Does the IDF target civilians?

[WildCat]

My claims were that the IDF has targeted civilians (in the strictest sense of the word targeted). I know some people wanted me to be implying more, probably in the hopes of building a straw man... And concerning this claim (that the IDF was targeting, or if you prefer, attacking civilians) I gave you many links that I believe to be credible that support it.

You've had quite a while now to show evidence that the IDF targets civilians. You've offered bluff, bluster, and misdirection, but no evidence. I think at this point it's safe to say you have no evidence, and we can all be reasonably sure the IDF does not target civilians.

If you want to start a thread about the limits one should have in prosecuting a war, please do so. But I see much evidence that you don't think Israel is really at war, so you'll just retreat back to your usual strawmen and link-spamming. Whatever.

 

[Orwell]

The magnitude of the prejudice and ignorance of the Israel bashers is demonstrated by the fact that nobody discussed the verdict of the Israeli Supreme Court according to which the use of civilians as human shields is banned, a case that was brought to court by Israeli human rights activists.Note that the verdict came as a follow up to an injunction previously issued (a couple of years earlier), in the peak of Intifanda II where human bombs were exploding every other day!!

I am sorry to ruin your illusions.

Off to lunch, REALLY pissed off.

See, this is the typical line of argument that makes me laugh in disbelief...

So what if the Israeli supreme court has banned that practice? That only gives further support to the reports that the IDF was using it. Why do you have to turn my criticisms of IDF behaviour into a general attack on the entire nation of Israel, all other institutions included? It was never intended as such, and the fact that you think it is indicates that you are unable to think clearly when talking about Israel.

This stupid hostility really doesn't become you.

 

[Orwell]

I would have to call myself a partisan hack in order for it to be "self-avowed." Since I don't label myself that way, the correct term would be "so called."

I recall a threat were you said that you thought criticising Israel was "inappropriate".

 

[Orwell]

You've had quite a while now to show evidence that the IDF targets civilians. You've offered bluff, bluster, and misdirection, but no evidence. I think at this point it's safe to say you have no evidence, and we can all be reasonably sure the IDF does not target civilians.

If you want to start a thread about the limits one should have in prosecuting a war, please do so. But I see much evidence that you don't think Israel is really at war, so you'll just retreat back to your usual strawmen and link-spamming. Whatever.

I offered you all the evidence that I could have possibly offered you. Link after link after link. If you're too stupid (or too dishonest) to understand what's described in those links, well, that's not my problem now is it?

Sceptics... Yeah right.

Since it seems that you aren't willing to debate the issue in an honest way, maybe I should keep posting my links away...

 

[Cleopatra]

I had no idea I found this 'amusing'. Could you point out any evidence that I do?

No, I can't point out any evidence the same way I can't show any evidence in the instances _I_ unlike the majority of the people here know when you are joking or when you are genuinely upset or sad.

 

[Cleopatra]

See, this is the typical line of argument that makes me laugh in disbelief...

So what if the Israeli supreme court have banned that practice? That only gives further support to the reports that the IDF was using it. Why do you have to turn my criticisms of IDF behaviour into a general attack on the entire nation of Israel, all other institutions included? It was never intended as such, and the fact that you think it is indicates that you are unable to think clearly when talking about Israel.

This stupid hostility really doesn't become you.

Probably I can't think clearly when it comes to Israel but I can think clearly when it comes to legislation. In various threads in this forum I have posted many things regarding the nature of law. A law usually is the outcome of a long-long procedure that exists to underline what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a society.

So, during a war period which wasn't a common case of war, it was a war against the israeli civilians--the Israeli Surpeme Court comes and makes official something that was considered " bad practice" by the Army. This proves that your claim, that IDF targets civilians doesn't stand.

I wasn't upset by your criticism and I am not intimidated by such comments because I have been posting in this forum for quite a long time and people know where do I come from. I am passionate pacifist,dedicated to the cause of peace, hoping that very soon I will see the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.I am passionately in favor of an secular israeli state knowing that in the case of Israel this is not very simple. BUT this doesn't mean that I am obliged to tolerate unfair criticism,kicks below the belt etc.

