Does the IDF target civilians?

[zenith-nadir]

The security of Israel does not justify massive massive human rights abuses.

Translation: Israeli lives are not worth disturbing the Palestinian's quality of life for.

 

[Orwell]

Translation: Israeli lives are not worth disturbing the Palestinian's quality of life for.

And you say you are not a partisan hack?!

 

[zenith-nadir]

And you say you are not a partisan hack?!

This is my last post to you. Enjoy it.

Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research

• Today, 52% support armed attacks against Israelis while 43% oppose them. 27-29 July 2000

• 58% support armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel and 39% oppose them. 5-9 July 2001

• Support for bombings inside Israel drops to 52%, but support for armed attacks against soldiers and settlers remain very high (92% and 89% respectively).
• 86% oppose the arrest of those who carry out bombing attacks inside Israel. 15-19 May 2002

• 75% support the suicide attack at Maxim Restaurant in Haifa leading to the death of 20 Israelis.
• Despite the widespread support for the Hudna and the mutual cessation of violence, 58% would still support Hamas’ decision to oppose the ceasefire. 07-14 October 2003

• Support for the Beer Shiva bombing attack increases in the Gaza Strip (87%) compared to the West Bank (71%), in refugee camps and cities (85% and 82% respectively) compared to towns and villages (70%), among women (81%) compared to men (74%), among refugees (82%) compared to non-refugees (74%), among housewives and students (82% and 78% respectively) compared to merchants (70%), and among supporters of Hamas (95%) compared to supporters of Fateh (68%). 23-26 September 2004

• Findings show that support for the Tel Aviv night club suicide attack, which took place about three weeks ago, reaches 29% compared to 77% for the Bir Shiba suicide attack in September 2004 and 75% for the Maxim Restaurant suicide attack in Haifa in October 2003. Opposition to the Tel Aviv attack reaches 67%. But support for the steps taken by the PA to punish the perpetrators, such as arrests, does not exceed 40% while 57% oppose them. 10-12 March 2005

BBC

The Palestinian Authority, headed by Yasser Arafat, is paying members of a Palestinian militant organisation which has been responsible for carrying out suicide attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians, a BBC investigation has found.

Haaretz

Omar Akawi, the captain of the captured arms ship "Karine A," told the press yesterday that the arms on the ship were destined for the Palestinian Authority, and that senior PA officials had organized the consignment.

Globe and Mail

Rafah, Gaza Strip -- Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas yesterday brushed aside an appeal from the quartet of international peace mediators to dismantle militant groups, saying he knows best how to handle them.

There is my evidence that there is/was popular civilian support by the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority for terrorism against Israelis. While you dismiss this instantly as irrelevant in the face of "massive massive Israeli human rights abuses". I counter that it is this public support for terror by the Palestinian civilian population and the Palestinian Authority which is responsible for the harsh Israeli security measures.

 

[Orwell]

I never dismissed any of that! The problem is you see that as a justification for Israeli human rights abuses, that's the sick Tu Quoque argument I have been referring to in several of my preceding posts!

Do you know what a Tu Quoque argument is? Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser, it's the old they do it, so I can do it to. But see, I have never ever defended palestinian extremism, I've actually condemned it in several posts. And as your mom probably used to tell you, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Mycroft]

I never dismissed any of that! The problem is you see that as a justification for Israeli human rights abuses, that's the sick Tu Quoque argument I have been referring to in several of my preceding posts!

Do you know what a Tu Quoque argument is? Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. But as your mom probably used to tell you, two wrongs don't make a right.

No.

A tu quoque argument is pointing out inconsistent behavior of the arguer. If I tell you wearing seatbelts saves lives and you point out that I never wear a seatbelt, it’s a logical fallacy to conclude that wearing seat belts doesn’t really save lives simply because I’m inconsistent. That would be a tu quoque argument.

On the other hand, if you and I got into a fight, it would not be a tu quoque argument for you to say you took a swing at me because I hit you first. It’s not a logical fallacy to describe why you’re fighting.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I never dismissed any of that! The problem is you see that as a justification for Israeli human rights abuses, that's the sick Tu Quoque argument I have been referring to in several of my preceding posts!

Ok, one last post because now you are misrepresenting my position.

I reject the statement "palestinian terrorism is the justification for Israeli human rights abuses". In fact I have never said "palestinian terrorism is the justification for Israeli human rights abuses".

