Does the IDF target civilians?

[Orwell]

TMY asks -- "Have there been instances where IDF agents have been charged with any violations/crimes when it came to civilian deaths?"

Yes.

Would be a tad too impolite to ask for, say, links and quotes from assorted sources to prove this? Or should we just take your word for it once again?

 

[WildCat]

You didn't rebut anything.

You haven't posted anything that needs a rebuttal. Just a Kilik-style link spamming with no commentary.

Now, go back to your back-slapping party w/ a_u_p.

 

[Orwell]

I think I've already posted this one, but I'm kind of loosing track... Anyway, here it goes, repeated or not...

24 Nov. 04: Rules of Engagement and Lack of Accountability Result in Culture of Impunity for Palestinian Civilian Deaths

According to B'Tselem's data, since the beginning of the intifada, IDF soldiers have killed at least 1,656 Palestinians who took no part in the fighting. Of those killed, 529 were children. Many of these deaths result from changes in the Rules of Engagement, which now allow soldiers to open fire on Palestinians in a variety of non-combat situations, even when the soldiers are not in danger. The most blatant example is the order to open fire whenever Palestinians enter so-called "danger zones," including the perimeter fence around the Gaza Strip, and areas around military bases and settlements.

An equally troubling phenomenon, however, is the climate of impunity in which these deaths take place. Over the past four years, the IDF conducted only 89 military police investigations into deaths and injuries of Palestinians. Of these investigations, only 22 resulted in indictments. To date, one soldier has been convicted of causing the death of a Palestinian. Thus in the vast majority of cases, no one is ever held accountable.

The combination of rules of engagement that encourage a trigger-happy attitude among soldiers together with the climate of impunity results in a clear and very troubling message about the value the IDF places on Palestinian life.

 

[Orwell]

You haven't posted anything that needs a rebuttal. Just a Kilik-style link spamming with no commentary.

Now, go back to your back-slapping party w/ a_u_p.

Really? All the human rights organisations links and quotes, that doesn't do a thing to you? You haven't been reading the links, eh? Too bad, you might learn something. Anyway, if you don't like my "spamming", report it to the moderator.

And Commentary? Commentary is for people who are able to debate honestly, not for partisan hacks. Besides, even considering this, I commented quite a lot, check posts 2, 47, 69, 81, 85, 87, 89, 90, 109, 123. Plenty of commentary.

 

[Cleopatra]

I invoke Goodwin's Law!

...

 

[webfusion]

Checkposts.

"check posts 2, 47, 69, 81, 85, 87, 89, 90, 109, 123"

Orwell, what are you doing here? This is a board where people actually understand that claims need to have some proof or at least evidence of a convincing nature. Look around, it is fairly obvious in all the other discussions that JREF members have a sense of what is ludicrous and what is not.

Here ya go:

#2:
"My point all along is that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap."
------- No argument there. The question has been, is the IDF targeting innocent civilians at random and killing people willy-nilly, outside of combat or active missions, and using their Armed Forces to eradicate civilians in a methodical and pre-planned way (i.e. - rounding them up, machine gunning them and burying the corpses in mass graves?) That is the image of "the IDF Targets Civilians" which is being brought forward in people's minds. For a world that faced this 6 decades ago throughout Europe, for a world that sees this is the standard in Iraq, in Syria, in Sudan, and elsewhere in Africa, for a world that understand the meaning of "targets civilians" in the context of Stalin and Hitler, for Orwell to come here and say that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap, falls well short of any standard of showing that the Israeli Defense Forces are guilty of what he claims.

#47-- "It is possible to target civilians without doing so deliberately, like when a IDF soldier shoots at a kid who just threw a rock at him."
If you fire the weapon in your hands, you do so with the full knowledge of what is in your sights. That's just the way soldiers operate in the IDF. Trust me on this. The IDF even has a very strict rule -- no full-auto fire. Ever. If you even click the safety on the weapon to full-auto, you are facing a courts-martial.
One kid (or even a few ganged together) throwing rocks is not a target, and wouldn't be shot. When a thousand screaming rioters are hurling projectiles and swarming around an isolated IDF unit (usually four or five guys in a jeep), then yes, people are gonna get shot, and if that is called "targeting civilians" then I am going to go on record, right here:
Yes, IDF troops are not prepared to lay down their arms and become victims of a rampaging bloodthirsty mob, and they certainly open fire at civilians.
(see: Ramallah, October 12, 2000)

#69 -- "I'm just acknowledging that it is pointless to argue about these things with you (webfusion)" It is pointless, because you fail to grasp a critical element of the discussion: Evidence must be evaluated for veracity and context. I have posted several times here my evaluations in intricate detail of the spamming you are inflicting on us. I cannot spend the time to cover it all, but I think that when you asked us to "read the links" and mentioned specific ones, I went and took the effort to show where the information contained in the articles linked-to by you did NOT make the case for IDF targeting civilians. In fact, the last one was a reply to post #130.

