations of their human rights during the arrest through imprisonment process. They are exposed to physical and psychological abuse, often amounting to torture. They are denied prompt access to an attorney and often denied contact with their families and the outside world. Many are held without charge or trial. They face substandard, often inhumane, conditions of detention, both in the facilities where they are initially held and interrogated and in those where they await trial and serve their sentence. Moreover, they are frequently denied access to proper medical care. In many cases, the arrest, interrogation and imprisonment experience has psycho-social effects that extend far beyond the period of detention. "

snip:"In 2006, there were significant changes in patterns related to the major charge on which Palestinian children were tried. The percentage of closed cases dealing with the three most serious categories of charges (attempting to kill an Israeli, possession of explosives and possession of weapons) dramatically decreased (see Table 5). At the same time, the percentage of closed cases in which the major charge was stone throwing dramatically increased, from 22.2% in 2005 to 63.8% in 2006.

Based on the striking shifts in charges, one might have expected that sentence lengths would show similarly significant shifts, but this was not the case. On the contrary, sentence lengths actually increased in 2006. This is due to a number of reasons, including a new military prosecutor at one of the courts who advocated harsher sentences for Palestinian children, and an increasingly tense political situation, in general. It is indicative of the extent to which sentence lengths issued by the Israeli military court system often have less to do with the charge before the court than with the overall political situation. "

snip:"Once the child is taken into Israeli custody, he/she is almost always blindfolded and handcuffed and transported to an interrogation center, generally, without being allowed any contact with his/her family and without recourse to an attorney. In many cases, the child is beaten while being transferred to interrogation.

In most cases, Palestinian children are taken immediately to interrogation upon arrival at an interrogation center. Given that many children are arrested in the evening or in early morning hours, these interrogation sessions often begin after midnight. The various steps that have taken place prior to interrogation, namely the violent arrest and transfer process, are calculated to assist in bringing about a quick confession from the child detainee.

Though Israel is a State Party to the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the universal ban on torture forms part of customary international law, the Israel Security Service (ISS) continues to use torture in its interrogations of Palestinian political prisoners, including children. Torture has been a key part of Israel’s interrogation of these prisoners for decades. At various times, Israel has relied more on physical forms of torture than on psychological methods, which are currently most commonly used. However, irrespective of whether the abuse is physical or psychological, torture in all of its forms is banned. "

link to full report from Defense of Children International: Israel/Palestine Division:

http://www.dci-pal.org/english/doc/Reports/2007/ChildPrisoners2006.doc


.

first off, is crappy. B'tselem is a trustworthy pro-palestinian resource. I don't agree with them on everything, but I trust their motive which is important.

I have to admit, I didn't know much about administrative detention before, so I looked it up. Here's what I found.

Within sovereign Israel, the Defense Minister has the authority to issue Administrative Detention orders for up to 6 months in cases where there is a reasonable chance that the person harms the security of the state. The same Minister has the authority to renew such orders. Likewise, the Chief of the General Staff can issue such orders, but valid for only 48 hours. Law enforcement authorities have to show cause within 48 hours (in a hearing behind closed doors). Administrative Detention orders can be appealed to the District Court and, if denied there, to the Israeli supreme court (baga"tz). The District Court can annul such orders if it finds the admin. det. occurred for reasons other than security (e.g., common crimes, or the exercise of freedom of expression).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_detention

OK, so they get reviewed by a judge. I checked out the geneva conventions next.

Art. 78. If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment.

Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal for the parties concerned. Appeals shall be decided with the least possible delay. In the event of the decision being upheld, it shall be subject to periodical review, if possible every six months, by a competent body set up by the said Power.

Protected persons made subject to assigned residence and thus required to leave their homes shall enjoy the full benefit of Article 39 of the present Convention.


So it is expressly allowed under Geneva. What's wrong?

You still changed the subject. If someone has been convicted, why is it OK, much less desirable to release them as Tom wants? Why all 9000?

http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Minors_in_IDF_Detention.asp

The total number of children below the age of sixteen being held in IDF detention - zero.

