Hamas Builds Up War Machine in Gaza

IsraelNN.com)
>snip "Kassam missiles fired "uneventfully" at Ashkelon over the past few days are actually reported to be test-firings of much more advanced rockets.
The IDF Southern Command Chief, speaking with foreign diplomats and reporters in Jerusalem on Wednesday, painted a grim picture of the war threats from Gaza, saying the IDF is making plans for a possible offensive.

Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant said that over 2,000 Kassam rockets have been launched at Israel in the 18 months since Israel withdrew from Gaza - and that Hamas has much more up its sleeve.

"Since the Disengagement, 2,053 Kassams have been launched at Israel," the IDF commander said. "296 explosive charges have been detonated, 143 attacks were carried out against tanks that were outside the security fence - not inside Gaza - and there were 260 incidents of gunfire at IDF forces outside the fence." <snip

>snip "
Foreign sources report that the situation is even worse than that described by Gen. Galant. Kassam missiles fired "uneventfully" at Ashkelon over the past few days are actually reported to be test-firings of advanced rockets. Kassams until now have had a range of approximately 12 kilometers, but the Ashkelon launchings show that they can now consistently hit 19 kilometers away. This multiplies exponentially the number of Israel citizens and locations in Kassam danger. In addition, foreign sources such as Tehran, Damascus and Hizbullah supply arms and weapons, as do Hamas and Islamic Jihad smugglers, thus strengthening and building up the war machine against Israel."<snip

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121787

Two observations. First, it looks like Israel is planning a large military response sooner rather than later. How could a democracy do anything else under the circumstances? Second, as the Gaza pullout must now appear to virtually all Israelis as a huge fiasco which resulted only in a deluge of missiles targeted against their families and children, how can any sane Israeli still favor a West Bank pullout? It must be obvious to the most devoted 'Peace Now' activist that leaving the West Bank would only mean missiles falling on Tel-Aviv.

concluding that the pullout was a mistake then can look at the root cause of the problem and try to solve that.

As defined by the groups executing these attacks, the root cause is Israel's very existence. We can endlessly discuss the validity of whether or not the presence of settlements and IDF soldiers within the territories is the main source of anger most Palestinians have for Israel. But in terms of the terrorist groups responsible for Qassam attacks such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad in Palestine, etc., their rhetoric has always centered around Israel's destruction or dissolution, NOT merely an end to occupation or the creation of a Palestinian state.

I have a question though. Do you think that the US should adopt a similar strategy as you recommend here in dealing with Osama bin Laden? He gave the US a list of demands that he said could lead to a cease fire once we fulfilled them. Is capitulating to these demands a wise strategy in your opinion?

But misunderstandings seem to be rampant in this forum so I want to be crystal clear. I am very seriously comparing Osama bin Laden (Al Qaeda, really) to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hezbollah and any other violent group which is committed to executing acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens for political or ideological reasons.

Meaning, I am not comparing Al Qaeda to the whole of the Palestinian people. I am comparing them solely to Palestinian (or Lebanese as the case may be) terrorist groups. (As that is who we were discussing based on the OP.) Just so we are clear on this.

Do you seriously think they are very different?

bin Laden is not battling US troops in Saudi Arabia is he?

on their own soil when they bomb West Jerusalem or send Qassam missiles into Sderot, are they? And Al Qaeda in Iraq is fighting an occupation force. Neither group seems to care WHERE the fighting takes place. Nor do they seem to care whether they kill soldiers or children. In fact, both Hamas and Al Qaeda seem to favor targeting civilian areas over military ones, and occasionally even target places where there are likely to be large child casualties.

So, explain what the difference is? Why should your capitulation strategy to end terrorism be effective against one of these groups and not the other?

Al Qaeda in Iraq... which occupation force are they fighting - Iraqi forces or the US? Is this the same Al Qaeda as of bin Laden? Isn't he from Saudi Arabia? Has anyone even seen him in Iraq? You started off with the US fighting bin Laden and asking if they should employ the same method I suggested. What method did I suggest? (I'll give you a hint - I didn't.)

You seem to all over the place. Your analogy needs work.

The question was... How can we stop terrorism? I just switched the players out. Different protagonist, different terrorists, voila! My analogy. But feel free to substitute your own protagonist and terrorist group. I don't mind.

You offered that the solution for Palestinian terrorism is to address the root cause. Yet you didn't clarify what that was.

It sounds like you are suggesting taking the terrorist's demands to heart and then meeting them all, one by one, hopefully eradicating the reason behind the anger that created the terrorism in the first place. Hoping that terror will end by cravenly capitulating to the terrorists' every whim, regardless of its validity. I call this plan, "The French Model."

I am really just asking if you think that "addressing the root cause" is what we should do when faced with other forms of terrorism in other places? And I would like some clarification on what you think the root cause of the problem in Palestine is and how you think we might solve it.

I mean, come on... Why in the world would anyone want to prolong this war when they keep losing?

What war are you referring to? If you are talking about the US, I agree, they should just get the fuck out of countries that have no issue with. If you are talking about Palestinians, then you obviously know nothing about human nature if you expect the victim to roll over and die.

That Israel is a criminal state and should be destroyed and replaced with an Islamic nation?

thinking that perhaps everything that the terrorist groups in question have been stating for decades is actually what they believe? Let's see... Islamic Jihad and Hamas both repeatedly and unwaveringly insist that there can never be a truce between Palestine and Israel and they will never stop attacking Israel until it is destroyed. Then Islamic Jihad sends thousands of rockets into Israel despite the cease fire, or previously, the Oslo Accords. Every concession Israel makes to the PA is used to IJ's advantage to better attack Israel, which is exactly what they always said they would do.

Then during a discussion on what to do about the rockets, you suggest that capitulating to Hamas' and Islamic Jihad's demands would be a good idea to stop the rockets. Well, they have been very forthcoming about the reason for their anger being Israel's existence. And since they are the ones sending the majority of rockets over, and are now talking about a larger scale war with the stated intention of destroying Israel, they are also probably the ones who we would have to convince to stop fighting.

Yet, by listening to their demands and taking them seriously means that I am in denial?

And any random Westerner who decides for themselves what Islamic Jihad and Hamas would really end their war over, instead of actually listening to what they say over and over and over again, is speaking from a place of profound knowledge and wisdom, I suppose?

:rofl:

By AHMED YOUSEF
Originally Published: November 1, 2006 in the New York Times

"Ahmed Yousef is a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya."

"HERE in Gaza, few dream of peace. For now, most dare only to dream of a lack of war. It is for this reason that Hamas proposes a long-term truce during which the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can try to negotiate a lasting peace.
A truce is referred to in Arabic as a ''hudna.'' Typically covering 10 years, a hudna is recognized in Islamic jurisprudence as a legitimate and binding contract. A hudna extends beyond the Western concept of a cease-fire and obliges the parties to use the period to seek a permanent, nonviolent resolution to their differences. The Koran finds great merit in such efforts at promoting understanding among different people. Whereas war dehumanizes the enemy and makes it easier to kill, a hudna affords the opportunity to humanize one's opponents and understand their position with the goal of resolving the intertribal or international dispute.
Such a concept -- a period of nonwar but only partial resolution of a conflict -- is foreign to the West and has been greeted with much suspicion. Many Westerners I speak to wonder how one can stop the violence without ending the conflict.
I would argue, however, that this concept is not as foreign as it might seem. After all, the Irish Republican Army agreed to halt its military struggle to free Northern Ireland from British rule without recognizing British sovereignty. Irish Republicans continue to aspire to a united Ireland free of British rule, but rely upon peaceful methods. Had the I.R.A. been forced to renounce its vision of reuniting Ireland before negotiations could occur, peace would never have prevailed. Why should more be demanded of the Palestinians, particularly when the spirit of our people will never permit it?
When Hamas gives its word to an international agreement, it does so in the name of God and will therefore keep its word. Hamas has honored its previous cease-fires, as Israelis grudgingly note with the oft-heard words, ''At least with Hamas they mean what they say.''
This offer of hudna is no ruse, as some assert, to strengthen our military machine, to buy time to organize better or to consolidate our hold on the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, faith-based political movements in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Turkey and Yemen have used hudna-like strategies to avoid expanding conflict. Hamas will conduct itself just as wisely and honorably.
We Palestinians are prepared to enter into a hudna to bring about an immediate end to the occupation and to initiate a period of peaceful coexistence during which both sides would refrain from any form of military aggression or provocation. During this period of calm and negotiation we can address the important issues like the right of return and the release of prisoners. If the negotiations fail to achieve a durable settlement, the next generation of Palestinians and Israelis will have to decide whether or not to renew the hudna and the search for a negotiated peace.
There can be no comprehensive solution of the conflict today, this week, this month, or even this year. A conflict that has festered for so long may, however, be resolved through a decade of peaceful coexistence and negotiations. This is the only sensible alternative to the current situation. A hudna will lead to an end to the occupation and create the space and the calm necessary to resolve all outstanding issues.
Few in Gaza dream. For most of the past six months it's been difficult to even sleep. Yet hope is not dead. And when we dare to hope, this is what we see: a 10-year hudna during which, inshallah (God willing), we will learn again to dream of peace.

Ahmed Yousef is a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya. "

__________________

Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami on Hamas:

link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible.

link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

.

of Hamas' rise to power was that for the first decades of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians fighters and militants were mostly secular and merely fighting to end the occupation. When frustration set in during the late 80's (did Hamas spark the first Intifada?), elements that were already highly religious were able to get much more power politically and Palestinian society became much more religiously conservative. With the main exception of the Grand Mufti and his followers, Palestinians were considerably more secular than their kinsmen further east in the Arabian desert. So while the character of Palestinian guerrilla groups was more or less secular at first, the fight against Israel became intertwined with religious fervor. I do think though that Hamas and other groups were pretty religious from their inception and that the groups of pre-First Intifada origin were secular, they still wanted to destroy Israel. This may not be a factually accurate assessment so I welcome corrections.

And isn't France-bashing *sooo* 2003?

Nuclear Weapons - Israel

>snip

In the fall of 1956, France agreed to provide Israel with an 18 MWt research reactor. However, the onset of the Suez Crisis a few weeks later changed the situation dramatically. Following Egypt's closure of the Suez Canal in July, France and Britain had agreed with Israel that the latter should provoke a war with Egypt to provide the European nations with the pretext to send in their troops as peacekeepers to occupy and reopen the canal zone. In the wake of the Suez Crisis, the Soviet Union made a thinly veiled threat against the three nations. This episode not only enhanced the Israeli view that an independent nuclear capability was needed to prevent reliance on potentially unreliable allies, but also led to a sense of debt among French leaders that they had failed to fulfill commitments made to a partner. French premier Guy Mollet is even quoted as saying privately that France "owed" the bomb to Israel.

