Does the IDF target civilians?

[Mycroft]

Looks who's talking! I've given a definition of the word targeted several times now. When you shoot at a civilian, you're targeting him.

The definitions you give don’t fit your usage. One of your links described someone who was hit when there were no soldiers around, how can that person have been targeted? How can anyone have a serious discussion with you when you won’t apply the slightest discrimination to what you put forth as “evidence”?

When you bomb a civilian, you're targeting him, when you destroy a civilian's property, you're also targeting him. And targeting civilian bystanders is a grave human rights violation. I could have used the word shoot or attacks, and it would have meant the same. What is it that you do not understand?

Palestinian civilian bystanders may get hurt, but they are not targeted. None of your links showed that they were. You have bystanders that were hit by stray shots and bystanders that were too close to the target, but you don’t have bystanders that were themselves targeted.

Illegal, immoral, so what? Why must all Palestinians be punished for this?

Are you claiming all Palestinians are punished for launching rockets? Or all Palestinians are punished for suicide bombings? They’re not.

All Palestinians do suffer as a result of the continuing conflict, which their own leaders have failed to resolve.

Ah, but Israel is an occupier, which supposedly means that it is also within Israel's responsibility to take care of the population of the areas they occupy.

Except that they have ceded responsibility to the Palestinian Authority who, under treaty, is responsible for maintaining peace, taking care of the population, and stopping terrorism. Instead, they fund terrorism.

Major conflict of interest, eh? Also, Israel constantly undermines the Palestinian Authority. I mean, they barely recognise it! This is why I have repeatedly said that demonising the P.A. is counterproductive. Even considering the P.A.'s faults, they're the only thing resembling a gov. the Palestinians have. Israel needs the P.A. if they really want peace.

That’s a matter of opinion. If the Palestinian Authority were destroyed, another organization could be created.

But the greater concern here is your apparent reluctance to accept criticism of the PA. Why? Why should it be above criticism? That makes no sense. If they’re the only hope for peace, as you say, then it’s a big deal when they escalate the violence instead of reduce it.

Bovine male manure. You are deciding, according to your whims and prejudices, which facts are acceptable and which facts are not.

You say “whims and prejudices” because I contradict your opinion, but the truth is critical thinkers evaluate the worth of their sources all the time. Some are better than others, some are very poor and almost worthless.

I understand perfectly that my "opponent" isn't honest, since my "opponent" refuses to even acknowledge the simplest most straightforward facts.

That’s a non-responsive answer. Here, let’s try again:

If someone tries to document that the violence predates the occupation or that on previous occasions when Israel has made concessions to the Palestinians that violence increased instead, you fail to get the point and instead read into it this fabrication of yours. (that suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians justified killings of Palestinian civilians.)

You don't have the patience to try to understand what your opponent is really trying to say.

Yeah, right. I don't accept your version of the facts, therefore I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't think you are capable of being fair regarding this subject.

No, I say you don’t know what you’re talking about because you talk in broad sweeping assertions and never get down to specifics. My conclusion? You don’t know any specifics. You “knowledge” is just an impression you have of the conflict and not the result of real learning.

I don't agree with your little revised version of history, but I have no intentions of wasting time discussing it.

Of course you have no intention of discussing it, you don’t know enough detail of the history to discuss it.

See, that has nothing to do with my main point: no matter of what the P.A. is guilty of, that doesn't justify Israeli human right abuses. Do you get that loud and clear?

The problem is that much of what is labeled as “human rights abuses” isn’t. If you were capable of discussing the issues in greater details rather than in just broad sweeping generalizations, we’d be able to discuss that further.

If Israel want's people around the world to believe that they're the good guys, then they should behave like the good guys.

Good guys are allowed to defend themselves, even if that means hurting people.

 

[zenith-nadir]

By the way, I don't think that you can argue that it is illegal for a Palestinian to take arms against Israel.

When they DO NOT belong to an army it is HIGHLY ILLEGAL to take up arms against Israel Einstein.