The total between 16 and 18 yo - 12.

Of course we all know that Palestinian children over the age of 16 are far too innocent to be involved in violence against Israel. :sarcasm:

Other minors are being held in the Israeli Prison System. The latest stats show 356 between ages 16 and 18 and 41 under 16.

Tom has favoured nothing of the sort. Is there some reason you think this comment from the mods doesn't apply to you?

'please do not spend time arbitrarily trying to parse subliminal meaning from people's words and making assumptions as a result. Jumping in with both feet can easily throw up as much mud on yourself as the person you are commenting about. Making something more inflammatory is likely to draw as much, if not more attention, your way than the original post.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x171386

It's totally ridiculous that you could think for a second that anyone in this forum favours the release of any rapist. Somehow I doubt you do think that, btw...

Why does Tom want convicted terrorists and murderers to be released. That is precisely what he said. All 9000. That clearly includes the worst Palestinian terrorists picked up and convicted by Israel. Now, WHY the fuck is it good to release them exactly?

How about going and reading that thread that discusses exactly what yr doing right now? Accusing another poster of wanting something it's very clear they wouldn't want based on a deliberate misinterpretation of something they've said speaks volumes to me about the lack of willingness on the part of some to engage in any sort of constructive discussion.

Try sticking to what people actually say for a change instead of inventing disgusting stances and insisting that's what they think or want.

he doesn't care whether or not any of the 9000 people he demands released from prison are guilty of any crimes? He is saying that 9000 people should be released on the basis of their being Palestinian. I want to know why he doesn't merely want "innocent people" to be released and if so, then why is he only concerned with Palestinians? It seems like he is possibly assuming that all Palestinians are innocent, which is absurd though. The only other possibility is that he doesn't care if they are innocent.

So I want to know what the score is. I'm quite sure he can defend himslef violet, if he cares to even answer for once.
So just try and relax until he decides whether or not to defend his statements.

Accusing another poster of wanting something it's very clear they wouldn't want

Now who's mind reading, hmmmm.
We know for a fact that there are murderers among the very people that Tom advocates releasing in entirety. So it seems he does, in fact, want it. It is the sole result of the action he is supporting.

Here's what I want to know. Why you'd think that a DUer would think that any rapist should walk free from a prison? If you don't comprehend what's so offensive about you twisting a post of Tom's into him thinking something that he doesn't for a second think, then here's a fucking important question for you to answer. Why is it that you think yr immune from the comments Lithos made in that other thread?

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

The usual poisonous accusations being "you support the murder of Israeli Jews", or "you support the
right of Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians", or "you support the extermination of Jews", or "you
support the establishment of a Judenfrei Palestine" or "your premise is that Israel should relax its
restrictions in the territories and allow more Israeli civilians to be killed by terrorist attacks."

edit- double click.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=785371

Twenty-four hours before the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit, Israel Defense Forces soldiers broke into the home of Mustafa Abu Ma'amar in Rafah. Special forces soldiers arrested him and his brother in their respective homes.

A few weeks later, Abu Ma'amar told an attorney for the Public Committee Against Torture: "One or two days later (I discovered afterward that it was the same morning the soldier had been kidnapped), three interrogators came to where I was held at 6 A.M. . They didn't ask me anything, just started kicking and hitting me while an interrogator named Moti grabbed me by the neck and throttled me until I thought I was going to die. The other two grabbed me and forcibly removed me."

The interrogators later used the "exercise technique," as Abu Ma'amar calls it. "They forced me to hold my legs to the chair legs, with the back of the chair to my right and nothing supporting my back. They pushed my back backwards and told me to 'exercise.' It made my stomach muscles cramp up and caused unbearable pain," Abu Ma'amar explained.

The interrogators asked about the tunnels that he had helped dig, "while cursing me and my mother and father and threatening to demolish my house if I didn't cooperate. They also told me they had arrested my brother and were torturing him."

