Does the IDF target civilians?

[Orwell]

I was relieved to see that Orwell recognized that "attacking" and "targeting" are two different things.

Attack: (military) an offensive against an enemy (using weapons); "the attack began at dawn"

Target: a reference point to shoot at; "his arrow hit the mark"

And damn it, the IDF has attacked, targeted, killed, maimed, assassinated, abused, whatever, Palestinian civilians. Period. No amount of bitching, spinning, complaining, lying, etc. is going to change that.

 

[webfusion]

During clashes with soldiers, people can be shot

Which brings me back to asking, Orwell --- in the incident of a Palestinian man being killed in Jenin last week, during IDF operations, would you say he was "targeted"? That question I have asked of you still remains open ---- you are free to answer, or not, as you wish.

It is one case, typical of the type of incidents which are being discussed.
I am not sure why you are avoiding dealing with that, and instead are drawing upon a mass of reports and articles that have nothing to do with targeting.

Was_this_ civilian_targeted_by_the_IDF?

 

[Orwell]

I have already answered your question. I never denied that there are Palestinian terrorists and that they must be arrested. One good action doesn't erase, excuse or rebut all the documented human rights abuses perpetrated by the IDF.

And this "it's a war zone, manure happens" thing is a load of hokum, you're trying to dilute what I have been saying back into something you're comfortable with.

A reminder (already posted):
Israeli Soldiers Tell of Indiscriminate Killings by Army and a Culture of Impunity
Whistleblowers' testimony shows desire for revenge on Palestinians

 

[zenith-nadir]

I have already answered your question. I never denied that there are Palestinian terrorists and that they must be arrested. One good action doesn't erase, excuse or rebut all the documented human rights abuses perpetrated by the IDF.

And this "it's a war zone, manure happens" thing is a load of hokum, you're trying to dilute what I have been saying back into something you're comfortable with.

Was_this_ civilian_targeted_by_the_IDF?

The irony here Web is you've served in the IDF and assure Orwell that you never had orders to target civilians. Orwell has never served in the IDF but he is 100% sure the IDF does target civilians.

I guess it is up to JREFers to decide who's telling the truth.

Personally I would love to see the IDF out of the West Bank for good. They are already out of Gaza so that point is moot. But the IDF can never truely "stand down" as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are still operational, active and a clear and present danger to all Israeli civilians.

Yet what I've learned over the decades is Israeli settlements are considered a violation of Palestinian human rights. The security wall is considered a violation of Palestinian human rights. Restrictions on freedom of movement is considered a violation of Palestinian human rights. The destruction of property is considered a violation of Palestinian human rights. Israel’s response to the terrorism of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is considered disproportionate and....a violation of Palestinian human rights. As a matter of fact the mere presence of IDF troops in Gaza or the West Bank is a violation of Palestinian human rights, the IDF shouldn't be there at all regardless of why they are there in the first place.

Hell, the Palestinian Authority never had it so good. Since 1994 they have allowed the combatants of the militant terror groups to disguise themselves like Palestinian noncombatants. They have allowed the combatants of the militant terror groups to hide amongst Palestinian noncombatants - virtually using them as cover. They have allowed the combatants of the militant terror groups to operate with impunity and launch attacks from inside Palestinian noncombatant positions such as orchards, farms, homes, apartments, schools, hospitals, Palestinian Authority offices and ordinary businesses.

Since 1994 the Israelis have signed several agreements with the Palestinian Authority which obligates the Palestinian Authority to not allow combatant militant terror groups to operate with impunity. They are, in order:

• Israel-PLO Recognition, September 9-10, 1993
• Israel-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, (Oslo 1) September 13, 1993
• Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, May 4, 1994
• Agreement on the Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities (Israel-PLO), August 29, 1994
• Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, September 28, 1995
• Agreement on Temporary International Presence in Hebron, May 9, 1996
• Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron, January 17, 1997
• The Wye River Plantation Agreement (1998)
• The Sharm el Sheikh Agreement (1999)
• Palestinian-Israeli Security Implementation Work Plan (Tenet Plan) June 15 2001
• The Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (April 30, 2003)

Yet even to the very day I am typing this post the Palestinian Authority still allows combatant militant terror groups to operate with impunity.

Palestinian gunmen stand during a news conference after they closed a polling station for Fatah movement at the Khan younis camp southern Gaza Strip, November 28, 2005. Palestinian gunmen, firing in the air, stormed into several polling stations in the Gaza Strip on Monday where President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party was holding primary elections and forced them to close, witnesses said. Courtesy of REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa.

Several Israeli governments have maintained a willingness to withdraw from areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a component of a comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians, but it has proved impossible to fulfill such an agreement despite many attempts by many people over many decades.

I've always wondered if Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'Tselem consider the Palestinian Authority allowing combatant militant terror groups to run roughshod over the rights of Palestinian noncombatants a "violation of Palestinian human rights" too.

 

[Orwell]

I've always wondered if Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'Tselem consider the Palestinian Authority allowing combatant militant terror groups to run roughshod over the rights of Palestinian noncombatants a "violation of Palestinian human rights" too.

