Does the IDF target civilians?

[Orwell]

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.

I'm not even going to contest that because it is completely irrelevant.
See, here's the thing: human rights are not something you loose even if you're an idiot. As I said before to Mycroft, even grade A bungholes have those rights. Even if it is true that many Palestinians give political support to terror attacks, they still have those rights. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Israeli abuses do not discriminate between Palestinians who politically support terrorism and Palestinians who don't.

Here's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I believe you should read it.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

 

[Orwell]

Ah never mind... Double post.

 

[Mycroft]

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

Eh, not so much.

 

[Mycroft]

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".

All security measures are harsh. Witness the current fuss in these forums about the security measure requiring that users provide a date of birth. The issue is not how harsh they are, but if they are warrented by the situation. In calling a description of the situation a "sick tu quoque argument" you deny the relevence of the relentless hostility of the Palestinian people towards Israel.

 

[Mycroft]

...See, here's the thing: human rights are not something you loose even if you're an idiot...

Not true at all.

Think of article 3 of your Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Now think of a criminal, a convicted felon. Does he still have the right to liberty? Of security of his person? Heck, if he’s convicted of a capitol crime, he may not even have the right to life anymore.

Situation is everything in making these judgments. You might claim that a person who loses his life is automatically a victim, someone who’s had his “human right” to life taken away, but the truth is someone who unlawfully takes up arms gives up that right.

And that’s the fatal flaw in your argument.

 

[Orwell]

All security measures are harsh. Witness the current fuss in these forums about the security measure requiring that users provide a date of birth. The issue is not how harsh they are, but if they are warrented by the situation. In calling a description of the situation a "sick tu quoque argument" you deny the relevence of the relentless hostility of the Palestinian people towards Israel.

I'm pretty much sure that Israel could find ways of insuring its security without having to shoot at countless Palestinian civilians. Hell, I'm willing to bet that if the IDF made sure that needless killings of civilians didn't happen, there would be a good chance that Israeli security would, in the long, run, improve considerably. But for that to work, the IDF has to do something about the "relentless hostility" towards the Palestinian people of many of its soldiers. That would surely be a good way to improve the situation regarding your alleged "relentless hostility of the Palestinian people towards Israel" (that comment sounds like a hasty generalisation to me).

 

[Orwell]

Not true at all.

Think of article 3 of your Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Now think of a criminal, a convicted felon. Does he still have the right to liberty? Of security of his person? Heck, if he’s convicted of a capitol crime, he may not even have the right to life anymore.

Situation is everything in making these judgments. You might claim that a person who loses his life is automatically a victim, someone who’s had his “human right” to life taken away, but the truth is someone who unlawfully takes up arms gives up that right.

And that’s the fatal flaw in your argument.

Frankly, Mycroft, that's a pretty dumb comment. Have you noticed that I keep referring to "Palestinian civilians", which implicitly means "bystanders"? That is, I'm not talking about militants or PA policeman. And even shooting at militants or PA henchmen should be done according to certain rules of engagement and in a way that will, as much as possible, minimise civilian casualties.

 

[Mycroft]

Frankly, Mycroft, that's a pretty dumb comment. Have you noticed that I keep referring to "Palestinian civilians", which implicitly means "bystanders"? That is, I'm not talking about militants or PA policeman. And even shooting at militants or PA henchmen should be done according to certain rules of engagement and in a way that will, as much as possible, minimise civilian casualties.

You said, "...even grade A bungholes have those rights."

If you wish to make any retractions or to rephrase anything for clarity, go ahead.

However, the point still stands. The liberty of many is restricted because of the poor behavior of a few. That's just as true in the US as it is in the West Bank.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm pretty much sure that Israel could find ways of insuring its security without having to shoot at countless Palestinian civilians.

They don't shoot at countless Palestinian civilians.

Hell, I'm willing to bet that if the IDF made sure that needless killings of civilians didn't happen, there would be a good chance that Israeli security would, in the long, run, improve considerably.

Now we get back to Zenith-Nadir's links, which demonstrate that Palestinian hostility predates the "occupation" and continues despite numerous attempts to make peace. This is what you call a "sick tu quoque argument."

But for that to work, the IDF has to do something about the "relentless hostility" towards the Palestinian people of many of its soldiers.

In short, you want to claim the Israelis would be more secure if they stop defending themselves.

That would surely be a good way to improve the situation regarding your alleged "relentless hostility of the Palestinian people towards Israel" (that comment sounds like a hasty generalisation to me).

The relentless hostility I spoke of has been well documented in this thread and elsewhere.

 

[Orwell]

You said, "...even grade A bungholes have those rights."

If you wish to make any retractions or to rephrase anything for clarity, go ahead.

As usual, all that matters to you is to make a point, no matter how inane... Yes, even terrorist bungholes have a right to due process, and terrorist bungholes shouldn't have to endure torture or unnecessary cruelty, something that your own government doesn't care about. Those are the rights that grade A terrorist bungholes have. See, even grade A bungholes have human rights. I never specified which rights they had because hell, it seemed pretty obvious to me that I didn't have to mention that.