But shooting at the IDF is not, strictly speaking, terrorism.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades are not the Palestinian army. Therefore they do not have the right under any known law to take up arms and pursue "a combined program of violence and terror" against the government and people of Israel.

Furthermore Einstein Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades do not follow or even care about the laws and customs of war you demand the IDF must follow. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades are irregular organizations who perform illegal tactics, therefore its members are in fact unprivileged or unlawful combatants.

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions does not grant does not grant prisoner of war status to persons who unlawfully participate in hostilities. It reserves this status to members of the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict in the sense of the Protocol.

• Such armed forces must be organized, be under a command responsible to that party and be subject to an internal disciplinary system that enforces compliance with humanitarian law.
• Moreover, members of armed forces must distinguish themselves from the civilian population in order to be entitled to prisoner of war status upon capture.
• The Protocol thus provides recognition and protection only to organizations and individuals who act on behalf of a State or an entity that is a subject of international law.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades ARE NOT the Palestinian Army. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades DO NOT wear uniforms. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades ARE NOT subject to an internal disciplinary system that enforces compliance with humanitarian law.

Therefore it is ILLEGAL for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades to take arms against Israel.

Yet you said:

Personally, I have no problems with Palestinians shooting at the IDF, although I do think it's pretty much pointless.

You have no clue Orwell, really. For pages and pages you just keep opening your mouth and changing feet.

{edited to add}

Or we could go the other way and say Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades are the Palestinian Army. And if they are the Palestinian Army then pursuing "a combined program of violence and terror" against the government and people of Israel is an act of war on behalf of the Palestinian people.

So which is it Orwell?

Are Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades the Palestinian Army?

Or are Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades unprivileged & unlawful combatants?

 

[webfusion]

Out on a little fishing trip --- killed by IDF

I am getting the gist of what Orwell is saying still, since a lot of his stuff is being offered back in the posts of others....

It is clear to me, that after 10 pages of postings on the subject, Orwell refuses to acknowledge that the word "targeted" is being used incorrectly in his thesis.

For example, just today, a Palestinian 'fisherman' was shot and killed by the Israeli Navy. Using Orwell's definition, he was targeted by the soldiers on the IDF patrol boat. They saw the Palestinian vessel in restricted waters, and tried to stop it by firing over the bow, which resulted in a fusillade of return fire directed at the IDF. Upon which, the Israeli Naval Patrol shot to kill, or targeted directly, using their weapons and did in fact cause the death of a Palestinian 'fisherman', named Ziad Dardawel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/653104.html

This is another example of the IDF killing a Palestinian ( I think this is my third such example in this thread, from the news in the past week or so, of a specific named Palestinian being killed, and I have questioned whether or not these fit into Orwell's "targeted" concept?)

This is not from HRW, or AI, or B'tselem. It is from the HEADLINES and is documented as fact, Ziad Dardawel is dead, because soldiers on an IDF patrol boat opened live fire at his vessel and targeted the vessel with the intention of causing the death of those on it.

Is this a case of what Orwell is referring to as "IDF targets civilians" ???

If Orwell wants to answer, that is his choice. I'll sit here and see what happens. (Not holding my breath)

 

[a_unique_person]

It's a fine line, in some ways. If there is an adverse occupation, that is materially resisted, then civilians will die. One solution is to end the occupation.

 

[zenith-nadir]

One solution is to end the occupation.

BINGO!

And in order to end the occupation and pull all the troops out the Israelis have to be 100% sure that the Palestinian Authority will police Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades per:

• 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 Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict April 30, 2003

 

[a_unique_person]

BINGO!

What do I win?

 

[a_unique_person]

On a more serious note, have you considered that the bad faith exists in acts committed by both sides, and, either way, Isreal should still pull out either way?

 

[zenith-nadir]

On a more serious note, have you considered that the bad faith exists in acts committed by both sides, and, either way, Isreal should still pull out either way?

The only treaty between Israel and the Palestinian Authority since 1993 that called for a halt to settlement building is the last one, The Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict April 30, 2003. All the other treaties since 1993 specifically obligate the Palestinian Authority to disarm and dismantle the terror organizations.