I would like for you to specifically show us how your post #130 and the 'evidence' contained therin shows support for your claim?

You say that my replies (rebuttals) are just my opinion, and the human rights organizations are more believable. Fine, you are free to stick to that as long as you want, but I think that the skeptics here know who is speaking the truth and who is making a frantic and ongoing effort to re-define the meaning of "targetting civilians".

#123 -- "It is also pretty clear that the IDF is careless about killing civilians during military operations" --- Tough cookies. The Palestinian civiliains are right there in harms way, they put themselves in harms way, they participate in attacks on IDF positions, they provide cover and lend support to HAMAS and Islamic Jihad and AlAqsa and Iz-a-Din-A-Qassem and countless other terrorists/militants/insurgents/gunmen/freedom fighters/PA police who are running around fighting Israeli troops at every corner. What actually amazes ME, is the fantastically low number of Palestinians killed, overall, sir. It stands as a testament to the restraint, the abilities of the IDF, and the true grit of young recruits as they face life-and-death struggles daily.

==========================
NOTE TO TMY;
Orwell posted a link himself, which says, inter-alia,

• IDF conducted 89 military police investigations into deaths and injuries of Palestinians. Of these investigations, 22 resulted in indictments.

Indictments are charges. Does that answer your question?

 

[webfusion]

Let's look at this case --

After a ton of stuff appearing here, it's awfully hard to take anything on a case-by-case basis. I have tried to some extent, but was dismissed by Orwell as not being believable compard to B'Tslelem or HRW.

Let's look at one well-publicized incident of a Palestinian civilian being killed just today. It is in the news story linked to RIGHT HERE.
This is what the report indicates:
In the course of the Wednesday clashes (during a huge IDF military operation in Jenin), IDF troops shot dead a local man who hurled rocks at an army patrol, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said.

Orwell, I have to ask you, in all seriousness, if you wish to bring any credibility to your side of the discussion now, can you indicate whether or not you think this was a classic case of the IDF targetting a civilian?

We await your reply.

 

[Orwell]

...

"Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Although the law does not specifically mention it, there is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Yeah, I realise that I wrote Goodwin's and not Godwin's. Oooh, major bummer!

 

[webfusion]

In the definition of Godwin's Law, my post #146 means that I've lost the argument here.
Sorry about that.

 

[Orwell]

"check posts 2, 47, 69, 81, 85, 87, 89, 90, 109, 123"

Orwell, what are you doing here? This is a board where people actually understand that claims need to have some proof or at least evidence of a convincing nature. Look around, it is fairly obvious in all the other discussions that JREF members have a sense of what is ludicrous and what is not.

I'm a bloke in front of a computer in his office. All evidence I can provide has to be in the form of links. Considering that limitation, I gave you plenty of evidence.

Here ya go:

#2:
"My point all along is that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap."
------- No argument there. The question has been, is the IDF targeting innocent civilians at random and killing people willy-nilly, outside of combat or active missions, and using their Armed Forces to eradicate civilians in a methodical and pre-planned way (i.e. - rounding them up, machine gunning them and burying the corpses in mass graves?) That is the image of "the IDF Targets Civilians" which is being brought forward in people's minds. For a world that faced this 6 decades ago throughout Europe, for a world that sees this is the standard in Iraq, in Syria, in Sudan, and elsewhere in Africa, for a world that understand the meaning of "targets civilians" in the context of Stalin and Hitler, for Orwell to come here and say that both sides are guilty of a lot of crap, falls well short of any standard of showing that the Israeli Defense Forces are guilty of what he claims.

That image (" targeting innocent civilians at random and killing people willy-nilly, outside of combat or active missions, and using their Armed Forces to eradicate civilians in a methodical and pre-planned way (i.e. - rounding them up, machine gunning them and burying the corpses in mass graves?)" is your image, not mine. The links I provided give plenty of examples of what is clearly "targeting of civilians" by Israeli soldiers. I never made claims that there was some kind of systematic "ethnic cleansing" or anything like that. I quote:

It is pretty clear that individuals in the IDF target civilians (just go through all the links). Human rights organisations have routinely complained that the IDF looks the other way when this happens, they mention a culture of impunity (I can find the relevant links if someone wishes me to). It is also pretty clear that the IDF is careless about killing civilians during military operations (once again just look through all the damn links). What are we to conclude from this (if you're not a partisan hack, that is)? That higher ups in the IDF don't give a damn and condone this kind of behaviour.

