Does the IDF target civilians?

[Orwell]

You will have great difficulty in proving that IDF deliberately targets civilians. Posting articles that demonstrate collateral damages doesn't constitute proof of your claim.

IDF knows that International Media that have the worse of intentions towards the country and its Army scrutinize everything that happens and they ready to report the minor incident.

IDF themselves scrutinize every report of unnecessary violence towards civilians but keep in your mind that IDF's soliders are people like you,they have nothing in common with the soldiers in Abu Graib for example.

Imagine yourself chased by "poor kids" with petrol bombs in their hands, or fighting with people that don't hesitate to use Red Cross' ambulancies for their terrorists acts and you will feel surprized by the very low amount of accidents caused by IDF.

Cleo, my dear,

I don't feel like having a debate on semantics. If you drop one-tonne bombs on a residential neighbourhood, it is inevitable that you are going to kill civilians. If you destroy bulldozed residential homes without giving warning to the people inside, you are going to kill civilians. If you shoot at a manifestation with live ammo, you are going to kill civilians, if you use bystanders as human shields, there's a good chance that they gonna get wacked. It's predictible, it can be very easily anticipated. Considering this, I really don't think a discussion of what the word "deliberate" means is necessary.

Also, I'm sure that there have been occasions were there were "poor kids" with cocktail molotovs, but see, I posted an eye-witness account (link here:http://64.226.129.19/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=487) where the journalist describes an incident that didn't involve cocktail molotovs.

Yes, I guess there must have been many cases were the IDF has investigated abuses, but all the human rights organisations talk of a "culture of impunity" in the IDF, and they mention that this got much worse in the last 5 years.

Now, I acknowledge that there can be media bias against the IDF, but you must consider that I also included reposts from three different human rights organisations, and some of my links included reports from a couple of Israeli newspapers. I even linked to people who are in the IDF and who don't agree with IDF practices.

 

[Orwell]

From the first day, those killed or wounded in Jenin and Nablus could not be buried or receive medical treatment. Bodies remained in the street as residents who ventured outside to attend to the dead or injured were fired on. Tanks travelling through narrow streets ruthlessly sliced off the outer walls of houses; much destruction of property by tanks was wanton and unnecessary. In one appalling and extensive operation, the IDF demolished, destroyed by explosives or flattened by army bulldozers a large residential area of Jenin refugee camp, much of it after the fighting had apparently ended.

In the four months between 27 February and the end of June 2002 - the period of the two major IDF offensives and the reoccupation of the West Bank - the IDF killed nearly 500 Palestinians. Although many Palestinians died during armed confrontations, many of these IDF killings appeared to be unlawful and more than 70 of the victims were children. Over 8,000 Palestinians detained in mass round-ups during the same period were routinely ill-treated and more than 3,000 Palestinian homes were demolished.

The number of Israelis killed by Palestinian armed groups and individuals also increased: in the four months up to the end of June more than 250 Israelis were killed, including 164 civilians; 32 of those killed were children.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE151492002

 

[Cleopatra]

Instead of starting chasing my tail here the way Diasy does let me try to get this straight.

Orwel, do you seriously suggest that IDF deliberately targets civilians?

I hope that you will show some respect to the old lady here and you won't put her in the position to explain you why "dropping bombs" in urban areas doesn't equate to " targeting civilians deliberately".

I hope that everybody here understands that this claim is really serious.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Cleo, my dear, I don't feel like having a debate on semantics. If you drop one-tonne bombs on a residential neighbourhood, it is inevitable that you are going to kill civilians.

Obviously you are refering to the assasination of the combatant Salah Shehadeh. Salah Shehadeh was the leader of Hamas’ military wing, Iz Adin al-Kassam, which he helped to found in 1987. He wasn't some low-level operative or a flunky, Shehadeh was the leader of Hamas’ military wing and directly responsible for dozens of attacks against both Israeli military personnel and civilians. Hundreds of people were killed, maimed for life or wounded because of Salah Shehadeh. On July 22, 2002 Israel dropped a one-ton bomb on an apartment in Gaza City, killing Hamas military wing leader Salah Shehadeh, 16 civilians were also killed.

Do I think it was ok that Palestinian civilians were killed in the "retirement" of a combatant who happened to be the leader of Hamas’ military wing? Nope. Do most Israelis?...nope. Did you know Orwell that the apartment Salah Shehadeh was in at the time of the bombing was an operational hideout and a Hamas safe house? I bet you had no idea.

Is that Israel's fault that the Palestinian Authority allows militant groups to use civilians areas - such as this apartment - for bases of operation? Nope. Should Israel just have arrested him? Why yes. In fact that was tried and tried again, but you know what Orwell?, Salah Shehadeh spent lots of his time hiding underground, he was protected by Hamas because he knew and they knew the IDF wanted to arrest him for murder and terrorism. And the Palestinian Authority never lifted a finger to arrest or detain Salah Shehadeh. They never lift a finger to seperate Palestinian combatants from noncombatant Palestinians.