My position is "the support by the Palestinian population and the Palestinian Authority for terrorism has led to an environment whereby human rights abuses occur". If there wasn't 40 years of support by the Palestinian population and the PLO/Palestinian Authority for terrorism - first Fatah attack 1965 - then there would be no war inwhich human rights abuses occur. Period, end of story. That is not excusing human rights abuses it is laying the blame on the Palestinians for creating an environment where human rights abuses can occur.

Lemme show you an example of what I am talking about.

30 May, 2001, 22:11 GMT 23:11 UK

Members of the Kuwaiti parliament have reacted angrily to the visit of senior Palestinian official Faisal Husseini. Kuwaiti parliamentarians warned their government against any rapprochement with the Palestinian Authority, saying it has yet to apologise for siding with Iraq during the 1990-91 Gulf crisis.

That irresponsible action, by Arafat and the Palestinian Authority resulted in:

30 May, 2001, 22:11 GMT 23:11 UK

About 450,000 Palestinians lived in Kuwait before the Iraqi invasion. Most were expelled or pressured to leave after liberation, and the Palestinian community has dwindled to around 9,000.

Approximately 440,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes in Kuwait. Arafat's action had a reaction, and the price was 440,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes in Kuwait.

Likewise the irresponsible action by Arafat and the Palestinian Authority in supporting terrorism for 40 years had a reaction, and the price resulted in a war with Israel, whereby human rights abuses occur.

 

[Orwell]

No.

A tu quoque argument is pointing out inconsistent behavior of the arguer. If I tell you wearing seatbelts saves lives and you point out that I never wear a seatbelt, it’s a logical fallacy to conclude that wearing seat belts doesn’t really save lives simply because I’m inconsistent. That would be a tu quoque argument.

That's the kind of sophistry that makes me despise you, Mycroft.

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a person's claim is dismissed or concluded as false either because the claim is about actions the claimant or another individual has engaged in too, or because the claim is inconsistent with other claims that the person has made. The tu quoque fallacy mimics the legitimate use of the principle of ethical symmetry. The error is that while expressing "fair play" sentiments, what the argument is actually advocating is "equal rights for foul play." In "fair play", if one reasoner is not entitled to use a particular appeal, then no other reasoner may use it either. It does not entitle reasoners to use illegitimate appeals because other reasoners have used, possibly without challenge, similar illegitimate appeals. That the illegitimate appeal has been used before does not make it legitimate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque

Now compare this with what I said:

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser, it's the old they do it, so I can do it to.

On the other hand, if you and I got into a fight, it would not be a tu quoque argument for you to say you took a swing at me because I hit you first. It’s not a logical fallacy to describe why you’re fighting.

But Zenith Nadir wasn't talking about a "fight". He was talking about terrorism directed at Israeli civilians (which is a human right abuse), and trying to argue that this terrorism justifies human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians. And now that that line of reasoning got him into trouble, he's trying to deny it. Zenith Nadir suffers from the same disease that affects terrorists: the same way that muslim extremists don't separate the IDF and the Israeli government from the rest of the population, he is incapable of differentiating the Palestinian leadership and the militant extremist groups from the rest of the palestinian population.

 

[zenith-nadir]

That's the kind of sophistry that makes me despise you, Mycroft.

But Zenith Nadir wasn't talking about a "fight". He was talking about terrorism directed at Israeli civilians (which is a human right abuse), and trying to argue that this terrorism justifies human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians.

Ok, one last post because now you are misrepresenting my position.

I reject the statement "palestinian terrorism is the justification for Israeli human rights abuses". In fact I have never said "palestinian terrorism is the justification for Israeli human rights abuses".

My position is "the support by the Palestinian population and the Palestinian Authority for terrorism has led to an environment whereby human rights abuses occur".

And now that that line of reasoning got him into trouble, he's trying to deny it.

So not only are you misrepresenting me you misrepresent me one post below my post which corrects your misrepresentation. Then you claim "that line of reasoning got him into trouble, he's trying to deny it".

Your dishonesty is simply breathtaking.

 

[Orwell]

You forgot this part over here:

Zenith Nadir suffers from the same disease that affects terrorists: the same way that muslim extremists don't separate the IDF and the Israeli government from the rest of the population, he is incapable of differentiating the Palestinian leadership and the militant extremist groups from the rest of the palestinian population.