On 3 October 1957, France and Israel signed a revised agreement calling for France to build a 24 MWt reactor (although the cooling systems and waste facilities were designed to handle three times that power) and, in protocols that were not committed to paper, a chemical reprocessing plant. This complex was constructed in secret, and outside the IAEA inspection regime, by French and Israeli technicians at Dimona, in the Negev desert under the leadership of Col. Manes Pratt of the IDF Ordinance Corps.

Both the scale of the project and the secrecy involved made the construction of Dimona a massive undertaking. A new intelligence agency, the Office of Science Liasons, (LEKEM) was created to provide security and intelligence for the project. At the height construction, some 1,500 Israelis some French workers were employed building Dimona. To maintain secrecy, French customs officials were told that the largest of the reactor components, such as the reactor tank, were part of a desalinization plant bound for Latin America. In addition, after buying heavy water from Norway on the condition that it not be transferred to a third country, the French Air Force secretly flew as much as four tons of the substance to Israel.

Trouble arose in May 1960, when France began to pressure Israel to make the project public and to submit to international inspections of the site, threatening to withhold the reactor fuel unless they did. President de Gaulle was concerned that the inevitable scandal following any revelations about French assistance with the project, especially the chemical reprocessing plant, would have negative repercussions for France's international position, already on shaky ground because of its war in Algeria.

At a subsequent meeting with Ben-Gurion, de Gaulle offered to sell Israel fighter aircraft in exchange for stopping work on the reprocessing plant, and came away from the meeting convinced that the matter was closed. It was not. Over the next few months, Israel worked out a compromise. France would supply the uranium and components already placed on order and would not insist on international inspections. In return, Israel would assure France that they had no intention of making atomic weapons, would not reprocess any plutonium, and would reveal the existence of the reactor, which would be completed without French assistance. In reality, not much changed - French contractors finished work on the reactor and reprocessing plant, uranium fuel was delivered and the reactor went critical in 1964.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke.htm

shoes of an Israeli parent living in Tel-Aviv my first concern would be the physical safety of my children. If all 'solutions' do nothing but endanger my children further I would not be in favor of any 'solutions' and would prefer the status quo as bad as it may be. Many Jews believe deep in their souls that however awful present conditions are they can still get worse. Much worse.

There are two groups of people at stake here. Israel is getting away with their current actions because they are still perceived as the victim. That time will come to an end eventually and they will also have to be accountable for their actions.

. . got an answer.

But, it doesn't hurt to point out the fallacy in your pov by asking again.

What international war crimes law and/or laws re: crimes against humanity condones the sending of missiles and suicide bombers to kill the innocent civilians of a neighboring state?

And what international war crimes law and/or laws re: crimes against humanity condemns a state for protecting its citizens from such attacks?

If you can answer that then you might have a chance of other reasonable states ever seeing Israel as something other than the victim here.

Note: The refusal of the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith to establish borders via R242 does not justify the killing of Israeli civilians - and no state other than other ME terrorism sponsors would disagree with that.

So the question is imo a particularly ridiculous one....

Also, I've explained to you plenty of times that while international law doesn't condemn a state for protecting its citizens, it doesn't give any state a green light to violate international law to do so. There are limits to what any state can do in the name of security, and this applies to Israel every bit as much as it applies to countries like the US. Trying to dumb down the I/P conflict to try to make out one side only are the victims is ignoring so much of the complexity and history of this conflict, and to be honest, I'm getting sick of seeing attempts to do so. What shouldn't need to be repeated, but obviously needs to be is that the only victims in this conflict are BOTH Palestinian and Israeli civilians who have become casualties of this conflict. The Israeli government is NOT a victim, nor is the Palestinian leadership...

So, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by addressing me. But, I'll go along.

VC: There are limits to what any state can do in the name of security, and this applies to Israel every bit as much as it applies to countries like the US.

Let's take a reality check on this. Israel is well within whatever limits you might be thinking about. They haven't even scratched the surface of what other states do in that region to protect their security. I'm sure you and others disagree - but your's and others' similar opinions on the matter don't mean much on the matter any more.

In a world where the UN can't even stop hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians from being slaughtered and ethnically cleansed in Darfur - in a world where hundreds of Muslims are horribly tortured and executed every day at the hands of sectarian Shia and Sunni (and now Kurd) fighters in Iraq - most people no longer really give a crap if a few more Palestinians civilians are killed or a few more Palestinian homes are demolished when Israel tries to capture suicide bombers and Qassam launch crews.

Sure, some western diplomats will make angry noises about the Israelis running amok as the world's greatest threat to peace - but everybody knows that's just a political dance that has more to do with their own domestic politics and oil access than any real concern for Palestinians.

And it's not that the world doesn't care about the Palestinians either. It's obvious to everyone who looks at it - that the Palestinians can end their own suffering at any time they choose to end it. But go on - keep playing the game where Israel is the imperialist oppressor and the Palestinians are the poor innocent victims. The US and Commonwealth far left bourgeoisie are pretty much the only places left in the world where such games are still enjoyed.

Most of the rest of the western world is coming to realize that the game that now needs the most attention is called "Islamist world domination through violence".

The elections in France as well as the strongly pro-Israel stance of all major Dems running in the 2008 elections - should be a wake up call for many in this forum. You are playing a game that is becoming increasingly irrelevant as geopolitics moves inexorably on to the next level.

At this new stage the Palestinians are seen as a small festering sore in the ME. A problem that Israel is best left to handle in whatever ways it finds are sufficient to keep it from becoming a threat outside that immediate area. The western world now has its own far more dangerous jihadists to defend itself from - and eradicate.

The Palestinian's loss of relevance is their own doing. They had a golden opportunity when Israel pulled out of Gaza - and they blew it completely. They fulfilled the worst predictions of the Israeli far right. The world is simply tired of anguishing over people who see self destruction as some noble goal.

But, thanks for "explaining to me" again.

That you might cease claiming that others pointing out Israel's violations of international law is merely opinion. The fact is that Israel is NOT well within the limits and does violate international law. For example, it's a fact that collective punishment is a violation of international law.

The elections in France as well as the strongly pro-Israel stance of all major Dems running in the 2008 elections - should be a wake up call for many in this forum. You are playing a game that is becoming increasingly irrelevant as geopolitics moves inexorably on to the next level.

Since when has actually giving a shit about ALL civilians rather than giving blind and unbending 110% support to everything Israel does been an increasingly irrelevant game? And I'm not sure why you think the French elections are any sort of wake-up call about anything. As for US politicians, it's a real shame that most of them seem incapable of viewing the conflict in any sort of balanced way because they totally destroy any likelihood that the US will be able to be a mediator when it comes to negotiations...

punishment on each other. Got a 110% problem with that?

...combatants in a conflict or in civil war are not imposing collective punishment on each other when they fight each other. Here is a definition of collective punishment. It clearly applies to actions taken against civilians as a group to punish them for the actions of a few:

'Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people for the crime(s) of a few or even of one. It has been justified as a legitimate means whereby an occupying power can retaliate for and prevent further attacks on its soldiers by unknown persons, as by burning a village near which such an attack took place. It has been criticized as a violation of the laws of war.'

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

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

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

Now, let's try to focus on the post you were replying to. I pointed out to someone who thinks that Israel doesn't violate international law that it does. Collective punishment by Israel of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is one such violation of international law. The demolition of Palestinian homes, a practice you have voiced support for in the past, is just one example of collective punishment...

The poster I was replying to also referred to my pointing out that all civilians in the conflict, not just Israelis, should be afforded protection, as 'an increasingly irrelevent game'. Do you agree with them that concern for all civilians in the conflict, and not just Israelis, is an increasingly irrelevent game?

Remember when America unilaterally declared war on Iraq a few years ago? I assume you do. Imagine that Iraq had proven to be more capable than we imagined and were able to actually retaliate against us by sending jets into American airspace and bombing areas of importance.

Let's say that Iraq was careful and took measures to limit civilian casualties and instead of killing several thousand, (as I think I remember America did in the beginning of the Iraq war), they only killed several hundred non-military people who lived around the military and manufacturing areas where the Iraqi airforce bombed. The important thing is that we realized that their goal was military and they were trying to limit, not exaggerate, civilian casualties.

Now in this situation, who is the victim and who is the aggressor? Would you consider Iraq to be guilty of war crimes because of the people who were killed inadvertently as a result of their defensive actions against a pre-emptively attacking force?

Iraq is entitled to defend itself. Now, your analogy is a bit wonky from here, given the realities. How would we know they were trying to limit civilian casualties? Would they just say so? At some point, once the war has begun, each side has to be responsible for their actions. And if there are any war crimes on either side, they need to be dealt with.

Look at the US/ Japan. Japan made the first strike. The US stuck back - much harder. Would you say Japan got what they deserved? Or would you say it was overkill?

level Lebanon if that is what they wanted to do? They have the power and dont' use it. Japan is actually a very good example of what happens when you take on someone stronger than you are. Shouldn't be all that surprised when a government at war decides that killing THEM means more than waiting for them to kill YOU.

My only point was to see if you draw a distinction between deaths due to collatoral damage and deaths caused on purpose. Yes, to the dead and their families, there is little practicle difference as the victims of either are equally dead. But morally we draw a distinction between purposefully caused death, death due to negligence or indifference, death resulting from self-defense (and how avoidable it may havce been) and purely accidental death. This moral distinction is demonstrated in the various degrees of murder charge, manslaughter deaths are given far lighter sentencing than first degree murder, the difference being one of motive.

There are many ways to see if an army has attempted to avoid civilian casualties. First off, there are signs that show if civilians were actually targeted such as whether there was any reason for civilain areas to get attacked. If none exist then you have strong evidence that civilians were targeted on purpose. On the other hand, if an army does stuff like drop flyers warning of an upcoming attack, give radio broadcasts warning of them, give civilians areas/roads of safe passage and promote them, and refrain from attacking civilian areas unless an undeniably valid reason exists which makes such attacks necessary.

Examples of targeting civilians would be Saddam's attack on Kurdish areas using gas back in the 80's. There's no question there of Saddam's motives. The same goes for Hamas' suicide bomb attacks in Jerusalem, Serbian attacks against Albanians, Hutu genocide against Tutsis in Rwanda, Mai Lai in Vietnam and so on. Examples of civilain deaths due to unavoidable collateral damage would be: Serbian civilains deaths from Nato actions in Serbia, Iraqi civilain casualties in the 2003 invasion and Lebanese civilian casulaties during Israeli bombing. (The last one is interesting because it stems partially from Hezbollah using human shields as a strategic deterrent against Israeli attacks, documented below.)