Previous failures by Israel to arrest Shehadeh had disastrous results for Israelis, many many deaths...after all Orwell, Salah Shehadeh was the leader of Hamas’ military wing - a terrorist and a combatant.

Israel's dilemma is it must deal with murderers like Salah Shehadeh and the non-performance of the Palestinian Authority. Now the debate can be made - and it has - that the Israelis target civilians. You give this event as one example. Yet not targeting Salah Shehadeh - when Israel found out exactly where he was - would have meant more terror and death for Israelis. But that side of the issue is moot, since the bombing of the the leader of Hamas’ military wing, Iz Adin al-Kassam in a Hamas safe house is being used as proof that Israelis target civilians.

 

[Orwell]

Cleo, the line between negligence and deliberation is a mighty fine one, and very hard to place. What you may call collateral damage easily blurs into deliberate targeting. Read the links.

 

[Orwell]

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/06/26/isrlpa925.htm

Human Rights Watch today called upon Israel to halt indiscriminate and reprisal attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Lebanon. The organization also called upon Hizballah to refrain from carrying out indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians in Qiryat Shemona and other communities in northern Israel. Since Thursday, the attacks have claimed the lives of two Israeli civilians and at least eight Lebanese civilians. Israeli officials explicitly stated that the attacks were reprisals against the Lebanese civilian population. Internal Security Minister Avigdor Kahalani said that he wanted "all the inhabitants of Lebanon feel what all of Israel feels." Reprisals, when aimed at civilians or civilian objects, violate international humanitarian law.

 

[Orwell]

ZN, if the IDF is willing to kill innocent bystanders in order to get the bad guys, then the IDF is effectively saying that the ends justify the means. The IDF is, therefore, effectively abdicating any claims of moral superiority: Palestinian extremists too don't shy away from killing civilians in order to achieve their ends.

 

[Jocko]

ZN, if you're willing to kill civilians and innocent bystanders in order to get the bad guys, then you are effectively saying that the ends justify the means. You are effectively abdicating any claims of moral superiority relative to your enemies. In this case, they too don't shy away from killing civilians in order to achieve their ends.

Perhaps - but he's NOT effectively saying they "target civilians," which was your reason for even starting this thread. If you'd begun with the post above, this would have turned out very differently, no?

So are you going to concede that you overstated your case?

 

[Orwell]

Perhaps - but he's NOT effectively saying they "target civilians," which was your reason for even starting this thread. If you'd begun with the post above, this would have turned out very differently, no?

So are you going to concede that you overstated your case?

I didn't start this thread, Mycroft did. I didn't overstated my case. A few posters overstated my case, probably in order to build a straw man. All I've said is that the IDF targets civilians, sometimes deliberately. I have provided many links that support this.

As I repeatedly said, all I'm trying to show is that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap. Any discussion of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that doesn't take this into account is one sided. The inability of Mycrofty, Webfusion, Zenith-Nadir, amongst others, to take a balanced approach to this is what has caused me to repeatedly call them partisan hacks, and it also what has prompted me to start posting these links away.

 

[Orwell]

Also, if the IDF drops a bomb to kill in order to kill a particular person, knowing that innocent bystanders are going to get killed, then the IDF is effectively deliberately targeting civilians (along with the alleged bad guy).

 

[Orwell]

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/gaza/

Over the past four years, the Israeli military has demolished over 2,500 Palestinian houses in the occupied Gaza Strip.3 Nearly two-thirds of these homes were in Rafah, a densely populated refugee camp and city at the southern end of the Gaza Strip on the border with Egypt. Sixteen thousand people — more than ten percent of Rafah’s population — have lost their homes, most of them refugees, many of whom were dispossessed for a second or third time. [...]This report documents these and other illegal demolitions. Based on extensive research in Rafah, Israel, and Egypt, it places many of the IDF’s justifications for the destruction, including smugglers’ tunnels and threats to its forces on the border, in serious doubt. The pattern of destruction, it concludes, is consistent with the goal of having a wide and empty border area to facilitate long-term control over the Gaza Strip. Such a goal would entail the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods, regardless of whether the homes in them pose a specific threat to the IDF, and would greatly exceed the IDF’s security needs. It is based on the assumption that every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber and every home a potential base for attack. Such a mindset is incompatible with two of the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian law (IHL): the duty to distinguish combatants from civilians and the responsibility of an Occupying Power to protect the civilian population under its control.

 

[Jocko]

I didn't start this thread, Mycroft did. I didn't overstated my case. A few posters overstated my case, probably in order to build a straw man. All I've said is that the IDF targets civilians, sometimes deliberately. I have provided many links that support this.

Apologies, I meant the your quote was the reason for starting this thread. However, the "deliberate targeting" you insist occurs hasn't been borne out in your examples, and a lot of people are telling you this.