Yes, and if you had been paying attention, you would notice that several of the quotes I provided mention that and complain about it. What are you trying to argue? That PA human rights abuses justify IDF human rights abuses?

 

[Jocko]

Yes, and if you had been paying attention, you would notice that several of the quotes I provided mention that and complain about it. What are you trying to argue? That PA human rights abuses justify IDF human rights abuses?

Here, take this, it'll help.

 

[Orwell]

The irony here Web is you've served in the IDF and assure Orwell that you never had orders to target civilians. Orwell has never served in the IDF but he is 100% sure the IDF does target civilians.

I guess it is up to JREFers to decide who's telling the truth.

Yes, that's one ex-IDF sorldier's word against a crapload of HRW, AI and B'tselem reports. Who should sceptics (real ones, not partisan hacks) believe? It should also be noted that Webfusion probably served a while ago, and he probably can't say much about today's IDF (note that most of not all the reports I quoted were from the last 5 years).

 

[Orwell]

Here, take this, it'll help.

Another who hasn't been paying attention.

 

[Jocko]

Another who hasn't been paying attention.

Yes, Orwell, everyone who disagrees with you does so simply because they aren't paying attention. Such arrogance. I've pointed out your problems - semantic and otherwise - twice, and been generally ignored.

You've been challenged to make good on your thesis, and failed by every imaginable measure. If you were smart, you'd write it off as a misunderstanding over the term "targeted," but no, you've got to keep on digging, as if the deeper and darker the hole, the less likely people will be able to see your foolishness.

Dream on, kid. This kind of invective may fly in third-period Poli Sci, but out here in the real world things work differently.

Pay attention, indeed.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, that's one ex-IDF sorldier's word against a crapload of HRW, AI and B'tselem reports. Who should sceptics (real ones, not partisan hacks) believe? It should also be noted that Webfusion probably served a while ago, and he probably can't say much about today's IDF (note that most of not all the reports I quoted were from the last 5 years).

That's a good question, who should skeptics believe?

The problem is that you ask the question as though the answer were predetermined. A skeptic would ask it with an open mind, willing to consider either answer.

 

[Mycroft]

What are you trying to argue? That PA human rights abuses justify IDF human rights abuses?

No. That's a straw-man, and if you made any attempt to understand the arguments of those that disagree with you, you would know that.

The argument is not that PA human rights abuses justify IDF abuses, but that an action needs to be considered in its context in order to be judged.

 

[Orwell]

That's a good question, who should skeptics believe?

The problem is that you ask the question as though the answer were predetermined. A skeptic would ask it with an open mind, willing to consider either answer.

Who is more credible, Mycroft?

 

[Orwell]

The argument is not that PA human rights abuses justify IDF abuses, but that an action needs to be considered in its context in order to be judged.

Why is it that you rarely follow your own advice?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Yes, that's one ex-IDF sorldier's word against a crapload of HRW, AI and B'tselem reports. Who should sceptics (real ones, not partisan hacks) believe? It should also be noted that Webfusion probably served a while ago, and he probably can't say much about today's IDF (note that most of not all the reports I quoted were from the last 5 years).

I guess what I am trying to say to you Orwell is that there are some really bad dudes roaming around the West Bank and Gaza. They are well organized, lethal and supported by nation states. They are worse than your IDF human rights reports,.. murder, assasinations, bombings, suicide bombings, kidnapping, extortion, booby-traps, ambushes, child soldiers, smuggling, torcher. Some of them even stormed Palestinian polling stations today and disrupted the Palestinian primary elections.

Fatah cancels Gaza primaries

The violence by armed men belonging to Fatah, was a blow to Abbas's efforts to exert control over Gaza, territory Israel quit in September and which is widely seen as a testing ground for Palestinian statehood.

"..belonging to Fatah", how ironic considering Fatah is the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority. Anyhow...

These Fatah militants - actually, let's call a spade a spade - these Fatah terrorists are so extreme they are willing to disrupt Palestinian primary elections with gunfire and violence. They have no regard for international law, the rules of war or humanitarian law - they will attack Palestinian and Israeli alike. That is how dangerous they are, they will attack their own without blinking an eye. So just think Orwell what they've cooked up for Israel and the IDF over the years.

Palestinian youths stand next to a masked gunman after militants closed a
polling station during the Fatah movement primaries in Khan Younis,
southern Gaza Strip, Monday, Nov. 28, 2005.

(AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

Look at those kids Orwell. Do they care that the same terrorist just temporarily aborted their democratic future? Nope. Do they look afraid of this un-uniformed masked gunman standing on the street with an AK-47? Nope. One child in the foreground even has his arm around him. He might as well be selling balloons and candy.

That gunman represents the islamist threat the IDF has the responsibility to impede day after day, week after week, year after year. That is why I feel you fail to weigh the facts-on-the-ground with the same gravity with which you weight your IDF human rights reports Orwell.

This manifestation of the Arab-Israeli armed conflict has been going on since 1994. The IDF is not immune to human rights abuses for it's made up of fallible humans. Nor do PA human rights abuses justify IDF human rights abuses. Does that mean the IDF targets civilians, no it doesn't. Does that mean the probability human rights abuses will occur by humans in any armed conflict, yes it does - (example: Abu Ghraib prison).