On July 25, 2006, Israeli forces attacked and destroyed an U.N. observer post in southern Lebanon, resulting in four deaths.<10> One of the fatalities, Canadian Major Paeta Derek Hess-von Kruedener, had sent an e-mail to his former commander, retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, several days before his death in which he described the Israeli bombardment, writing "The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity." MacKenzie interpreted this language for a reporter: "What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces).'"

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

I do not see the atomic strike against Japan to be super relevant (Kashmir seems more relevant to me) because there the US took no actions to try and limit civilian casualties, rather they tried to maximize them which is something the IDF hasn't done. There are plenty of examples of the IDF enacting policy that increases risk to their own troops in order to limit Palestinian civilain casualties. Here is a key difference between Hamas and the IDF. Hamas (and Hezbollah) use their civilians strategically to limit IDF attacks against them, putting their civilians in danger for military gain. They also specifically attacks Israeli civilians who are not involved in military exercises, seeing them a legit targets anyway.

Many draw a distinction between Palestinian deaths that happen during Israeli attacks because Israel tries to avoid them, even though they know tat some are inevitable, especially since Palestinian groups have a policy to use civilians as shields. So my question is whether you see any difference in terms of culpability between Palestinian terrorism that targets civilians and Israeli actions that attempt to limit civilain casualties yet still commit them?

I occasionally think of the Iran-Iraq war as an analogy. Iran sent scores of unarmed children against Iraqi machine guns and minefields as part of their strategy. As a result, Iran lost many more children than Iraq did. But is Iran or Iraq who is ultimately responsible for these deaths? And is the death of one of Iran's Basij Army's schoolkids an equal crime as a death caused when Hamas targets an Israeli school? Or do the Iraqi soldier and the Hamas militant share equal culpability for their role in a child's death?

Thinly disguised as "questions"?

Many draw a distinction between Palestinian deaths that happen during Israeli attacks because Israel tries to avoid them, even though they know tat some are inevitable, especially since Palestinian groups have a policy to use civilians as shields. So my question is whether you see any difference in terms of culpability between Palestinian terrorism that targets civilians and Israeli actions that attempt to limit civilain casualties yet still commit them?

What, that Hamas' policy is to target civilains specifically?

I'm so sorry... do you think I am being unfair to poor poor Hamas? :sarcasm:

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

How about firing in the middle of the night?

I see no difference between depraved indifference, which you call collateral damage, then intentional killing. Especially when the depraved indifference crowd kill double, triple, five times the number as the other side? As for murder versus manslaughter, where Israel is concerned, they get off either way – assuming they bothered to pretend to investigate in the first place.

I see no need to waste my time with the rest of your post since there wasn’t a single sentence in your first paragraph that was remotely reasonable.

a crowded apartment building in the middle of the night can claim "innocence" as to the predictable results. But this is an unfortunate yet very real situation that occurs in war. It is not that I am claiming that someone who does as you describe is innocent, but if the situation was such that killing someone in that building, let's say Hamas' chief bombmaker, would prevent scores of deaths in the future, making the attack a military necessity without reasonable alternatives, then carrying forth is ethically acceptable.

Consider the ramifications of having a policy to never attack anyone, even in self defense, if there was a chance that an innocent civilian could get hurt. If you are a terrorist and you are facing an enemy with such a policy then wouldn't you do your best to exploit it by surrounding yourself with civilians at all times? Hamas does already do this to some extent. They have used civilian women to protect and hide themselves amongst. And taken advantage of Israel's policies designed to reduce casualties, as when they had civilians and children flock to a house that Israel was about to demolish, as they were notified by Israel moments before to prevent unneeded deaths. (Now does that sound to you like something people do against an enemy who is depraved in their indifference?)

What if they were totally indifferent? If that were the case then Israel would never put themselves in harms way if they could do a job differently, regardless of how many people died as a result. So Israel would not send in ground forces in places like Jenin to route out terrorist strongholds, they would shell the place. History is full of examples of the truly indifferent and the numbers of casualties do not end up reading four to one but more like five hundred or one thousand to one. Nowhere else on the planet would you be able to find an army like the IDF fight a group like Hamas and Fatah and end up with a ratio of four to one.

But let's assume for a moment that Israel was so indifferent as to civilian casualties that they could be called depravedly so. Is it the same as when a group like Hamas purposely attacks civilians with the hopes of killing as many as possible? And you said... yes?

I understand why it is thast my posts make so little sense to you now. There is a tremendous difference between the civilian casualties due to American bombing in Afghanistan and Iraq and the planned deaths of Kurdish civilians under Saddam Hussein. It is not a difference which is drawn out of concerns for "getting off" but a real ackowlegement that war has uncontrollable, negative consequences and we often must choose between the lesser of two evils. Had the allied forces waged World War Two with the stipulation that they could not attack unless they were sure that no civilians would be harmed they would not have dropped a single bomb. (Yes, I realize that everyone targeted civilians purposefully in WWII, to great misery. But my point still stands.)

I am surprised that you do not recognize this difference. But it explains a lot about our difference of opinion.

The IDF finds it “ethically acceptable” for the IDF to fire onto this building. No shit. The IDF finds a lot of things “ethically acceptable” that the rest of the world cannot tolerate.

Who said they should enact a policy to “never attack anyone”? “Self defense” – hasn’t this term been abused enough? Why was the house in your scenario being demolished in the first place? As a punishment to the family that didn’t kill anyone? You assume Israel’s motives are pure. I’m not willing to give them that benefit. This is the problem with making unilateral decisions without a trial.

As for using women to protect them, I don’t consider them to be human shields unless they are being held their by gunpoint, against their will. I’ve said this before. Perhaps if they had the kinds of weapons Israel has, it would be more of a fair fight. It’s a little unfair to accuse one side of not fighting with the same methods as the other, when one side has all of the resources to equip itself in a manner to fight in a way that it acceptable to those who made the rules.

Sure, Israel puts itself in harms way. The drive down narrow streets in tanks too wide and destroy everything in their path. Or fire from the distance of helicopters. Very brave. And considering they are fighting to maintain an occupation that is long past the point where should end, then again, I have little sympathy.

The similarity in your scenario with the US killings in Afghanistan and the Kurds is more telling: neither was necessary. And if neither was necessary, then your argument is irrelevant.

The IDF finds a lot of things “ethically acceptable” that the rest of the world cannot tolerate.

I was referring to generally held standards. The rest of the world has, generally speaking, acted far worse with far less cause than Israel. It is a fact of war that innocent people will get killed. Your failure to discern between collateral damage and murder is certainly not one that the rest of the world fails to make. Your system where an accidental or unavoidable death equals one committed with forthought and malice draws no difference betweenthe likes of John Kerry and Saddam Hussein.

I have yet to hear of a war where every soldier gets a trial prior to being shot at. You have a unique view of how the world works. Not very rooted in reality, but unique, I'll give you that. Let's hear some of these countries that object to Israel on a moral level... who are they exactly?

The drive down narrow streets in tanks too wide and destroy everything in their path

You have no idea what's going on at all. But it always makes me feel relieved to learn that the ones who have the most harsh criticism of Israel are the ones with the most egregious misinformation.

but that isn't necessarily a fact of occupation. Those are two different beasts and Israel should take more care than it does to protect the civilian population on their own land while Israel tries to steal it.

We aren't talking soldiers. We are talking bad people Israel wants dead. Again, huge difference.

As for the tanks, look at the damage they did in Gaza just last fall.

Of course the Jewish Quarter always belonged to the Muslims! Right?

What's next? Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

An excellent and somewhat long and detailed report that explains the mechanism of land confiscation



link to full report:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.doc


"Introduction

In December 2001, a long article appeared in Ha’aretz under the headline “Five Minutes from Kfar Saba – A Look at the Ari’el Region.” The article reviewed the real estate situation in a number of “communities” adjacent to the Trans-Samaria Highway in the vicinity of Ari’el. The article included the information that most of the land on which these “communities” were established are “state-owned land,” and that “despite the security problems and the depressed state of the real estate market, the situation in these locales is not as bad as might be expected.”

The perspective from which this article was written (the real estate market) and the terminology it employs largely reflect the process of the assimilation of the settlements into the State of Israel. As a result of this process, these settlements have become just another region of the State of Israel, where houses and apartments are constructed and offered to the general public according to free-market principles of supply and demand.

This deliberate and systematic process of assimilation obscures a number of fundamental truths about the settlements: the “communities” mentioned in the article are not part of the State of Israel, but are settlements established in the West Bank − an area that has been occupied territory since 1967. The fundamental truth is that the movement of Israeli citizens to houses and apartments offered by the real estate markets in these “communities” constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The fundamental truth is that the “state-owned” land mentioned in the article was seized from Palestinian residents by illegal and unfair proceedings. The fundamental truth is that the settlements have been a continuing source of violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, among them the right to freedom of movement, property, self-determination, and improvement in their standard of living. The fundamental truth is that the growth of these settlements is fueled not only by neutral forces of supply and demand, but primarily by a sophisticated governmental system designed to encourage Israeli citizens to live in the settlements. In essence, the process of assimilation blurs the fact that the settlement enterprise in the Occupied Territories has created a system of legally sanctioned separation based on discrimination that has, perhaps, no parallel anywhere in the world since the dismantling of the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

As part of the mechanism used to obscure these fundamental truths, the State of Israel makes a determined effort to conceal information relating to the settlements. In order to prepare this report, B’Tselem was obliged to engage in a protracted and exhaustive struggle with the Civil Administration to obtain maps marking the municipal boundaries of the settlements. This information, which is readily available in the case of local authorities within Israel, was eventually partially provided almost one year after the initial request, and only after B’Tselem threatened legal action.
The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians did not lead to the evacuation of even one settlement, and the settlements even grew substantially in area and population during this period. While at the end of 1993 (at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Principles) the population of the settlements in the West Bank (including settlements in East Jerusalem) totaled some 247,000, by the end of 2001 this figure had risen to 375,000.

The agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority entailed the transfer of certain powers to the PA; these powers apply in dozens of disconnected enclaves containing the majority of the Palestinian population. Since 2000, these enclaves, referred to as Areas A and B, have accounted for approximately forty percent of the area of the West Bank. Control of the remaining areas, including the roads providing transit between the enclaves, as well as points of departure from the West Bank, remains with Israel.

This report, which is the continuation of several reports published by B’Tselem in recent years, examines a number of aspects relating to Israeli policy toward the settlements in the West Bank and to the results of this policy in terms of human rights and international law. The report also relates to settlements in East Jerusalem that Israel established and officially annexed into Israel. Under international law, these areas are occupied territory whose status is the same as the rest of the West Bank.