#47-- "It is possible to target civilians without doing so deliberately, like when a IDF soldier shoots at a kid who just threw a rock at him."
If you fire the weapon in your hands, you do so with the full knowledge of what is in your sights. That's just the way soldiers operate in the IDF. Trust me on this. The IDF even has a very strict rule -- no full-auto fire. Ever. If you even click the safety on the weapon to full-auto, you are facing a courts-martial.
One kid (or even a few ganged together) throwing rocks is not a target, and wouldn't be shot. When a thousand screaming rioters are hurling projectiles and swarming around an isolated IDF unit (usually four or five guys in a jeep), then yes, people are gonna get shot, and if that is called "targeting civilians" then I am going to go on record, right here:
Yes, IDF troops are not prepared to lay down their arms and become victims of a rampaging bloodthirsty mob, and they certainly open fire at civilians.
(see: Ramallah, October 12, 2000)

Here's one instance where IDF soldiers appear to not follow procedure:

Mr. HEDGES: Well, every afternoon--you know, you could almost time
it--around 3 or 4, the Palestinian kids, who have nowhere to play, would play--would go out on the dunes and they'd have kites or rag balls and this kind of stuff. And I remember--I heard it the first day. And I speak Arabic, so I'm listening over the loudspeaker to the worst curse words in Arabic, and phrases like, you know, 'All the Palestinians who live in Khan Yunis are dogs,' which is calling an Arab a dog is particularly insulting. And I couldn't--I just couldn't believe what I heard.

And I walked out towards the dunes and they were--the--over the
loudspeaker from an Israeli army Jeep on the other side of the electric fence they were taunting these kids. And these kids started to throw rocks. And most of these kids were 10, 11, 12 years old. And, first of all, the rocks were the size of a fist. They were being hurled towards a Jeep that was armor-plated. I doubt they could even hit the Jeep. And then I watched the soldiers open fire. And it was--I mean, I've seen kids shot in Sarajevo. I mean, snipers would shoot kids in Sarajevo. I've seen death squads kill families in Algeria or El Salvador. But I'd never seen soldiers bait or taunt kids like this and then shoot them for sport. It was--I just--even now, I find it almost inconceivable. And I went back every day, and every day it was the same.

http://64.226.129.19/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=487

#69 -- "I'm just acknowledging that it is pointless to argue about these things with you (webfusion)" It is pointless, because you fail to grasp a critical element of the discussion: Evidence must be evaluated for veracity and context. I have posted several times here my evaluations in intricate detail of the spamming you are inflicting on us. I cannot spend the time to cover it all, but I think that when you asked us to "read the links" and mentioned specific ones, I went and took the effort to show where the information contained in the articles linked-to by you did NOT make the case for IDF targeting civilians. In fact, the last one was a reply to post #130.

I would like for you to specifically show us how your post #130 and the 'evidence' contained therin shows support for your claim?

Usage of Palestinian civilians as human shields. Executing an alleged "Palestinian terrorist" after he was disarmed and immobilised. We have no idea who this guy was, or what he was accused of.

You say that my replies (rebuttals) are just my opinion, and the human rights organizations are more believable. Fine, you are free to stick to that as long as you want, but I think that the skeptics here know who is speaking the truth and who is making a frantic and ongoing effort to re-define the meaning of "targetting civilians".

I'm not redefining anything. Here's at least to instances where Israeli officials are quoted acknowledging that they were targeting civilians.

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.

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

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

 

[Orwell]

#123 -- "It is also pretty clear that the IDF is careless about killing civilians during military operations" --- Tough cookies. The Palestinian civiliains are right there in harms way, they put themselves in harms way, they participate in attacks on IDF positions, they provide cover and lend support to HAMAS and Islamic Jihad and AlAqsa and Iz-a-Din-A-Qassem and countless other terrorists/militants/insurgents/gunmen/freedom fighters/PA police who are running around fighting Israeli troops at every corner. What actually amazes ME, is the fantastically low number of Palestinians killed, overall, sir. It stands as a testament to the restraint, the abilities of the IDF, and the true grit of young recruits as they face life-and-death struggles daily.