Palestinian men, women, and children.
http://www.amnesty.org.il/reports/MDE_4.html

Reports indicate that treatment of Palestinians detained during Operation Defensive Shield was even more cruel and degrading than during the previous incursions. Scores of detainees were not only forced to take off their shirts and trousers but also forced to remain for hours or even days dressed only in their underclothes. Also, unlike the previous incursions, most detainees remained in custody incommunicado in poor conditions. Administrative detention orders began to be imposed on those held and by May the number of Palestinians held in administrative detention without charge or trial was more than 10 times the February figure. On 10 April the detention camp of Ketziot (also known as Ansar III) in the Negev desert was reopened. On 5 May the IDF figures of those still in detention were 2,350, divided between Ofer (870), Ansar III (548) Megiddo (831) and 99 said to be in other detention centres (in Israeli settlements or elsewhere). The shift in the pattern of mass arrests and detentions between the first and second wave of is shown by the figures. Most of those detained during the first incursions were released within a few days -- of around 2,500 arrested, some 135 remained held. During Operation Defensive Shield a far larger proportion of the more than 6,000 Palestinians arrested remained in detention: of the 2,350 still held on 5 May (the number detained by the GSS is not known) the vast majority were held without charge or trial.

Amnesty International considers that the mass arrests and detentions carried out during March and April 2002 were arbitrary. The detention of those arrested without charge and without the right to take proceedings before a court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of the detention, constitutes arbitrary detention. The small number of those who remained in detention during the first incursions (135 out of some 2,500 arrested) and the figures given by the IDF during Operation Defensive Shield (that out of 4,185 detained there were 121 “wanted militant suspects) also strongly suggest the detentions were arbitrary and may have been carried out as an act of collective punishment.

And don't fall into the trap of thinking "soon" is a noise that only comes from one side, coz it doesn't....

You say illegally, but attempts to try to portray the capture of an Israeli soldier as illegal or terrorism only indicate that in some quarters there's an expectation that Israeli troops are not legitimate targets. While civilian targets are not legitimate targets, military ones are, and the Palestinian people have a right to resist occupation, something some people seem to want to ignore....

Interesting. Because the PA is not supposed to be resisting, they are supposed to be working with the Israelis. So as you see it, Palestinians can resist, breaking their treaties, yet Israel is required to allow them aid (to be spent on weapons) and facilitate the resistance in any way possible as though it was not an act of war?

The PA is supposed to be ENDING terrorism, not enabling it. And they do NOT have the right to attack military targets in illegal ways such as holding people hostage or using irregular troops that fall outside of regular military units obeying rules of war. But you only seem to care about that sometimes, right?

This was a Hamas attack, not a PA attack, in Israeli territory where they kidnapped a soldier, violating a peace treaty without governmental approval. How exactly is that legal resistance?

Was Gaza even occupied when they kidnapped Shalit? No, I don't believe it was.

Source: Associated Press

Captors of Israeli Soldier Make Demands


Saturday April 7, 2007 8:16 PM

AP Photo AKCF107, AKCF108

By KARIN LAUB

Associated Press Writer

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - After months of deadlock, the captors
of an Israeli soldier handed over the names of Palestinian prisoners
they want freed in exchange for the hostage, a senior Palestinian
official said Saturday.

The release of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit is seen as a precondition for
any possible progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. A swap could
also help the new Palestinian unity government, a coalition of the
Islamic militant Hamas and the moderate Fatah movement, in its quest
for international acceptance.

Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti did not say how many
names were on the kidnappers' list, which he said was forwarded to Israel
by Egyptian mediators. Barghouti said the next move is up to Israel and
that he hopes the swap will be carried out quickly.