This report does not relate to the settlements in the Gaza Strip. Though similar in many ways to their counterparts in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip settlements differ in several respects. For example, the legal framework in the Gaza Strip differs from that applying in the West Bank in various fields, including land laws; these differences are due to the different laws that were in effect in these areas prior to 1967.

This report comprises eight chapters.

• Chapter One presents a number of basic concepts on the principal plans implemented by the Israeli governments, the bureaucratic process of establishing new settlements, and the types of settlements.
• Chapter Two examines the status of the settlements and settlers according to international law and briefly surveys the violations of Palestinian human rights resulting from the establishment of the settlements.
• Chapter Three discusses the bureaucratic and legal apparatus used by Israel to seize control of land in the West Bank for the establishment and expansion of settlements. The chief component of this apparatus, and the main focus of the chapter, is the process of declaring and registering land as “state land.”
• Chapter Four reviews the changes in Israeli law that were adopted to annex the settlements into the State of Israel by turning them civilian enclaves within the occupied territory. This chapter also examines the structure of local government in the settlements in the context of municipal boundaries.
• Chapter Five examines the economic incentives Israel provides to settlers and settlements to encourage Israelis to move to the West Bank and to encourage those already living in the region to remain there.
• Chapter Six analyzes the planning mechanism in the West Bank applied by the Civil Administration, which is responsible for issuing building permits both in the settlements and in Palestinian communities. This mechanism plays a decisive role in the establishment and expansion of the settlements, and in limiting the development of Palestinian communities.
• Chapter Seven analyzes the map of the West Bank attached to this report. This analysis examines the layout of the settlements by area, noting some of the negative ramifications the settlements have on the human rights of the Palestinian population.
• Chapter Eight focuses in depth on the Ari’el settlement and the ramifications of its establishment on the adjacent Palestinian communities. This chapter also discusses the expected consequences of Ari’el’s expansion according to the current outline plan.

link to full report:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.doc

.

link: http://www.icahd.org/eng/

the West Bank as its own.

Thanks for posting that.

they admire.

I happen to know of a young couple who were actually very conservative people, Evangelical Christians from Western Colorado. Very decent and kindly folk I might add, not the judgmental sort like many people imagine all Evangelicals being.

It so happened that this young couple went off to the West Bank on a six week humanitarian volunteer working trip connected to their church and working with local Palestinian churches.

Of course while in Palestine they witnessed with their own eyes the cruelty of the occupation and the shocking behavior of the IDF while hearing the real live stories from Palestinian church members they met.

Upon returning to their home in Western Colorado they were naturally asked by a number of church groups to come and tell of their experiences. Needless to say the they found themselves talking to groups of people who simply could not believe their own ears even when hearing the bitter truth from respected fellow believers who they had known for many years.

.

We aren't talking soldiers. We are talking bad people Israel wants dead. Again, huge difference.

You are referring to the targeted assasinations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad members here, right? Bomb-makers, strategists and people that organize Qassam rocket teams. You see a huge difference between them and soldiers? How so? They seem to me to represent the perfect definition of a soldier. Organized fighters engaging in combat against a foreign enemy for political and nationalist reasons. I believe they refer to themselves as soldiers.

What's the huge difference?

It should be noted that many perhaps even most of the assassinations are directed against political operatives not bomb makers or other military operatives.

"Israel and the Occupied Territories":

link: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde150562003

"This document clarifies that the Israeli authorities’ justifications for the policy of assassinations are neither born out by the facts nor supported by international law. Amnesty International considers that respect for the rule of law and the protection of the right to life require that the policy of assassinating those who do not pose an imminent threat to lives be ruled unlawful and be stopped.

Extrajudicial executions(1) are among the practices to which the Israeli army and security services have resorted for several years, without offering proof of guilt or right of defence. In addition to causing the death or injury of the targeted person, such attacks have resulted in the unlawful killing of scores and injury of hundreds of bystanders, including children. Amnesty International has repeatedly condemned these acts as unlawful and is gravely concerned at the increase of such practices in the past 32 months.(2)

UN bodies and mechanisms, as well as local and international human rights organizations have condemned these acts. (3) Most recently on 10 June 2003 the UN Secretary-General expressed "serious concern at the attempted extra-judicial execution by the Israeli Defence Forces of a senior Hamas political leader in Gaza", and reiterated "his consistent opposition to such actions".(4)

Since November 2000, when the first extrajudicial execution is known to have been carried out in the context of the current Palestinian uprising or intifada, more than 100 Palestinians have been assassinated by members of the Israeli army and security services. In the course of such attacks, the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) and security services have killed scores and injured hundreds of other Palestinian men, women and children bystanders.

Amnesty International has repeatedly condemned attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups.(5) Since the beginning of the intifada some 750 Israelis, most of them civilians and including 93 children, have been killed in Israel and the Occupied Territories by Palestinian armed groups. In the same period more than 2,000 Palestinians, including some 380 children, have been killed by the Israeli army in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The organization has continued to call for those who deliberately kill civilians to be brought to justice for their crimes.

Assassination policy violates international law

Amnesty International considers Israel’s justification for these killings to be inconsistent with its obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law. Israel argues that in the current situation of "armed conflict short of war" their practice of assassinating Palestinians is permitted by the laws of war. It is important to note that Israel has repeatedly used such practices for many years prior to the outbreak of the current uprising/intifada.

The Israeli army and government authorities have repeatedly claimed that assassinations are "necessary" because it is not possible for Israel to arrest Palestinians in the areas which fall under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction according to the Oslo Agreements (known as Areas A in the West Bank and White Areas in the Gaza Strip). Another justification for extrajudicial executions offered by Israeli government and army officials is what they refer to as the "ticking bomb cases", that is people who are on their way to commit an attack.

In fact the Israeli army has not offered evidence that the Palestinians whom it has assassinated were about to, or on their way to, carry out attacks. Those who have been assassinated were in areas of the Occupied Territories removed from potential Israeli targets (such as settlements, settlers' roads or army positions).

International humanitarian law and human rights law

There are two sets of complementary legal frameworks that govern Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Territories: international human rights law and international humanitarian law.

Israel is the "Occupying Power" in the "Occupied Territories" of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip captured during the 1967 war. Israel retains effective control of the Occupied Territories and the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as Occupied Territories and the status of the population as protected persons living under occupation has not been affected by the Oslo Agreement.(6) The Palestinian population of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip are "Protected Persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and are entitled to extensive protections under the law of belligerent occupation.

In its conduct as an occupying power Israel is bound by two major international instruments that relate to the treatment of civilians during war and in occupied territories: the 1907 Hague Regulations annexed to the Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Israel ratified the Geneva Conventions on 6 July 1951. Although Israel is not a party to Hague Convention (IV) the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the 1907 Hague Regulations are part of customary international law, and thus binding on all states, including those not party to the treaty.(7)

The Israeli army and government officials claim that the situation is one of "armed conflict short of war" and policing and law enforcement regulations/codes of conduct are no longer applicable in Gaza and the West Bank and have been replaced by laws of war. Israel favours certain provisions of the 1907 Hague regulations but it rejects the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, a claim the international community has soundly rejected.(8) Israel’s claim that its obligations under key international human rights treaties and conventions which it has ratified do not extend to the West Bank and Gaza Strip has also been rejected by the relevant UN bodies.(9)

The Israeli authorities’ argument that the current conflict in the West Bank and Gaza Strip falls "somewhere in the middle" seeks to obfuscate Israel's legal obligations. In effect, the Israeli authorities have tried to place themselves in a situation in which they are free to choose which provisions of international human rights and humanitarian law to apply or disregard, without being bound by Israel’s obligations as a State Party to the relevant treaties and conventions. These claims are untenable in law. Israel has concrete legal obligations under both regimes. Whenever the legal regime applying to a specific situation has not been clearly identified, it remains a fundamental principle that the legal regime favoured should enhance protection of the civilian population, not diminish it.

Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Israel is a State Party, states that the right to life is one of the rights which may not be derogated from even "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation".

The prohibition of targeting civilians and civilian objects is a basic rule of customary international law which applies to all parties and in all circumstances, including in armed conflict.

According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are protected persons. Armed Palestinians who directly participate in hostilities – by carrying out attacks against Israeli soldiers or civilians – lose their protected status for the duration of the attack. Article 51 (3) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 explains how civilian status can be temporarily lost: "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities." Palestinians engaged in armed attacks against civilians or in clashes with Israeli forces are not combatants.(10) They are civilians who lose their protected status for the duration of the armed engagement. They cannot be killed at any time other than while they are posing an imminent threat to lives. Proof or suspicion that a person participated in an armed attack at an earlier point does not justify, under international law, targeting them for death later on. Those who are not posing an imminent threat to lives may not be assassinated as punishment or as a preventive measure.

International human rights standards, including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (Code of Conduct); the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (Basic Principles) and the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, are particularly relevant.

Article 1 of the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions states:

"Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions and shall ensure that any such executions are recognized as offences under their criminal laws, and are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the seriousness of such offences. Exceptional circumstances including a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of such executions.
Such executions shall not be carried out under any circumstances including, but not limited to, situations of internal armed conflict, excessive or illegal use of force by a public official or other person acting in an official capacity or by a person acting at the instigation, or with the consent or acquiescence of such person, and situations in which deaths occur in custody. This prohibition shall prevail over decrees issued by governmental authority."

Principle 9 of the Basic Principles states:
"Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or in defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury… and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives… In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life."

Alternative lawful means to extrajudicial executions

Alternative, lawful means to address threats posed by persons suspected of planning or having participated in attacks against Israelis exist. The Israeli army has proved that it can and does exercise full and effective control over the Occupied Territories, including the areas which fall under the Palestinian Authority jurisdiction. (11)

In the past two years the Israeli army and security services have arrested tens of thousands of Palestinians whom they accuse of having perpetrated, participated in or planned attacks against Israeli soldiers or civilians. Such arrests continue daily throughout the Occupied Territories. Those arrested have been apprehended individually or in groups, in their homes or other private houses, in universities or student dormitories, at their work place or at checkpoints, when moving around openly or while in hiding. On several occasions, in refugee camps or other areas, the Israeli army temporarily detained all males in a certain age bracket (typically between 15-16 and 45-55), in order to check their identities and establish if any of them were wanted. At times Palestinians have been detained by special undercover units operating in Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps.