Yeah, yeah...
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast.html

By November 2002, some 2,500 Palestinians and over 650 Israelis, many of them civilians, had been killed since violence erupted in September 2000. At least twenty-one thousand Palestinians and two thousand Israelis were injured, including individuals maimed for life. Both Israeli security forces and Palestinian armed groups committed grave breaches of the rules of war in deliberately attacking civilians or displaying serious and systematic disregard for innocent civilian lives. While old abuses continued and intensified, new ones appeared.[...]A major concern was the culture of impunity that had taken hold. Israeli authorities repeatedly failed to conduct timely or credible investigations into numerous IDF abuses, including unlawful or willful killings of Palestinian civilians. Where such investigations did occur, the results were rarely made public. The Palestinian Authority, in turn, failed to bring to justice those responsible for planning and carrying out suicide bombings or other attacks against Israeli civilians while it had capacity to do so. Both sides justified their violations of international law by pointing to the other side's repeated abuses of these very standards.

==========================

NOTE TO TMY;
Orwell posted a link himself, which says, inter-alia,

• IDF conducted 89 military police investigations into deaths and injuries of Palestinians. Of these investigations, 22 resulted in indictments.

Indictments are charges. Does that answer your question?

You should include the whole quote:

An equally troubling phenomenon, however, is the climate of impunity in which these deaths take place. Over the past four years, the IDF conducted only 89 military police investigations into deaths and injuries of Palestinians. Of these investigations, only 22 resulted in indictments. To date, one soldier has been convicted of causing the death of a Palestinian. Thus in the vast majority of cases, no one is ever held accountable.

 

[Orwell]

In the definition of Godwin's Law, my post #146 means that I've lost the argument here.
Sorry about that.

Well, don't worry about that, my invocation of Godwin's law was pretty much tongue in cheek.

 

[Mycroft]

After a ton of stuff appearing here, it's awfully hard to take anything on a case-by-case basis. I have tried to some extent, but was dismissed by Orwell as not being believable compard to B'Tslelem or HRW.

Webs,

He's already said several times he's not interested in rational debate. Why bother?

 

[Orwell]

Webs,

He's already said several times he's not interested in rational debate. Why bother?

You're right, I'm not interested in debating with self-avowed partisan hacks. I know it's a waste of time.

And Webfusion, you are not believable compared to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'tselem. Considering what you have said here in this thread and in other threads about this subject, considering that you haven't really provided any links or credible sources for your claims, do you think that's an unreasonable stance on my part? I don't think it's unreasonable.

 

[Tmy]

Well DO the IDF specifically target civillians? I would have to say no. Its not their purpose to just hunt Palistinians. They hunt terrorists and terrorist leaders.

But I do believe that the IDF has an organizational environment that doesnt discoourage the loss of inncocent Palistainian life. They probably think that a few civilian deaths helps the cause because it creates fear and intimdation with the Palistinians.

The IDF does not HAVE to fire a rocket at a crowded street in order to get their man. They choose to fire that rocket, knowing there will be collateral damage. Since the collateral damage is going to be Palistianians, its more acceptable behavior than if it were say, an Israelie crowd.

In short, they do not value Pali lives.

 

[Orwell]

Wow, Tmy, no offence man, but could you please rewrite your post a bit better?

 

[Tmy]

Wow, Tmy, no offence man, but could you please rewrite your post a bit better?

I dont know. Its a holiday and Ive had one too many rum-n cokes!

 

[Orwell]

I dont know. Its a holiday and Ive had one too many rum-n cokes!

Well cheers then!

 

[webfusion]

No answer, just more of the same HRW, B'Tselem and the discredited lies of Hedges.

I want to know something about a specific case, and Orwell is avoiding talking about it. Why is that?

Context:
Just today, another Palestinian civilian was killed outright by the IDF.
The circumstances of that death were described in one sentence in a news report, as part of an overall, far-reaching IDF campaign in Jenin, as Israel attempts to stop the terror it has been facing. The man was shot by an IDF soldier on that mission in Jenin.

Orwell, I have to ask you, in all seriousness, if you wish to bring any credibility to your side of the discussion now, can you indicate whether or not you think this was a classic case of the IDF targetting a civilian?

We await your reply.

 

[webfusion]

TMY -- "In short, they do not value Pali lives."

Sickening.
Being drunk (on too many rum-n-cokes) would indeed provide a logical explanation for such a wicked statement about the Israelis. Shut off your computer until you are sober, TMY, is my advice.