That being said continued settlement building is bad faith. But mass murder by suicide bombing is a far worse "bad faith" crime than building a subdivision. Subdivisions can be handed over or torn down as they were in Gaza. Suicide bombing a resaurant or a bus full of innocent civilians is permanent, irreversible.

Look at Gaza a_u_p. Israel pulled out, destroyed all the settlements and Gaza is no better off today that before. There is total anarchy and chaos. The militants rule the streets. I could post story after story like Fatah gunmen storm Gaza offices or Gunfire, Fraud and a Stolen Lion: In Gaza Voting, Chaos Wins. Likewise if Israel pulled out of the West Bank there would also be anarchy and chaos.

Why?

Because the Palestinian Authority refuses to disarm and dismantle the terror organizations that they have been obligated to do since Arafats letter to Rabin in 1993. That is the key.

 

[WildCat]

You have no clue Orwell, really. For pages and pages you just keep opening your mouth and changing feet.

It's not his fault. He went to school in Canada, after all. Reading comprehension is not a high priority there, if his words in this thread are any indication.

 

[Orwell]

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

Tell me, how would you clowns feel if I started going around saying that suicide bombings are the normal consequence of the Israeli's support of hardline politicians?

 

[Mycroft]

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

Tell me, how would you clowns feel if I started going around saying that suicide bombings are the normal consequence of the Israeli's support of hardline politicians?

That's pretty much the point of view of AUP & friends, but I fail to see where you're going with it.

 

[WildCat]

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

Tell me, how would you clowns feel if I started going around saying that suicide bombings are the normal consequence of the Israeli's support of hardline politicians?

I'd feel it's just more inane ranting by an agenda-driven propagandist who won't let any facts, realities, or critical thinking skills get in his way.

How many attempts have you made now to change the subject of this thread? Are we to conclude that you have absolutely no evidence that the IDF targets civilians?

 

[Mycroft]

On a more serious note, have you considered that the bad faith exists in acts committed by both sides, and, either way, Isreal should still pull out either way?

I believe any honest assessment of the history of the last 40 years will show that the "bad faith" is disproportionately from the Palestinian side.

You keep trying to create equivalence with phrases like “bad faith on both sides” or
“extremists on both sides”, but it’s fundamentally dishonest when the extremists on the Palestinian side define their position, rule their people, and in polls represent more than half their population and you don’t acknowledge that the extremists on the Israeli side represent only a tiny fraction of that.

It’s a systematic pattern with you, where you overstate the wrongs done by Israel while understating the wrongs done to Israel.

 

[Orwell]

When they DO NOT belong to an army it is HIGHLY ILLEGAL to take up arms against Israel Einstein.

Well, since Israel occupied Gaza and the West bank, and there isn't really such a thing as a Palestinian state and therefore, no army (the PA has a security force, but that's it), all Palestinian armed resistance against Israel's occupation is illegal. Nice piece of spurious logic you have there. Not that it matters, I think that Palestinian extremists care as much about their legal status as Israel cares about UN resolutions.

 

[Orwell]

I believe any honest assessment of the history of the last 40 years will show that the "bad faith" is disproportionately from the Palestinian side.

You keep trying to create equivalence with phrases like “bad faith on both sides” or
“extremists on both sides”, but it’s fundamentally dishonest when the extremists on the Palestinian side define their position, rule their people, and in polls represent more than half their population and you don’t acknowledge that the extremists on the Israeli side represent only a tiny fraction of that.

It’s a systematic pattern with you, where you overstate the wrongs done by Israel while understating the wrongs done to Israel.

I have not understated the wrongs to Israel because I have not been specifically talking about that. The thread title was "Does the IDF target civilians". You should know, it's your thread. Therefore, I have specifically talked about Israeli human rights abuses committed against Palestinian civilians. I do not know how you go about measuring who did more harm to whom during this conflict and I'm not that interested. I am not interested in playing along with the typical villains and heroes version of history that is so dear to partisan hacks and nationalists. I am content with saying that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap. Is that simple enough for you, or do I have to use shorter words?