While the majority of the Palestinians arrested by the Israeli army have been subsequently released without charge or trial, more than 3,000 have been charged with criminal offences including committing murders and other attacks against civilians or soldiers, participating in, assisting, and planning such crimes. Of the latter, some have been convicted and sentenced and others are awaiting trial. More than 2,000 others have been held in administrative detention without charge or trial for periods ranging from one or two months to over a year. Of these, more than 1,000 remain in administrative detention. According to the Israeli army and government authorities, the use of administrative detention is a preventive – not punitive – measure against those who are deemed to pose a threat to security and who cannot be brought to justice because this would require disclosing and possibly endangering sources of information.

Palestinians who were alleged to have been on their way to carry out suicide bombings or other attacks have been arrested by the Israeli army and security forces, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, inside Israel, at checkpoints and as they were attempting to cross the borders in other areas to avoid checkpoints. According to the Israeli State Comptroller’s report, published in July 2002: "IDF documents indicate that most of the suicide terrorists and the car bombs crossed the seam area into Israel through the checkpoints, where they underwent faulty and even shoddy checks."(12) The report indicates that it would be possible for Israel to take measures to improve the effective control of people and vehicles crossing from the Occupied Territories into Israel.

In light of the above Amnesty International believes that Israel's claims that it only resorts to assassinations in response to an immediate security threat which cannot be otherwise dealt with, are not credible and that such practices cannot be justified. In most cases Israel has not provided evidence that those who were assassinated by the Israeli army posed an imminent threat to lives which could not be met by other means. In fact there is ample evidence to the contrary. Israel has repeatedly proved that it does have other means at its disposal to deal with such cases, notably by arresting and bringing to justice those suspected of involvement in perpetrating or planning attacks against Israeli civilians or soldiers.

Death and injury of bystanders

Israeli government and military officials have repeatedly stated that all care is taken not to cause harm to other Palestinians when they carry out such assassinations. The facts, however, indicate otherwise. Scores of men, women and children bystanders have been killed and hundreds have been injured in the course of assassinations or attempted assassinations of Palestinians by the Israeli army.

On 24 June 2003 Israeli Air Force Commander Major General Dan Halutz said on Israeli army radio that in the assassination of Salah Shehadeh "we fired knowing his wife would be near him". On the night of 22 July 2002 the Israeli army dropped a one-ton bomb from an F16 fighter jet on a densely populated neighbourhood of Gaza City, killing Hamas activist Salah Shehadeh, the target of the attack, and 16 civilians, nine of them children. His wife and daughter were among the victims. Some 70 others were injured in the attack and six nearby houses were also destroyed. Amnesty International delegates visited the site of the attack and interviewed neighbours shortly after the attack. The following day Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly referred to the attack as "one of the most successful operations".

In his press briefing Major General Halutz also said that "from time to time, non-combatants are hit in our raids. This comes with the layout of the operations. It is also sometimes the result of errors in our estimations despite the precision of our weapons".

On 31 July 2001, six-year-old Ashraf Khader and his 11-year-old brother Bilal were killed when the Israeli army launched a rocket attack on an apartment building in a busy residential area in Nablus. The attack targeted and killed two Hamas leaders, Jamal Mansur and Jamal Salim, as well as four others; 15 people were wounded. The children were playing in the street outside the building targeted by the IDF strike, waiting for their mother while she visited a clinic in the same building.

On 10 December 2001, three-year-old Burhan al-Himuni and 13-year-old Shadi Ahmad Arafe were killed in Hebron in a failed assassination attempt on a suspected Islamic Jihad activist. The target of the attack jumped clear of his car moments before two missiles fired by the Israeli army from helicopter gunships slammed into a busy intersection of the town. Burhan al-Himuni and his father Muhammad were trapped inside the car; the child was decapitated. The other child, Shadi 'Arafe, was travelling in a taxi behind the targeted car; the taxi and a third vehicle were destroyed.

In recent weeks several civilian bystanders were killed and dozens, including children, were injured in a series of assassinations and attempted assassinations, most of them in the Gaza Strip. In two separate such attacks carried out on 10 June 2003, the targets of the assassination – Hamas leader ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Rantissi in one attack and two Hamas militants in the other attack – were wounded while five bystanders were killed and dozens injured, including several children. In the following two days more bystanders were killed when Israeli helicopter gunship launched several rockets at cars travelling in the centre of Gaza City.

On 11 June 2003 two Hamas militants were killed as were six passers-by, and dozens of other passers-by, including more than 10 children, were injured. On 12 June seven Palestinians, including an infant, were killed when an Israeli helicopter gunship launched several rockets at a car travelling in the centre of Gaza City, killing Yasser Mohammed ‘Ali Taha, the target of the attack, his pregnant wife, and their baby daughter aged 18 months. Four other bystanders were also killed and some 20 wounded, including several children. One of the rockets also hit a nearby house, without causing casualties. The Israeli army had previously raided Yasser Mohammed ‘Ali Taha’s family home in March 2003 and arrested his father and three of his brothers.

On 25 June 2003 driver Akram 'Ali Farhan and a 19-year woman, Nivin Abu Rujaila, who was travelling in the taxi with three other passengers, were killed in another IDF helicopter gunship attack. The target of the strike was travelling in another car and was injured in the attack.

The above are only illustrative examples of a widespread and increasingly entrenched pattern of killings and injury of bystanders in the pursuit of a policy of assassinations, themselves unlawful. Claims that efforts are made not to harm bystanders are inconsistent with the practice of carrying out attacks on busy roads and densely populated areas, knowing that it would be virtually impossible not to hurt bystanders. Such practices violate Israel’s obligations under both international human rights and humanitarian law.

Respect for the rule of law and protection of the right to life requires that the Government of Israel immediately put an end to the policy and practice of assassinating Palestinians.********


(1) An extrajudicial execution is an unlawful and deliberate killing carried out by order of a government or with its acquiescence. Extrajudicial killings are killings which can reasonably be assumed to be the result of a policy at any level of government to eliminate specific individuals as an alternative to arresting them and bringing them to justice. These killings take place outside any judicial framework.
(2) See notably Amnesty International's report: State Assassinations and Other Unlawful Killings, issued on 21 February 2001 (AI Index: MDE 15/005/2001).
(3) See for example the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture, 27th session, 12-23 November 2001 (CAT/C/XXVII/Concl.5), the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 31st session, 4 October 2002 (CRC/C/15/Add.195), the Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967; 59th session, 17 December 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/30).
(4) See http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=387: Statement attributable to the Spokesman for the Secretary-General on the Middle East.
(5) See notably Amnesty International’s report: Without distinction: Attacks on civilians by Palestinian armed groups, 11 July 2002 (AI Index: MDE 02/003/2002).
(6) Article 7 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that "No special agreement shall adversely affect the situation of protected persons, as defined by the present Convention, nor restrict the rights which it confers upon them.
(7) Suleiman Tawfiq Ayyub et al. v. Minister of Defense et al., Israeli Supreme Court Judgment 606/78.
(8) Declaration of the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention in December 2001 which reaffirmed "The applicability of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem)" and reiterated the need for full respect of its provisions. This position has been supported by numerous decisions of the UN Security Council. See, for example, UN Security Council Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980; UN Security Council Resolution 681 (1990) of 20 December 1990; UN Security Council Resolution 799 (1992) of 18 December 1992.
(9) Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Israel, UN Doc: CCPR/C/79/Add.93 (18 August 1998) at para 10; Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Israel, UN Doc: CERD/C/304/Add.45, (30 March 1998) at para 12; Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Israel, UN Doc: E/C.12/1/Add.90 (23 May 2003) at para 15.
(10) See also the expert opinion of Judge Antonio Cassese (judge and President of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 1993 – 2000): "Expert Opinion On Whether Israel’s Targeted Killings of Palestinian Terrorists is Consonant with International Humanitarian Law"; The Public Committee Against Torture et al. v. The Government of Israel et al, June 2003.
(11) In addition to carrying out arrests throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip as detailed herein, the Israeli army has often raided and destroyed thousands of Palestinian properties, including homes, factories, workshops and warehouses, which it alleges had been used to store or produce weapons, munitions or explosives, or to carry out attacks against Israeli civilians or soldiers. The destruction of these properties has often been carried out in situ, with bulldozers or by placing explosive charges inside the properties. Inhabited Palestinian houses in towns, villages or refugee camps throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip have also often been taken over by Israeli soldiers, in many cases for prolonged periods of time. The Israeli army and security forces also exercise control throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip through a variety of other means including curfews, closures, checkpoints and patrols around and within towns, villages and refugee camps. The above-mentioned and other activities are another indication that the Israeli army does exercise its control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
(12) State Comptroller’s report, p. 35, as quoted by the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem in its report "Behind The Barrier: Human Rights Violations As a Result of Israel's Separation Barrier", published in April 2003.

Amnesty International today called upon Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) to commit unequivocally to abide by international law, respect the rights of all Palestinians across the political spectrum, and repudiate its policy of targeting Israeli civilians.

"As it prepares to form the next Palestinian Authority (PA) government, Hamas must undertake to spare no effort to end the spiral of violence which has cost the lives of so many Palestinian and Israeli civilians," urged Amnesty International.

The prohibition on targeting civilians is absolute in international law. It applies to everyone at all times, including people under occupation who are striving for self-determination, as well as to the occupying power.

The campaign of suicide bombings and deliberate attacks against Israeli civilians by Hamas and other armed groups constitutes crimes against humanity – among the most serious crimes under international law. Hamas should publicly renounce this policy, commit to ending such attacks and cooperate in bringing to justice those who plan and take part in them.

"Leaders and spokespeople of Hamas have often condemned Israel's attacks against Palestinians as violations of international law. But they have repeatedly sought to justify killings of Israeli civilians in the name of resisting the occupation. They must recognize that the same international law is equally applicable to them – both in their conduct vis-à-vis Israel and at home," said Amnesty International.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE210062006

Can that be more clear?

you even had one.

By either side.

That was my point.

Would you agree?

it's clear they don't know what they're talking about.

It's a bit late at night for a detailed post right now, but a couple of points that jumped out at me:

1) AI's argument that targets are usually not in proximity to Israeli targets at the time of the strike is disingenuous. It's utterly impractical to keep someone (who's trying to hide) under continuous observation for weeks, in territory you don't control on the ground, until they get to a point where you can get to them. Furthermore, they're position effectively gives impunity to the bombmakers, commanders, and so on, since these do not need to stray close to Israel.
2) Toward the end, they actually undermine their own argument. To show that there are alternatives to the strikes, they describe cases where Israel has arrested Palestinians. But that actually shows that Israel does employ non-lethal solutions where possible. After all, it would be much more convenient to just kill them; no hassle of a trial, no chance someone will take hostages to swap for them, etc. Furthermore, they fail to consider that from a security standpoint, the Territories are no homogeneous. For reasons which should be obvious, it's a lot easier (relatively) to arrest someone in a village near Nablus than from the heart of Gaza City.