Israel declined formal comment, although Israeli media cited unidentified
officials as saying there had been some progress, but that resolution was
still not assured.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6540214,00.html

Source: Reuters

Palestinians name Barghouthi in prisoner swap call
09 Apr 2007 16:26:06 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Mohammed Assadi

RAMALLAH, West Bank, April 9 (Reuters) - Marwan Barghouthi, a Palestinian
uprising leader jailed by Israel, is included on a list of prisoners that Hamas
wants freed in exchange for a captive Israeli soldier, a Palestinian official
said on Monday.

Islamist Hamas, which heads the Palestinian coalition government and whose
gunmen were involved in abducting Corporal Gilad Shalit to the Gaza Strip
last June, said on Sunday that it had passed its release demands to Israel
via Egyptian mediators.

Hamas did not give numbers or names for prisoners it wants freed in return
for Shalit. But a Palestinian cabinet minister confirmed Israeli media reports
that Barghouthi, a legislator serving five life prison terms for murder, is on
the roster.

"The list includes Marwan Barghouthi," Information Minister Mustafa Barghouthi,
a relative of the inmate, told Reuters.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L09184661.htm

By Amira Hass

The rallies in support of the abducted soldiers and their families, as a means of applying pressure on politicians, are hinting at a healthy development: The Israeli public is casting doubt on the motives and ability of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government with respect to the three captives. It used to be that the belief in politicians' concern for prisoners of war was tantamount to a sacred cow. No longer.

But the doubt that has been cast is not sufficient, just as rallies do not suffice. Even if the latest media reports that are again talking about progress in the negotiations to release Gilad Shalit are correct, the predominant discourse is that of the defense establishment and its overseers in the government. This is the very same defense establishment that failed so resoundingly in the mission to release the soldiers, and that led to two blood-soaked military attacks using the usual excuse of fighting terror: the one against the Gaza Strip and its civilians and the other against Lebanon and its civilians. The targeted killing of armed Palestinians and Hezbollah pales in comparison to the civilian victims, the dead and the wounded in Gaza and Lebanon, and the damage to the civilian infrastructure. These attacks only decreased the chance for release and added months of suffering to the abducted men and their families.

The failing political and security mechanisms are the ones that for years have formulated the axioms in Israel concerning the Palestinian prisoners. The first axiom is that every Palestinian security prisoner is a criminal. Even during the Oslo period, Israel did not free itself from this definition and did not recognize the Palestinians as prisoners of war to be released as an integral part of a peace process. Israel did release many thousands, but it did this as a gesture from the ruling side. It also demonstrated a racist approach when it released people who had been convicted of murdering Palestinian collaborators, but not those who had been convicted of murdering or injuring Jews (among them soldiers).

Thus, to this day, nearly 400 Palestinians are imprisoned in Israel who were convicted of crimes (which is how the occupier's law book defines it) that were committed before the signing of the Gaza-Jericho agreement in May 1994. Those responsible for these prisoners, from Yasser Arafat through Yasser Abed Rabbo to Mohammed Dahlan, spent many hours in negotiations and at cocktail parties with Israeli representatives. But those under their command are supposed to serve out their prison terms (of several decades) to the end or remain in life imprisonment, which for Palestinian prisoners is also until their death, in shocking contrast to Jewish prisoners, especially Jewish settlers in the occupied territories convicted of murdering "out of nationalist motives" who are quickly released after their punishment is reduced.

Among the Palestinian prisoners there are prisoners who have come down with serious illnesses, and the vengeful Israeli system is refusing to release them. Family members of most of the prisoners have not been allowed to visit them for long periods. All of them, and this too is an axiom, are discriminated against in their conditions of imprisonment, as compared with the Jewish prisoners. Since the signing of the Oslo agreement, most Israelis have been denying the fact that we are the citizens of an occupying state. They define the current intifada as a war that has been declared against us by the fictive Palestinian state. And even though this is defined as a war, the prevailing axiom is that the Palestinians are always "terrorists," even when they act against soldiers and not civilians. The companion axiom to this is that only on our side are there "soldiers," even when they are sent to act against an occupied civilian population.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/847289.html