As I repeatedly said, I'll I'm trying to show is that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap. Any discussion of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that doesn't take this into account is one sided. The inability of Mycrofty, Webfusion, Zenith-Nadir, amongst others, to take a balanced approach to this is what has caused me to repeatedly call them partisan hacks, and it also what has prompted me to start posting these links away.

Well, when you insist the IDF is basically in the murder business, can you be surprised when they don't take you seriously? Just like you don't take them seriously because of their bias?

Like I said... your evidence makes a case that the IDF may be too willing to incur civilian casualties - an important question in itself - but not that they "deliberately target" them. Your definition is so loose as to be worthless; it applies to every nation that ever fielded a soldier. Civilian casualties happen, but there's a different standard to meet if you want to say they're being targeted.

 

[Cleopatra]

Cleo, the line between negligence and deliberation is a mighty fine one, and very hard to place. What you may call collateral damage easily blurs into deliberate targeting. Read the links.

Orwell if you knew me better, you would know that the statement above is the safest way to drive me crazy. I don't aknowledge the existence of fine lines. I mean that I do see them but their existence has never prevented me from having the courage to form and opinion and express it. I am not hiding behind " fine lines".

If you believe that your claim has been exaggerated just say it so. You behave like an adolescent now, maybe you are I don't know but this is what my gut feeling says.

I am here for 2,5 years and this is the worse accusation I have seen on line against IDF>

Do you have any idea what it means to suggest that an Army deliberately attacks civilians?
I am certain that you don't know what it means. You need huge quantities of evidence to support this claim and please, don't take me wrong but if this evidence existed ,human rights watch dogs, news wires , human rights organizations,et cetera wouldn't expect you to come with your revelations,they would already know it.

What upsets me though is that your ego is more precious that your ratio. Just say that you exaggerated and let's move on.

 

[Mycroft]

Also, if the IDF drops a bomb to kill in order to kill a particular person, knowing that innocent bystanders are going to get killed, then the IDF is effectively deliberately targeting civilians (along with the alleged bad guy).

No.

If you target the bad guy and civilians get killed, it's still the bad-guy that was targeted, not the civilians.

When the United States killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, they dropped a large bomb on the restaurant where they were. Presumably, this also killed their entourage plus the cooks, waiters and any other staff on duty at the time.

But these other people were not the targets, Uday and Qusay were.

In 1944 when Von Stauffenberg planted a bomb to assassinate Hitler, he knew damned well the bomb would also kill other high ranking Nazis, but the target was Hitler, not the others.

You make “effectively” into a weasel word. When you use it, it means ”not really, but in my opinion the difference is unimportant.”

 

[Orwell]

[sarcasm]Palestinian suicide bomber: we are targeting this Israeli bus. The target is the bus, not the civilians inside the bus. It is the bus that is being targeted, not the people inside the bus. The fact that we are going to target the bus in a place and time where the bus will be filled with innocent bystanders is just an accident of circumstances, collateral damage, if you will. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. [/sarcasm]

 

[Orwell]

You people obviously having been reading the links (I am being charitable here)...

 

[Jocko]

You people obviously having been reading the links (I am being charitable here)...

Orwell, you overplayed your hand. Please acknowledge it and move on. There's no point in you proving over and over again that civilians die, and pretending that others can't see the difference between targeted and collateral damage.

We can, and I'm sure you can too.

 

[Orwell]

 

[Orwell]

http://hrw.org/reports/1996/Israel.htm

Moreover, although the first stage of Operation Accountability was marked by a number of precision attacks by the IDF on purported guerrilla targets, the IDF engaged in wide-scale shelling during the rest of the operation. The damage done during the shelling was then justified as necessary as a deterrent.18 One express aim of Operation Accountability was to punish the inhabitants ofsouthern Lebanon for Hizballah's activities. The extensive nature of the damage sustained in numerous southern Lebanese villages confirms this stated intent.19 Human Rights Watch has found that in addition to the large number of civilian homes damaged, the basic infrastructure of many villages had been targeted and destroyed. By the end of Operation Accountability, conservative damage estimates suggested that some 1,000 houses had been totally destroyed, 1,500 houses had been partially destroyed, and 15,000 houses had sustained light damage.20 Israeli forces cut civilian water and electricity supplies, damaged schools, mosques and churches, and targeted a number of cemeteries with shell fire.

 

[Mycroft]

[sarcasm]Palestinian suicide bomber: we are targeting this Israeli bus. The target is the bus, not the civilians inside the bus. It is the bus that is being targeted, not the people inside the bus. The fact that we are going to target the bus in a place and time where the bus will be filled with innocent bystanders is just an accident of circumstances, collateral damage, if you will. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. [/sarcasm]

Except it's the other way around. The target is the people inside the bus, the bus itself is not the target. If it were, it would be easy to just set it on fire, along with a bunch of other busses, back at the bus yard when it's parked for the night.

When you have to create alternate definitions for words to make your point, all you do is demonstrate extreme narrow mindedness that can't be touched by any new information or rational debate. I guess it's probably satisfying from your point of view, but it's not exactly honest.