However, the point still stands. The liberty of many is restricted because of the poor behavior of a few. That's just as true in the US as it is in the West Bank.

What a nice euphemism, Mycroft. See, in case you haven't notice, the OT don't resemble the US. I'm not just talking about "restricting liberties". I'm talking about getting shot, or getting a bomb on top of your house. It's the life many is terminated because of the poor behaviour of a few.

 

[Mycroft]

I never specified which rights they had because hell, it seemed pretty obvious to me that I didn't have to mention that.

But which rights? All rights? Or just some rights?

A man unlawfully takes up arms against you, which of his rights do you have to respect?

What a nice euphemism, Mycroft. See, in case you haven't notice, the OT don't resemble the US. I'm not just talking about "restricting liberties". I'm talking about getting shot, or getting a bomb on top of your house. It's the life many is terminated because of the poor behaviour of a few.

There is no euphamism. The difference is a matter of scale, but the principle is the same.

These populations are at war, and you want to pretend they are not at war.

 

[Orwell]

They don't shoot at countless Palestinian civilians.

Tell that to HRW, AI, B'tselem, etc.

Now we get back to Zenith-Nadir's links, which demonstrate that Palestinian hostility predates the "occupation" and continues despite numerous attempts to make peace. This is what you call a "sick tu quoque argument."

No, my sick Tu Quoque was that suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians justified killings of Palestinian civilians. Yes, there is hatred that predates the occupation (how much hatred? Who knows! How do you measure hatred?), but the occupation made the situation worse. And both sides have pretty much sabotaged all attempts at peace, but the responsibility regarding this should not fall on the shoulders of the civilian populations, both Israeli and Palestinian. As I said before, extremists of both sides use civilian lives as paws in a sick game of attack followed by reprisal followed by attack followed by reprisal...

In short, you want to claim the Israelis would be more secure if they stop defending themselves.

No, I want to claim that the Israelis would be eventually more secure if they lay off the brutality. It's not complicated: the more people they kill, maim, abuse and torture, the greater the desperation and the hatred Israel will have to face.

The relentless hostility I spoke of has been well documented in this thread and elsewhere.

You mean the relentless hostility of all Palestinians against Israel? Yeah, I've seen a few polls. Do you trust polls? Or do you only trust them when they tell you what you want to hear? And what does that mean in practice? Are you trying to argue that all Palestinians are potential terrorists or something, so they all are getting what they deserve?

 

[Orwell]

These populations are at war, and you want to pretend they are not at war.

Funny kind of war. Palestine isn't a state. Most of its territory is controlled by Israel. The Israeli army is much more powerful than anything the Palestinians have.

It's not a war, Mycroft, it's an occupation of conquered territory, and the people who were conquered don't like the occupier. Some have been so twisted by their hate of the occupier that they're willing to do anything it takes to kill a few of them, innocent people included. The West bank isn't called the "occupied territories" for nothing.

 

[Orwell]

But which rights? All rights? Or just some rights?

A man unlawfully takes up arms against you, which of his rights do you have to respect?

As posted before:

Yes, even terrorist bungholes have a right to due process, and terrorist bungholes shouldn't have to endure torture or unnecessary cruelty, something that your own government doesn't care about.

By the way, I don't think that you can argue that it is illegal for a Palestinian to take arms against Israel. Note that this is a neutral statement, I am not saying that I approve or disapprove. Personally, I have no problems with Palestinians shooting at the IDF, although I do think it's pretty much pointless. But shooting at the IDF is not, strictly speaking, terrorism. What I have a problem with is with targeting civilians.

There is no euphamism. The difference is a matter of scale, but the principle is the same.

Americans have numerous resources and safeties that protect them against abuses by their government. What protection do Palestinians have against IDF abuses?

 

[Mycroft]

Tell that to HRW, AI, B'tselem, etc.

This thread began with my pointing out to you that your first two links with AI and HRW didn't support that, they only mentioned Palestinians targeting Israelis.

Later on when the spam was a semi-managable 25 or so, I pointed out that all but two of them failed to demonstrate Israelis targeting Palestinian citizens, and the two that did were questionable.

Each time you failed to recognize these simple facts, and now you continue with your unproven assertions.

No, my sick Tu Quoque was that suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians justified killings of Palestinian civilians.

Exactly the point. If someone tries to document that the violence predates the ocupation 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.

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

Yes, there is hatred that predates the occupation (how much hatred? Who knows! How do you measure hatred?), but the occupation made the situation worse. And both sides have pretty much sabotaged all attempts at peace, but the responsibility regarding this should not fall on the shoulders of the civilian populations, both Israeli and Palestinian. As I said before, extremists of both sides use civilian lives as paws in a sick game of attack followed by reprisal followed by attack followed by reprisal...

One way to measure hatred is by the violence it inspires.

Your assertions that the occupation makes the situation worse, that both sides have sabotaged peace, and that extremists of both sides use civilian lives as pawns are all assertions without evidence. You make these sweeping generalizations, and you don't know what you're talking about.