 

[Orwell]

As I said before:

I've given a definition of the word targeted several times now. When you shoot at a civilian, you're targeting him. When you bomb a civilian, you're targeting him, when you destroy a civilian's property, you're also targeting him. And targeting civilian bystanders is a grave human rights violation. I could have used the word shoot or attacks, and it would have meant the same. What is it that you do not understand?

 

[Orwell]

That's pretty much the point of view of AUP & friends, but I fail to see where you're going with it.

You're so far gone into partisan hackism that you don't even notice when you're being blatantly unfair. Another example:

That’s a matter of opinion. If the Palestinian Authority were destroyed, another organization could be created.

If I went around saying "If the Israeli government was destroyed, another organization could be created" you would be probably going around calling an anti-Semite or something like that. Whether you and I like the PA or not (and let me make things clear, I don't like them much), the Palestinians elected the PA.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Well, since Israel occupied Gaza and the West bank, and there isn't really such a thing as a Palestinian state

Prior to 1967 Gaza was Egyptian territory and the West Bank was Jordanian territory. You are correct.

and therefore, no army (the PA has a security force, but that's it),

Once again WRONG. You have a consistent batting average. The Palestinian Security Services (PSS) constitute the Palestinian police force and it's rudimentary army per:

• 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 Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict April 30, 2003

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades are not the Palestinian army. Therefore they do not have the right under any known law to take up arms and pursue "a combined program of violence and terror" against the government and people of Israel.

Not that it matters, I think that Palestinian extremists care as much about their legal status as Israel cares about UN resolutions.

Keep diggin'

 

[Orwell]

Oh, more word playing! Is a police force an army? I would say no. Zenith-Nadir, unsurprisingly, says yes, 'cause right now it's convenient to say so. Whatever...

 

[webfusion]

"all Palestinian armed resistance against Israel's occupation is illegal."

Totally illegal.
In fact, the Palestinians themselves made a big deal about officially renouncing the use of violence as a means to achieve their ends (an independent State, alongside and in cooperation with Israel). It all went to ◊◊◊◊.

ORWELL MAINTAINS: I've given a definition of the word targeted several times now. When you shoot at a civilian, you're targeting him. When you bomb a civilian, you're targeting him, when you destroy a civilian's property, you're also targeting him.

I reject this characterization, and so does everyone else in this thread.
Orwell is the only one using this definition. That is his problem, right from the start. He misunderstood (and refuses to comprehend) that the IDF does not target civilians, The only way to define the word "target" in this discussion is in comparison to the way that the Palestinians target Israelis. All these efforts to say 'they are both guilty of a lot of crap' is useless nonsense, when the reference point is how the Palestinians target Israelis for death, as a matter of intent and planning and doctrine, and the IDF doesn't act in that manner.

That's all we are showing. Now, if you want to bring up the IDF actions since the 1967 occupation, the zionist invasion of the 1890's, the naqba of 1948, the intifada, the Lebanon war, right through to the killings this week of Palestinians trying to infiltrate over the Israel/Gaza border fence, or throwing rocks in a riot, or fishing in restricted waters and then opening fire against an IDF patrol boat making a routine inspection, I am totally convinced that is outside of the perspective and the scope of the OP. At no point has Orwell argued otherwise, despite my challenging him to do so, several times.

It’s the IDF policy not to "target" civilians for death.

So far, in this entire long thread, Orwell has brought forward NO EVIDENCE that the IDF operates in a way that can be understood to mean the soldiers are given orders to kill Palestinians, for sport, for the hell of it, as a method of war or as part of any IDF doctrine, at any level. All conjecture to that direction is unprovable. (because it isn't true, I may say)
The Palestinians, on the other hand, do utilize the targeting of Israeli civilians as a method, as a doctrine, and direct orders are given to murder Israelis, at random and in their cities and towns and in their communities, and that is not conjecture, it is verifiable fact.

That is the summary of the OP in this thread from post #1.
All the rest has gone in circles and avoided this basic value.