Since they've cited the Israeli Supreme Court as part of the basis of their analysis, I might note that the Court found that international law permits such strikes if certain conditions are fulfilled.

and i am serious.....the kassams have been flying into israel without real hindrance and with no let up...Either the fatah or hamas or whomever either has no ability or the political will/ability to stop them...or they dont want to. Whatever the reason, they "keep on coming".

so i believe its quite reasonable to ask what you believe the govt of israel should do to protect not just its citizens but its infrastructure as well. (this is assuming one is interested in human rights for all and against all war crimes etc)

you may not like the assassinations, but without an alternative suggestions it appears that you prefer that israelis be terrorized.

that may be your stance..that it is the preferable situation.....but then you dont have to hide behind betzalem etc and just say it clearly:

which is it: kassams or assassinations? There is not in the immediate future a third option.
______

it will be interesting to see if anybody will even answer the question....it is after all, nothing more than the actual choices that exist within the environment.


(this is why pulling out of gaza was so brilliant: its exposes the inability of the palestenian culture to keep a "cease fire (hudna) for more than a few days even amongst themselves, it exposes a society that prefers "guns to butter", one that so quickly turns on its benefactors, and shows the "selectivity" of those who yell for 'human rights".....they're pretty quiet about those human right abuses in gaza these days, about targeting journalists as well.....very quiet, as if its none of anybodys business.....

remove its settlements and withdrawl its forces from all occupied territory or perhaps consider the 10-year truce offer from Hamas as stated above in post # 30.

Would Israelis be satisfied if they were left only with the Gaza existing as a enclave virtually cut-off from the whole world? Would they be expected to be grateful while new settlements are being created and old settlements being expanded in other parts of the Occupied Territories at more than twice the numbers that were removed from the Gaza? Would they not fight if they were in the same cirtumstances?

__________

the full statement from Hamas leadership is in post # 30 aove. It was originally issue on November 1, 2006 and published in an editorial in the New York Times by Ahmed Yousef who is the senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya.

"We Palestinians are prepared to enter into a hudna to bring about an immediate end to the occupation and to initiate a period of peaceful coexistence during which both sides would refrain from any form of military aggression or provocation. During this period of calm and negotiation we can address the important issues like the right of return and the release of prisoners. If the negotiations fail to achieve a durable settlement, the next generation of Palestinians and Israelis will have to decide whether or not to renew the hudna and the search for a negotiated peace.
There can be no comprehensive solution of the conflict today, this week, this month, or even this year. A conflict that has festered for so long may, however, be resolved through a decade of peaceful coexistence and negotiations. This is the only sensible alternative to the current situation. A hudna will lead to an end to the occupation and create the space and the calm necessary to resolve all outstanding issues.
Few in Gaza dream. For most of the past six months it's been difficult to even sleep. Yet hope is not dead. And when we dare to hope, this is what we see: a 10-year hudna during which, inshallah (God willing), we will learn again to dream of peace."

.

do you mean like the one between the palestenian factions that last at best a few days?...or the one declared a few months ago?..when kassams kept being shot and continued to be shot?.....which type of cease fire are you talking about?


as far as "taking what you can get and making the best of it".....yes thats what israel did in 48, it would be a good suggestion for the palestenians as well (the other model, isnt doing to well is it?)

i give you credit as always, you did at least attempt to answer, though you really did skip over the toughest part didnt you?...the fact that even though there is a "cease fire agreement in gaza/israel....the kassams keep coming and you really dont have a suggestion other than for israel to do nothing.

i.e.: in the meantime, its better for the kassams to be shot, to terrorize israelis and let the war crimes continue than for israel to attempt to stop them.

I dont mind us being on "opposite sides of the line".....i just like having the lines clear and we can then dispense with the hypocracy of crying for "war crimes" and human rights"

And I agree that the Palestinian armed forces have also been guilty of terrorism. But I do believe that there can be an agreement not to assassinate or kidnap each others political leaders.

And no one seriously believes the Gaza withdraw was a concession especially when expansion on the West Bank and East Jerusalem more than doubled and Gaza exist as an enclave cut-off from the rest of the world and suffering from decades of policy which de-developed the economy and the civil society.

And I do agree that the Palestinian leadership are a part of the problem.

It should also be mentioned that Gaza is NOT the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Gaza has an entirely different historical, social, cultural, political and demographic differences. I feel particular sorrow for the poor Gazans. For among other reasons even West Bankers tend to look down on them very unfairly. They truly are - as the song goes, "the wretched of the earth"; and I mean that both sympathetically and empathetically. There is a long, long history that made things in Gaza the way they are.

So, if settlement based on International Law and a mutual recognition of equality of human worth is not possible at this time; or a 10-year truce is not possible at this time, my suggestion is the same as former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami's -- talk with Hamas. And I'm not particularly fond of those people either.

__________________

Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami on Hamas:

link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible.

link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

.

So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy. i realize that this is a side track but having elections is hardly the sole definition of a democracy. It may be a major pillar in it, but democracies also require basic civil rights, freedom of the press (without which there is no honest discussion of the events), the power to protest etc. At the present state, there is no democracy in gaza.

Whether or not israel helped, hindered, etc the palestinian gov ts is totally irrelevant. Either the Palestinians and their supporters say "fuck israel" improving our society has nothing to do with israel and were going to "fix it". Israel hardly had much help in its fledging years from its neighbors... Excuses are just that excuses, and they get you nowhere.

And i do agree with you (though interesting enough few here probably know it), that gaza is a far "different animal" than the west bank, in the "worst way"...as you put it.
"the wretched of the earth"; and I mean that both sympathetically and empathetically.

but that doesnt solve the problem does it...the kassams still fly over terrorizing israel, cease fires dont seem to hold within gaza amongst the Palestinians themselves....and the few answers israel has, already been declared 'war crimes" by this forum.

____________________

so lets just call a spade a spade: for some here, its preferable that the kassams fly and terrorize israels rather than have israel respond to them.
its really that simply, so perhaps it would be reasonable for those who criticize israel for the various attempts at stopping the kassams, that they should add a "P.S.".....given the environment and the limitations of technology we prefer that the israelis be terrorized by inaccurate weapons aimed at israeli population centers rather than israel attempt to kill the shooters using far more lethal weapons.

I dont think its a bad thing honesty. If you dont have a real suggestion for israel for the kassams that will be launched today, tomorrow etc, and you prefer that israel does nothing to stop them today...just write it out....you can even include your reasons, but there is no reason to pretend you dont prefer that the kassams be launched without israeli interference. (or at least so i understand by your constant criticism of israeli defense methods and no real concrete suggestions to stop the kassams being built/prepared and/or launched as i write this

As you have advised before regarding Palestinian strategy, it might be worthwhile trying something different.

I really am not quite as hard hearted as the South African fellow in the Movie Munich (a torturous move for me to watch by the way) who said, "I care about Jewish bood" by responding "I care about Palesinian blood".

Yes I am a partisan, it would be kind of ridiculous for me to claim neutrality. I really would like to see the end of this conflict. And I rejoice in no ones suffering or death. Doing so brings bad luck.

and i dont mean this in any condescending way.....just an honest take from what i understand:

as you see it, both the kassams and israeli attempts to stop them (assassinations, invasions etc) are equal in that they are all war crimes.

given that, and your own partisen pov, your preference is that (this is based on the reality and not "wishful thinking") for the kassams to continue without israeli interference until such time if and when the palestinians decide to stop shooting them.

this is just my impression from the various israeli attempts to stop the kassams and your criticism of those attempts (meaning you believe israel shouldnt use those methods).

granted it does sound rather harsh, the way i wrote it, but then again is that not precisly what your proposing for the present and near future, given the reality on the ground?

my question would then be....how can one claim "human rights, etc, when in essence, due to the real limitations of technology today, your saying one group gets a 'pass" on human right violations....they should be allowed to shoot civilians with random rockets with out real interference and the other who is attempting to stop them doesn't?

note; i am not in any way saying "your wrong" from your point of view, i dont believe the words "justice" fairness, etc fit the circumstances, nor do i believe a single standard is being applied, none of this bothers me.....this is not a situation which is "win win"......single standards, pure justice dont exist out here, the choices to be made cross those lines.....i think it would be nice if we could face those very basic facts

when I hear some people talk about "not giving in to terrorism", well all warfare is terror in that it uses frightening levels of violence that terrorizes people and it is done to achieve a political purpose.

on your opposite side of the conflict there are plenty of "hawks" too. Many people just do not believe that Israel will ever, ever, ever allow genuine Palestinian self-determination and think that those who still think that Israel might somehow be persuaded to accept genuine Palestinian self-determination are just being naive and looking at life through rose-colored glasses.

Just as many Israelis I gather look at Gaza-type unilateral disengagement as proof that the Palestinians are not interested in Peace. Many Palestinians look at Gaza a nothing but proof that Israel never intended to allow Palestinians anything accept autonomy in nonviable cantons with nothing more than municipal level autonomy while continued expansion elsewhere confirms the Israeli states' real intentions.

There is a logic to the political motivation for this violence. Please do not think that means that I approve. I do not. But I do understand the motivation. Many if not most Palestinians including fairly moderate Palestinians are now convinced that the Israel state's idea of a "Palestinian state" is a series of convoluted cantons. And that all "good behavior" will get them is a make-believe pseudo-state which has nothing more than municipal level autonomy is a series of bantustans behind high walls and electric fences with needs for movement forever subject to the whims of the IDF. So when the Israeli state makes the threat that if they keep up the violence there will be no more withdrawals. That comes off like threatening Palestinians that if they don't behave they will not get a make-believe pseudo-state which has nothing more than municipal level autonomy is a series of bantustans behind high walls and electric fences with needs for movement forever subject to the whims of the IDF. It should not be too surprising that Palestinian do not want a make-believe pseudo-state which has nothing more than municipal level autonomy is a series of bantustans behind high walls and electric fences with needs for movement forever subject to the whims of the IDF and some are determined therefore to thwart this plan by any means necessary.

When all is done and said, only a political settlement offering real sovereignty can bring an end to this madness.

.

.

When all is done and said, only a political settlement offering real sovereignty can bring an end to this madness......the common belief in israel is that its just a matter of spilling enough blood to get there.

but i will correct you about gaza...its not that we see it as "proof" that the palestinians are not interested in peace, its more of a matter that they dont have a strong central political base to put it together. Electing Hamas while most of the palestinians are secular was just "asking for a mess". In essence they arent ready for self govt, they're present political situation bears that in mind. Failed states do exist and they make their inhabitants miserable, theocratic states do exist and they're just as bad. Gaza can go either direction. Why that is?....we can only speculate, but its hardly in israels interest to have a failed theocratic state on its border......