No, I want to claim that the Israelis would be eventually more secure if they lay off the brutality. It's not complicated: the more people they kill, maim, abuse and torture, the greater the desperation and the hatred Israel will have to face.

It sound intuitive, but the historical evidence is contrary to your claim.

One mistake you make is assuming the situation as it is today is as it has been since '67. That's not true. This current round of violence began in 2000, was started by Arafat, and followed a long period of peace and cooperation between the Israelis and the Palestinians where the Israelis were actively working to build up the Palestinian economy under the theory that Palestinians wouldn't want to fight if they had real wealth to lose.

The result?

Arafat walks away from peace negotiations at Camp David without so much as making an offer of his own. A short time later, the second intifada begins.

You mean the relentless hostility of all Palestinians against Israel? Yeah, I've seen a few polls. Do you trust polls? Or do you only trust them when they tell you what you want to hear? And what does that mean in practice? Are you trying to argue that all Palestinians are potential terrorists or something, so they all are getting what they deserve?

Please lay off the straw.

Funny kind of war. Palestine isn't a state. Most of its territory is controlled by Israel. The Israeli army is much more powerful than anything the Palestinians have. included. The West bank isn't called the "occupied territories" for nothing.

It's still a war. It's not any less a war for lack of recognition of statehood, or because the physical forces are of different strengths.

 

[Mycroft]

By the way, I don't think that you can argue that it is illegal for a Palestinian to take arms against Israel. Note that this is a neutral statement, I am not saying that I approve or disapprove. Personally, I have no problems with Palestinians shooting at the IDF, although I do think it's pretty much pointless. But shooting at the IDF is not, strictly speaking, terrorism. What I have a problem with is with targeting civilians.

Oooh! At last a light pierces the fog and you're suddenly able to make subtle distinctions between similar concepts! Maybe someday you will be able to apply this new critical thinking skill to the word "targeted" and figure out what all the fuss is about!

There are legal and illegal ways to make war. Strictly speaking, a Palestinian militant who engages the IDF in a gun battle is not an illegal fighter. He may do illegal things, such as fire from cover of a crowd of civilians and thus making civilian casualties more likely, but he is not illegal.

That doesn't describe the majority of Palestinian agression. From Kassam rockets to suicide bombers, to sniping civilians in their cars, these are the illegal tactics I speak of.

 

[Mycroft]

Americans have numerous resources and safeties that protect them against abuses by their government. What protection do Palestinians have against IDF abuses?

Their protection is the responsibility of the Palestinian government, and the best way to discharge that responsibility is to act in good faith to end the conflict. So far, they've chosen instead to escalate it.

 

[Orwell]

Oooh! At last a light pierces the fog and you're suddenly able to make subtle distinctions between similar concepts! Maybe someday you will be able to apply this new critical thinking skill to the word "targeted" and figure out what all the fuss is about!

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. 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?

There are legal and illegal ways to make war. Strictly speaking, a Palestinian militant who engages the IDF in a gun battle is not an illegal fighter. He may do illegal things, such as fire from cover of a crowd of civilians and thus making civilian casualties more likely, but he is not illegal.

That doesn't describe the majority of Palestinian agression. From Kassam rockets to suicide bombers, to sniping civilians in their cars, these are the illegal tactics I speak of.

Illegal, immoral, so what? Why must Palestinian civilians be punished for this?

 

[Orwell]

Their protection is the responsibility of the Palestinian government, and the best way to discharge that responsibility is to act in good faith to end the conflict. So far, they've chosen instead to escalate it.

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. 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.

 

[Orwell]

This thread began with my pointing out to you that your first two links with AI and HRW didn't support that, they only mentioned Palestinians targeting Israelis.

Later on when the spam was a semi-managable 25 or so, I pointed out that all but two of them failed to demonstrate Israelis targeting Palestinian citizens, and the two that did were questionable.

Each time you failed to recognize these simple facts, and now you continue with your unproven assertions.

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

Exactly the point. If someone tries to document that the violence predates the ocupation 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.

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

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

One way to measure hatred is by the violence it inspires.

Your assertions that the occupation makes the situation worse, that both sides have sabotaged peace, and that extremists of both sides use civilian lives as pawns are all assertions without evidence. You make these sweeping generalizations, and you don't know what you're talking about.

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.

It sound intuitive, but the historical evidence is contrary to your claim.

One mistake you make is assuming the situation as it is today is as it has been since '67. That's not true. This current round of violence began in 2000, was started by Arafat, and followed a long period of peace and cooperation between the Israelis and the Palestinians where the Israelis were actively working to build up the Palestinian economy under the theory that Palestinians wouldn't want to fight if they had real wealth to lose.

The result?

Arafat walks away from peace negotiations at Camp David without so much as making an offer of his own. A short time later, the second intifada begins.

I don't agree with your little revised version of history, but I have no intentions of wasting time discussing 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? If Israel want's people around the world to believe that they're the good guys, then they should behave like the good guys.

It's still a war. It's not any less a war for lack of recognition of statehood, or because the physical forces are of different strengths.

Well, you say it's a war, I say it's an occupation.