 

[Orwell]

There is my evidence that there is/was popular civilian support by the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority for terrorism against Israelis. While you dismiss this instantly as irrelevant in the face of "massive massive Israeli human rights abuses". I counter that it is this public support for terror by the Palestinian civilian population and the Palestinian Authority which is responsible for the harsh Israeli security measures.

"Harsh Israeli security measures" is an euphemism for human rights abuses.
Your words, right there. You're essentially saying that alleged support of the Palestinian population for terrorism is the reason why there are massive human rights abuses committed against them, blaming the victim. Now, hypothetically, in the sense that I would never say such a thing because I am utterly against it, how would you feel if I started arguing that Israeli massive human rights abuses justify suicide bomb attacks against Israeli civilians?

If that's not what you intended to say, then you are not capable of expressing yourself clearly. If you are incapable of expressing yourself clearly, you shouldn't post.

 

[Mycroft]

That's the kind of sophistry that makes me despise you, Mycroft.

It appears you have a label for everything you disagree with.

Clarification is not sophistry. You misuse the tu quoque argument, but that’s partly because you misunderstand Zenith-Nadir’s argument.

But Zenith Nadir wasn't talking about a "fight…

Yes, he is. He’s talking about a “fight” between Palestinians and Israelis.

You’re confusing revenge with defense. ZN is not saying Israelis are allowed to kill Palestinians because Palestinians kill Israelis. Rather, what he’s saying is that Palestinians killing Israelis is what creates the war in which Palestinians sometimes get killed. There is a huge difference.

For example, if you were to shoot my son, I would not be allowed to shoot your son in revenge. That would be what you claim ZN’s argument is.

However, I would be allowed to shoot you or your son in defense of myself or my son. That’s a better analogy of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

You claim (your straw man) is that ZN, myself and others believe that Israel is allowed to violate the civil rights of others if, as a group, they’re bad people who do bad things to Israel. That’s not the case. Rather, what we point out is that often what’s perceived as the violation of Palestinian civil rights is, in fact, legitimate defense against Palestinian aggression.

Your problem is that you refuse to understand the difference.

 

[zenith-nadir]

You forgot this part over here: Zenith Nadir suffers from the same disease that affects terrorists: the same way that muslim extremists don't separate the IDF and the Israeli government from the rest of the population, he is incapable of differentiating the Palestinian leadership and the militant extremist groups from the rest of the palestinian population.

And your dishonesty continues unabated.

I guess you missed the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research public opinion polls I posted THREE TIMES in this thread. You know those ones which DOCUMENT public support for terrorism.

"Harsh Israeli security measures" is an euphemism for human rights abuses Your words, right there. If that's not what you intended to say, then you are not capable of expressing yourself clearly. If you are incapable of expressing yourself clearly, you shouldn't post.

So now "harsh Israeli security measures" is an euphemism for human rights abuses.

Keep diggin your grave Orwell.

 

[Mycroft]

"Harsh Israeli security measures" is an euphemism for human rights abuses.

Taking the point of view that security measures are the same as human rights abuses is essentially saying Israel is not allowed to defend herself.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Taking the point of view that security measures are the same as human rights abuses is essentially saying Israel is not allowed to defend herself.

First it was "the IDF targets civilians". When that didn't work for him as planned it became "Israeli security measures are massive massive human rights abuses". When that didn't work for him as planned it became "Zenith says Palestinian terrorism is a justification for Israeli human rights abuses". When that didn't work for him as planned it became "harsh Israeli security measures is really an euphemism for human rights abuses".

The goalposts just keep moving and moving...soon they shall leave the Milky Way Galaxy and be on their way to the Andromeda galaxy.

 

[Jocko]

He is incapable of differentiating the Palestinian leadership and the militant extremist groups from the rest of the palestinian population.

Simple question: which one is Hamas, leadership, extremist group or population?

 

[Orwell]

Taking the point of view that security measures are the same as human rights abuses is essentially saying Israel is not allowed to defend herself.

Right, except that your little remark doesn't take into account the context of this discussion. I have been talking almost exclusively and monomaniacally about human rights abuses (see my next post). Not only that, I didn't quote ZN saying "security measures", I quoted him saying "harsh security measures".