I had an interesting conversation with a jewish religious guy (reserve duty, north of hebron). He claimed that us israeli secular types hate the religious jews far more than we do the palestinians. In the ensuing conversation he called my 16yr old girl a slut (for wearing modern clothes) and the Palestinians scum, the interesting thing is...he was right, we prefer the palestinians over "them."

those bantustans simply work in keeping our busses from being blown up, and israelis killed. Its the israeli right that is against the wall and the center that is for them, simply keep that in mind. Its like the kassams.....for you and others our defense is "too costly" to the palestinians, yet you can only offer speculative ideas of what may or may not work. For the palestinians....they will have to be patient, get their own house in order and then we can talk....stopping the kassams would be a good place to start, its doesnt really give us much confidence in their ability to have a controlled society...nor do we have much confidence in the intl community when they (and you) say: let the kassams fly, you're not allowed to stop them.

you do realize that if kassams start flying in from ramalla to jerusalem etc....."war crimes or not" israel will retaliate....and no doubt the cry of "war crimes" will fill the media once again.

And in that settlement expansion massively exhilarated during the Oslo Process and continued at full speed in the West Bank with the Gaza redeployment and continues now - it is simply impossible for even the most moderate Palestinians to believe that the Israeli state ever intends or ever intended to allow for a real sovereign Palestinian state. Because settlements look like permanent structures and are supported by vast webs of permanent appearing infrastructure. What else are they suppose to conclude?

I cannot see how expanding settlements and initiating construction of entirely new settlements help Israeli security concerns. It would seem to me that they only put more Israelis at risk while throwing fuel of the fires of discontent.

As long as settlements are expanding and even construction of new settlements are beginning - it simply is not possible to convince even the most moderate and level-headed Palestinian that Israel will ever let go of their real control over the West Bank - except perhaps to allow for a make-believe pseudo-state with no more than municipal autonomy -strung across the Occupied Territories in disconnected cantons forever at the whims of the Israeli state.

.

i 'm being very straight with you here.....the settlements are secondary to most of us. The palestinians and supporters may complain that the settlements are THE problem..and we may hear the same mantra from europe and i'm sure many even believe it...

the only problem with that is, not only dont we believe them, history proves them wrong.

• pre 1967
• hizballa attacks from lebanon
• leaving gaza, removing settlements simply brought us kassams...and what should be clear to you as it is to us: israel is forbidden to defend itself against those kassams both morally and via intl law-according to many voices

• the voices about "hudna" strike us a no more than a political ploy

islamic jihad certainly disagree as does much of the hamas movement with any 'hudna"....and given the lack of stability, who knows?.will a taliban/iranian type of govt appear? which cant be discounted, then what?...missiles on tel aviv that we will be forbidden to stop?
_________________

you, the Palestinians, their supporters may say that gaza wasnt enough....from our point of view it was just enough. It was enough to show the Palestinians at this point in time, cannot govern themselves, it was enough to show the hypocrisy and dual standard of they can shoot at us freely whenever they want, and the "world" wont even give us the legal and moral right to defend ourselves.

talk about creating bantustans?...thats precisely what gaza is, each bunch with its own "turf"
______________

the settlements may not "help things along" but they arent really the problem. We're waiting for the palestinians to "get their own house in order" convince us that, they can do it, stop with the "micky mouse" antics, kassams and maybe they'll be enough land for them to get their own state going.

there is always talk of...window of opportunity, etc, last chance, etc. All that is no more than BS. We can keep on doing this for a very long time and as terrorism increases throughout the world, the Palestinians will find that they are no longer in the spotlight and israeli knowledge and experience will be wanted by western govt everywhere..meaning they will be on the losing side again.

"winners" in life, take what they're given and make the best out of it. The Palestinians have a priority problem, the problem is not the settlements, its their societies inability to make the best of what they've got....and unfortunately as much as i can emphasize with "citizen palestine" it is their turn to do something positive to "break the cycle"

and its the UNs/worlds turn to back israel in defending itself against the kassams, the hypocrisy is astounding as it is clear to us.

yesterday was "jerusalem day"..one of the talk shows had a e. jersualem lawyer, beilin and others who were on the right. Amongst all the injusticies and ploys by the israeli govt, one thing stood out. E. jerusalem residents prefer to live under israeli rule as opposed to Palestenian. Not so much because israel is such a paradise for them, but because the alternative is far far worse.....

with permanent structures and permanent infrastructure if they intend to return the territories.

There is no reason why the Israeli state would have massively exhilarated its expansion of permanent structure and infrastructure in the territories after signing the Oslo accord in 1993 and exhilarated it again just prior to the Camp David 2000 talks if they intended to return the territories.

There is no reason why the Israeli state would have built more and more permanent structure and infrastructure on the West Bank while they were redeploying from the Gaza and continuing even now if they intended to return the territories.

None of this serves Israel's security needs. And none of this makes any sense if the Israeli state ever really intended or intends now to return the territories.

and its simply not worth it. Why would israel tear apart its society for no reason?....there is nothing to be gained politically or security wise for stopping the settlement expansion....what would we gain?

more security?.....obviously not.


btw this is simply a false statement as history has proven you wrong:
There is no reason why the Israeli state would have built more and more permanent structure and infrastructure on the West Bank while they were redeploying from the Gaza and continuing even now if they intended to return the territories.

yamit was a permanent city, nothing temporary about it, the settlements in gaza were not made of cloth, the settlements were built to building standards, all permanent structures...when the time came and it was politically a liability to hang on to them, they were destroyed:

peace with egypt

letting the palestinians govern themselves....
_____

there is nothing "permanent" about the settlements in the westbank, no difference between the roads, homes, stores that were built in yamit, gaza and the westbank....

I'm aware that Israel had dismantled settlements in the Sinai in the late 70's early 80's as they dismantled more recently settlements in the Gaza.

Dismantling settlements for hundreds of thousands of settlers spread across the West Bank would be an entirely different story. According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories; " the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank." link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp
detailed map: http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

As far as political cost goes, under International Law any and all settlements are a breach of several articles of International Law including the Fourth Geneva Convention and a number of United Nations Security Council Resolutions including Resolutions 252, 267, 298 and 465 and more. This is not arguable or debatable. This is not even controversial, much less debatable. In fact under the July 9, 2004 decision regarding the illegality of the Wall even the one dissenting vote (Judge Buergenthal of the United States) in the 14 to 1 decision agreed that all the Israeli settlements and Israeli settlers in land occupied after June 4, 1967 are illegal.
link: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh141.htm

It is hard to expect anyone to believe later removal is the intention when more and more structures are being built all the time with no sign of it stopping or even slowing down.

If there is a painful domestic political cost for removing 8000 settlers from the Gaza; an area that most Israelis didn't care very much about, imagine the political cost of removing one or two hundred thousand settlers from an area that has much stronger attachment especially after several more years of endless expansions.

At the very least they don't have to build anymore; if the intention is only to dismantle them later; and these settlements do nothing but hinder Israel's security needs and drain their resources and complicate their international relations and cost billions to build, maintain and secure. And if the political cost of removing them later will be all the more dear.

.

will serve the palestenians well (i shall avoid the gaza scenario).....although as a rule israel builds poor roads.

Why do you suggest that

If there is a painful domestic political cost for removing 8000 settlers from the Gaza; an area that most Israelis didn't care very much about, The same bunch that cares about the westbank cared about gaza, those that didnt, also have the same feelings toward the westbank. The only difference is the distance the kassam flys.....

there simply is no reason why israel should stop building the settlments from a political point of view. (economically they re a drain and if we had regional elections we would see a very different israel, but thats a different subject)

any way its been agreed there will be a landswap when the time comes (taba), so the physical expansion is not the problem...its the "idea' behind it, that seems to be the trouble......

as far as intl law goes... when intl law lets israel defend itself from incoming kassams as opposed to just waiting for the next salvo to land on our schools and homes then we can have something to talk about, until then intl law and "morality" dont get a whole lot of credit around here.

Envisioned a contiguous Palestinian state. It certainly falls short of Palestinian national aspirations and it falls short of the minimal requirements of international law. Nonetheless, in my opinion I believe that Geneva would make the minimal requirements for acceptability to the majority of Palestinians.
__________

link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2002 -- Text: "Moratinos Document": http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

links to Geneva Accord text: http://www.geneva-accord.org/Accord.aspx?FolderID=33&lang=en and Geneva Accord Maps: http://www.geneva-accord.org/Map.aspx?FolderID=34&lang=en
__________

Significant more settlement expansion will simply make continuity improbable which makes genuine sovereignty impossible. Without a contiguous state we end up back with non-sovereign convoluted and truncated cantons and simple land swaps simply cannot compensate for the difference when all we have is a swiss-cheese doted pseudo-state with pseudo-sovereignty.

Frankly, if I was to subscribe percentages, I think there in no more than a 5% possibility that there will be a two-state solution and a 95% that the prediction of former Deputy Jerusalem Mayor Meron Benvenisti will be what will happen over the next so many years:

"And there's a fourth model, which can be called "undeclared binationalism." It's a unitary state controlled by one dominant national group, which leaves the other national group disenfranchised and subject to laws "for natives only," which for the purposes of respectability and international law are known as laws of "belligerent occupation." The convenience of this model of binationalism is that it can be applied over a long period of time, meanwhile debating the threat of the "one state" and the advantages of the "two states," without doing a thing. That's the situation nowadays. But the process is apparently inevitable. Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose."


link to full article - Which kind of binational state?
By Meron Benvenisti (Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem 1971-78)

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=363062&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
_____________

If one does not want this and prefers a two-state solution to some form of binational solution they should do whatever they can to, at the very least, stop settlement expansion now before it is too late. The Palestinians will no more accept a noncontiguous and truncated bantustan state without East Jerusalem as its capital anymore than Israelis will accept a full and unconditional right of return in a two-state solution. Somethings are just nonstarters and will not happen.

If a settlement is simply not possible now; and frankly I agree with you that it is not, if a withdrawal is not possible now and given the realities of domestic Israeli politics; and I would have to conclude that it is not politically feasible(and frankly domestic Palestinian politics until after the next elections); then at the very least ceasing settlement expansion is the only possible chance their is of allowing a two-state solutions to be possible in the future. A point of no return is rapidly approaching.