 

[Orwell]

Yes, Orwell, everyone who disagrees with you does so simply because they aren't paying attention. Such arrogance. I've pointed out your problems - semantic and otherwise - twice, and been generally ignored.

You've been challenged to make good on your thesis, and failed by every imaginable measure. If you were smart, you'd write it off as a misunderstanding over the term "targeted," but no, you've got to keep on digging, as if the deeper and darker the hole, the less likely people will be able to see your foolishness.

Dream on, kid. This kind of invective may fly in third-period Poli Sci, but out here in the real world things work differently.

Pay attention, indeed.

Let me see, I essentially said that IDF soldiers were targeting civilians (in the sense of shooting at them needlessly) but the people who disagree with me thought that I was arguing for some kind of ethnic cleansing. Which I never did, not even once. Then, under the avalanche of AI, HRW and B'tselem links I posted, they started saying yeah, they are shooting at civilians but they're not doing it on purpose, accidents of war and all that. But I found links were IDF officials themselves are quoted publicly saying that they shelled civilians in southern Lebanon as a reprisal for Hezbollah attacks. Then there are the links quoting IDF soldiers (the so called refusenicks) who denounce IDF attacks on civilians, and the careless attitude of the IDF towards Palestinian lives... And then there's the partisan hacks who seem to think that because I am criticising the IDF, I must be defending or justifying violence by the PA and all the Palestinian terrorist groups... Meanwhile, all I got against my arguments was a lot of rhetoric, some name calling, the word of a possible ex-IDF soldier (who talks about his past experience) and a few people telling me "you're wrong" without really advancing any concrete arguments about why I shouldn't believe AI, HRW, B'Tselem, the refusnicks, newspaper coverage, etc. And then there's Jocko, who probably only posts on this thread because he hates my guts (the feeling is mutual) and never lets an occasion to tell me so pass him by. Did you read any of the real arguments before posting insults, Jocko? I'm willing to bet you didn't, ,cause you're an idiot and that's what idiots do.

I guess if the level of the debate stays this way, I might just get back to just posting away links detailing human rights abuses by the IDF, eh?

 

[Jocko]

Let me see, I essentially said that IDF soldiers were needlessly targeting civilians (in the sense of shooting at them) but the people who disagree with me thought that I was arguing for some kind of ethnic cleansing. Which I never did, not even once. Then, under the avalanche of AI, HRW and B'tselem links I posted, they started saying yeah, they are shooting at civilians but they're not doing it on purpose, accidents of war and all that. But I found links were IDF officials themselves are quoted publicly saying that they shelled civilians in southern Lebanon as a reprisal for Hezbollah attacks. Then there are the links quoting IDF soldiers (the so called refusenicks) who denounce IDF attacks on civilians, and the careless attitude of the IDF towards Palestinian lives... Meanwhile, all I got against my arguments was a lot of rhetoric, some name calling, the word of an ex-IDF soldier (who talks about his past experience) and a few people telling me "you're wrong" without really advancing any concrete arguments about why I shouldn't believe AI, HRW, B'Tselem, the refusnicks, newspaper coverage, etc.

No one said they're shooting at civilians, but they're not doing it on purpose, even though if someone HAD said this, it would be enough to put down your thesis as the laughable lie it is.

No, what people have been telling you, briefly and at length, in manners friendly and snide, is that they shoot at terrorists and sometimes miss.

Your repeated attempts to mischaracterize matters, even in the face of firsthand testimony, only shows what a juvenile approach you insist on applying to the question. Like so many liberals, you "know" there is only one right way to look at things, that of limp-wristed relativism, and if a few terms have to be redefined, and a few truths bent to match your philosophy, well, then that's just the way things have to be.

The funniest thing of all is how liberals like to portray conservatives as the "black and white" thinkers, when they themselves are at least an egregious of an example.

Orwell, once and for all - how old are you? I need to know if you're idealistic or just retarded.

 

[Mycroft]

Why is it that you rarely follow your own advice?

Which advice is that?

Who is more credible, Mycroft?

You spammed this thread with 50 or more links. Do you care to pick one and discuss it?

 

[Mycroft]

Orwell, once and for all - how old are you? I need to know if you're idealistic or just retarded.

My guess is high school age.

 

[Orwell]

Yayyy, more rhetoric from the Jockmaister!

The 50 or more links I posted all generally point out in the direction of the IDF shooting at civilians on purpose. What one partisan hack would call "spamming" a more reasonable person would call evidence.

Is that clear, or do you want me to repeat it for you?

 

[Jocko]

Yayyy, more rhetoric from the Jockmaister!

The 50 or more links I posted all generally point out in the direction of the IDF shooting at civilians on purpose. What one partisan hack would call "spamming" a more reasonable person would call evidence.

Is that clear, or do you want me to repeat it for you?

How old are you, Orwell? Please settle this once and for all. Your ongoing reliance on cute little smilies to dodge questions doesn't bode well for your maturity.