 

[Orwell]

First it was "the IDF targets civilians". When that didn't work for him as planned it became "Israeli security measures are massive massive human rights abuses". When that didn't work for him as planned it became "Zenith says Palestinian terrorism is a justification for Israeli human rights abuses". When that didn't work for him as planned it became "harsh Israeli security measures is really an euphemism for human rights abuses".

The goalposts just keep moving and moving...soon they shall leave the Milky Way Galaxy and be on their way to the Andromeda galaxy.

I haven't moved the subject around. In case you haven't noticed, or you don't know, targeting civilians is a human rights abuse. Therefore, talking about targeting civilians is talking about human rights abuses too. And it's only natural to move from human rights abuses to the reasons justifying the human rights abuses.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Simple question: which one is Hamas, leadership, extremist group or population?

He won't answer that. And here's why.

The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are one of the militias of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's al-Fatah faction. They have been one of the driving forces behind the al-Aqsa Intifada. The al-Aqsa brigades are responsible for dozens of suicide bombings and many more shooting attacks against Israeli vehicles in the West Bank.

Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist movement closely related to the Muslim Brotherhood. Its stated goal is to establish an Islamic theocracy in the area that is currently Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel, and its attacks targeting Israeli civilians and other human rights abuses have been condemned by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and by Human Rights Watch.

7-9 September 2005

• 74% say they will participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections; 47% of the likely voters will vote for Fateh, 30% for Hamas, 11% for other groups, and 11% remain undecided.

47% of Palestinians polled will vote for Fatah who's armed wing of terrorists is called the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. They are responsible for dozens of suicide bombings and many more shooting attacks. 30% of Palestinians polled will vote for Hamas who's armed wing of terrorists is called the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. They too are responsible for dozens of suicide bombings and many more shooting attacks.

So 77% of Palestinians polled will vote for "partys" who both have armed terror wings that are "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations".

I expect Orwell will say - if he even answers your question - that the 77% of Palestinians polled by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research do not represent the Palestinian population.

 

[demon]

webfusion:
"10 pages and demon decides to join the fray ---"

Better late than never eh? ...anyway, I thought you had me on ignore.

"Occupation causing violence?
That's a blatant lie."

So webbie,
What would you say if the UN passed a resolution granting control of Israel to former residents of Diago Garcia (they need somewhere to live as they have been very badly treated don`t you know).

Now it would all be above board, nothing dodgy I promise. World support, UN resolutions the whole gamut of legalise to smother any concept of human rights.

Of course the present occupants of Israel would be catered for, they could have a slither of land in and around Eilat (very nice from what I hear) I think you will agree this is a very generous offer.
I can`t imagine any Israeli getting upset about it, can you?

 

[webfusion]

No, I don't think you can tell me that the violence of Palestinians is due to "almost 40-years" of occupation (I.E. - since 1967) and then in the same breath tell me that the Palestinians are upset because of Israel's statehood in 1947, and then in the same breath, tell me that the Palestinians are actually upset because of the ZIonist invasion of the 1890's, and then in the same breath tell me that the Palestinians are probably justifiably upset because the Jews want to claim some minor parts of their historical homeland (maybe like, the Temple Mount?) but anyway, it's a moot point, because a mosque now stands there, what are Jews even thinking of, upsetting the Arabs like that?

Make up your mind, demon. Is it the occupation of 1967, or the loss of gaza in 1956 (which Egypt was ceded back, along with the rest of Sinai after that little war) or the statehood of 1948, or the zionists upsetting the Palestinian's quiet town of Hebron (not a Jewish place, right?) or the formation of Tel Aviv in 1912, or the arrival of 'halutzim' in the 1890's?
Tell us, demon, what are the Arabs so upset about?

Maybe they are upset because the IDF targets them for death, like the innocent laborers who were shot (and one killed) earlier today in Gaza?
No matter that these fellows were trying to cross a clearly marked and barbed-wired military no-go zone, and the IDf has orders to shoot at anything that moves in this free-fire area, nope, these poor unfortunate palestinians are just victims of the IDF "target to kill" policy. And the Human Rights crybabies of the World are gonna write it up in a report -- Israeli troops use lethal force on unarmed civilians, who were only trying to infiltrate to Israel to find work.

P.S. -- I am sure Orwell is adding tremendously to the ongoing discussion, too bad I'm missing it...