.

i dont think it exists....people have been "moved" since time immoral, countries borders have been modified..i dont see any difference here either. Furthermore most of the settlements if not all are on the hilltops not in the valleys. Geographically it is that they will be in sections/isolated and not the palestenians given a serious settlement. The present breakup of the westbank is done so with roadblocks/walls to stop the suicide bombers...when the bombers stop, so to will the roadblocks...as it used to be......and once the wall/fence is deemed useless it too will be removed giving the palestenians their freedom of movement.

unfortunatly this analogy might be appropriate. A friend of mine has a brother whos whole life has been one of blaming others for this misfortunes, starting with his dad, moms death etc. Hes now 42 with no real profession or job, a small time con artist at best. The psychiatrist said that the family has to stop helping him, let him hit rock bottom, and when he realizes that only he can help himself and starts to do something about it, then and only then will he have a chance of doing something with his life. Is the analogy appropriate?...i dont know, i do know that i as an israeli who believed in the gaza pullout as a starting point is very dissapointed in the palestenians....they did exactly what the right said they would do...and being open minded i have to wonder if my ideals clouded the reality.

there many not be a solution in the near future....and for that i feel bad, but not as bad as the palestenians who are now living in gaza.....eventually there will be one....once the leaders decide how pathetic this fight is over semi arid land which is polluted, dirty and has no real resources, and that god is really living in the south pacific..and has been on vacation for the last 100 years.

or live under Palestinian sovereignty. The French in Algeria had to accept that reality.

I cannot not imagine that Israelis would accept a situation of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian settlers under Palestinian sovereignty living in large and sometimes massive settlements - dotting their hilltops and linked together by Palestinian only roads with a vast infrastructure and Palestinian military.

What I think some people don't understand is that Palestinians see Palestine as their homeland. I cannot for the life of me imagine why people don't grasp that.

Just as very, very few Israelis would accept a full and unconditonal right of return or even an unconditional return to the 1967 border, there are some minimums on the Palestinian side as well; most notedly full sovereignty in 22% of their homeland and East Jerusalem as the capital.

As long as settlement expansion continues everyone will be highly suspicious of the real intentions of the Israeli state. And the most reactonaly elements of Palestinian body politic will only be strengthened.

A settement freeze does not require any negotiation and it might convince the Palestinians and the rest of the world of sincere intentions, strengthen the hand of moderate Palestinian elements and convince people that a real peace settlement is still possible under a two state solution.

.

most of us israeli really dont give a shit about the settlers....in fact we would be happy to let the palestinians deal with them. If the ancient land is so holy to them, then it seems that it would superseed the state and they would be willing to live in a palestenian palestine. If the settlement lets them stay...and they agree.....fine with us.

oh we get it very well that the palestenians see palestine as their homeland..its been pretty much accepted long ago.....we just have a conflict only one gets to be the "boss."

israels real intentions are like any other democratic country, multi directional given some issues and more directional given others. The settlement enterprise just happens to be one of those sensitive ones that no one really wants to touch. But seriously what the world thinks of us, doesnt really have that much impact on us.......and with good reason from our pov.

the IDF has now returned fire in gaza....how long until we hear the crys of "war crimes?"

Setting aside the question of whether targeted killings are necessary, you've touched on the greater concern of what Israel's options are under your (and many others) interpretation of International Law as well as how peace might eventually be achieved. It seems like all of Israel's military options are unacceptable; we've already covered your feelings on targeted assassination, so that's out. Sending in a police force with the intention of arresting terrorists would undoubtedly result in far greater casualties (to Israeli soldiers, Palestinian militants and civilians alike), during the subsequent battles to secure the wanted perps, (as well as much larger damage to infrastructure and residential areas), so I doubt that you would approve of that option. They could ask the PA to extradite the suspects I guess. (Haha, OK I'll be serious.) It seems you offer a single tool for Israel to combat terrorism which is to meet their demands in the hopes that there would no longer be a motive to continue attacks.

There are some serious flaws to this strategy.

First, it has no precedent. There have been several wars fought against Israel, all of which she has won. Usually the victor in a war has substantial leverage in dictating the terms for peace. They are seldom the loser's preferred scenario. But that's the gamble with war. The price for rejecting the terms of peace is usually continued war, but if that was a feasible option then the losing party would probably not have surrendered. This might be the only conflict in history where everyone expects the losing party to be the one who can demand conditions for peace.

Second, if there is a single precedent that the Palestinians have shown in their peace negotiations with Israel it is that it does not matter what is written down, signed, promised or assured to anyone when it comes to ending terrorism against Israel. It is worthless. For every truce, ceasefire, treaty or promise to arrest and try terrorists there has never even been any real attempt made to fulfill them. Israel already has a standing agreement with the PA under Oslo. But since Oslo was rejected by Hamas the ceasefire was rendered meaningless before the ink dried. They used the flexibility Oslo afforded them to increase attacks on Israel and the PA did not attempt to stop them. During Hamas' ceasefire recently I do not think that a single day passed without rockets being fired into Israel. So what is a ceasefire with Hamas worth if Islamic Jihad rejects it? (And they WILL reject it.) I do not think we can consider the peace offered by Hamas (or the PA) to be credible enough to highlight as an example of their desire for a peaceful two state solution. I would like to see their willingness to abide by previously signed agreements, (the benefits of which they were more than happy to accept), before we consider their "cease-fire offer" as anything more than lip service.

Thirdly, while many would not like to admit this sad truth, there are consequences to rewarding terrorism by ceding to their demands. Any concessions given out of a desire to end terrorism will have the effect of broadcasting its validity and effectiveness, ensuring continued conflict. Look at it this way, if Israel agrees to your plan of action then it becomes obvious to everyone that they have no recourse for dealing with terrorism other than to give whatever is asked for. Why in the world would Hamas or IJ or anyone for that matter, negotiate in any way other than with suicide bombs?

That is not to say that Israel should never concede something just because it is on Hamas' wish list. Just so long as it is not done out of an inability to counter terrorism. Because that means that Hamas would dictate the terms of any cease fire. It is a surrender on Israel's part. Telling Israel to meet Hamas' demands is in no way a strategy for dealing with terrorism. And if it is true (I do not agree that it is) that International Law leaves Israel with no effective tools to combat terrorism then it is the Law, not Israel which is flawed. We can not expect any country to follow Law that mandates against the ability to defend itself.

Let's try this experiment to illustrate my point. Forget about Palestine for a second. How can Israel make peace with Hezbollah? There's no land for Israel to leave anymore. (I think we can agree that Hezbollah does not REALLY give a shit about Shebaa Farms.) They only have one real request of Israel. It is the same as Islamic Jihad's. Stop existing. So, assuming that Israel can not stop existing or make peace with Hezbollah, how can they defend themselves (effectively) from terrorist attacks from Lebanon without compromising International Law as you see it?

to use violence as part of their strategy.

I personally do not see how military or paramilitary actions are a worthwhile strategy under current circumstances for Palestinian national aspirations. Nonetheless, has Palestinian movement been any more violent or used any more terrorism than any number of other movements in relatively recent history? say for example the black people of South Africa, or the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo or the Kurds in Northern Iraq? I don't think so.

For an agreement to hold there has to be a certain minimal satisfaction of aspirations. So far nothing has come close to doing that.

We could have a genuine sovereign two-state solution with East Jerusalem as the capital or we could have one-democratic-federated state. Either way nothing else accept one of those two options will bring a lasting peace. It beats fighting forever.

.

were a Palestinian parent living in the West Bank I would be very upset at the seeming inabiity of Gazan Palestinians to live in peace together and even more upset at the immediate rocket attacks that began within 1 day of the Israeli evacuation. I would be aware that my children were not safer and better off, but the reverse, and that an independent Palestinan state was even farther off, because of the rockets raining down on Israel from Gaza. (I would also be very pissed at Arafat for fucking up my children's future while stealing billions of dollars belolnging to the Palestinian people.)

Bullshit.

That right after the Palestinian parent finishes blaming the Palestinians for everything and absolving Israel of any blame, they'd rush off and read lovingly through the latest copy of Arutz Sheva ;)

When trying to put oneself in the shoes of others, don't just say 'if I were a...' and then proceed to project what an American with extremely partisan views would think...

btw, a question about yr OP. You said that you think no sane Israeli should support Israel withdrawing from the West Bank. Does that mean you don't support a two state solution?

The Qassam rockets probably serve the interests of both the Hamas leadership and the Israeli leaders for the time being. The rockets are crude, home-made projectiles that have no guidance system of any kind and while Hamas has tried to extend their range it has come at a cost of reducing the payload. As such, its rather like throwing hand grenades while blindfolded. I believe that since the Gaza pullout one Israeli person has died from a Qassam, which means that Israelis statistically face a greater threat of being killed by a domestic house cat than a Qassam missile.

They allow Hamas to continue its image of being proud resistance fighters (necessary for them, as they don't know squat about anything else) and allow Israeli hawks to claim what a disaster the unilateral withdrawal was and it would be worse if there was a West Bank withdrawal.

any day now, covered by the Ham-waffes total air superiority on the way, while the Palestinian submarine fleet imposes a total blockade on Israeli shipping.

:rofl::rofl:

Interesting that so few posts above even touch on my two simple observations.

'btw, a question about yr OP. You said that you think no sane Israeli should support Israel withdrawing from the West Bank. Does that mean you don't support a two state solution?'

It must be obvious to the most devoted 'Peace Now' activist that leaving the West Bank would only mean missiles falling on Tel-Aviv.

is my "favorite".

so far for those few who are actually willing to go that far and discuss the various scenarios I"ve received:

"at first there will be missiles on israeli cities but as their economy gets better they will stop"

"pure fanatasy"
____

most of wont even go that far to even discuss the possibility, hence the description: true believer, you get the same reaction from all religious people on specific subjects, our true believers here at the DU wont even discuss that very real scenario as it negates the basis for their whole belief.

There was virtually no discussion of the obvious issue that was at the center of the OP and that I specifically mentioned. How can Israelis now be willing to withdraw from the West Bank after their withdrawal from Gaza resulted ONLY in thousands of Kassams falling on all towns within reach of Gaza? Lets see now.
1) During the Gaza occupations a lot of things were shitty but no (or very few) rockets were being fired upon Israeli citizens.
2) Within 24 hours of the ending of the Gaza occupation rockets begin falling on Israelis. Within a short period thousands of rockets are fired. Also Palestinians living in Gaza begin fighting each other.

These are huge facts, that can't be argued away, and that every Israeli must be intimately aware of. Perhaps if Israel were an autocracy, or a theocracy, or a dictatorship the ruling parties could force a deal on unwilling citizens. But in a democracy like Israel I can't imagine how any government could NOW support ANY concessions on the West Bank. The Palestinians appear to be in a far worse position than ever before.

But in a democracy like Israel I can't imagine how any government could NOW support ANY concessions on the West Bank.

Interesting...