So, I wasn't upset by your criticism but I was genuinely upset by the light hearted way you seem to form your opinion about this matter. What the world thinks about Israel is of vital importance for the peace process. Chosing to attack Israelis with no reason and refusing to aknowledge certain facts about Israel,makes Israelis more introvert and more scarred and if Israeli people were less scarred the incidents of abuse of power by IDF that you listed above would be much much less.

BTW what happened to the first crop of the greenhouses in Gaza? Have the Israeli authorities let the farmers sell their products or the former still wait for the approval to come? Who knows about that? Who exercizes pressure to Israel about that? Nobody! All of you are too busy criticizing the obvious and let the pacifists of both sides helpless and desperate.

 

[Orwell]

Probably I can't think clearly when it comes to Israel but I can think clearly when it comes to legislation. In various threads in this forum I have posted many things regarding the nature of law. A law usually is the outcome of a long-long procedure that exists to underline what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a society.

So, during a war period which wasn't a common case of war, it was a war against the israeli civilians--the Israeli Surpeme Court comes and makes official something that was considered " bad practice" by the Army. This proves that your claim, that IDF targets civilians doesn't stand.

You're a lawyer, eh? That explains a lot of things. I dunno, maybe a chunk of IDF hierarchy doesn't share the values of the rest of the Israeli society? Or maybe it's the Israeli supreme court who's out of step with the values of Israeli society (I sincerely hope not, by the way). How should I know? Why should I care? All I know is that the IDF has done reprehensible things. As I said before, any debate regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that doesn't take this into account is doomed to be one sided. By the way, I'm happy to see that the Israeli supreme court is trying to put some limits on IDF abuses.

I wasn't upset by your criticism and I am not intimidated by such comments because I have been posting in this forum for quite a long time and people know where do I come from. I am passionate pacifist,dedicated to the cause of peace, hoping that very soon I will see the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.I am passionately in favor of an secular israeli state knowing that in the case of Israel this is not very simple. BUT this doesn't mean that I am obliged to tolerate unfair criticism,kicks below the belt etc.

Well, Cleo, if certain people in this forum (mainly Mycroft, Zenith-Nadir, Skeptic, and now it seems Wildcat, I'm thinking that Webfusion is getting less adamant now) were able to debate honestly about this subject, I would have probably been less forceful and more diplomatic about my criticisms of the IDF.

So, I wasn't upset by your criticism but I was genuinely upset by the light hearted way you seem to form your opinion about this matter. What the world thinks about Israel is of vital importance for the peace process. Chosing to attack Israelis with no reason and refusing to aknowledge certain facts about Israel,makes Israelis more introvert and more scarred and if Israeli people were less scarred the incidents of abuse of power by IDF that you listed above would be much much less.

Look, I can act dead serious if I think I am treated with respect. If you keep insisting, after all the human rights reports I have posted, that my claims about IDF attacking civilians (I will cease to use the word "targets", since that seems to have produced a lot of confusion) are a fragment of my imagination (that is without any grounds in some kind of reality), I won't take you seriously.

You're right, "what the world thinks about Israel is of vital importance for the peace process". What do you think is best for Israel? Debating the issues in an honest manner, or just spouting propaganda and blocking any serious debate with dishonest arguments? 'Cause see, if you behave that way, I will just find a way to get my point across in the most annoying way I can find.

BTW what happened to the first crop of the greenhouses in Gaza? Have the Israeli authorities let the farmers sell their products or the former still wait for the approval to come? Who knows about that? Who exercizes pressure to Israel about that? Nobody! All of you are too busy criticizing the obvious and let the pacifists of both sides helpless and desperate.

What does that have to do with IDF human rights abuses? Even if the Palestinians were generally a bunch of bungholes (totally hypothetically speaking), how would that justify IDF human rights abuses? It's simple really: I just don't believe that Israeli security requires systematic human rights abuses. Is that an illegitimate stance?

 

[Orwell]

One more thing: Cleo, I am taking the time to actually try to speak to you simply because I think that, even though we might disagree, you at least seem to be honest about your feelings. As far as I can tell, you don't engage in elaborate male bovine manure arguments and spin à la Mycroft, so I don't feel like I am wasting my time.

 

[Cleopatra]

You're a lawyer, eh? That explains a lot of things. I dunno, maybe a chunk of IDF hierarchy doesn't share the values of the rest of the Israeli society? Or maybe it's the Israeli supreme court who's out of step with the values of Israeli society (I sincerely hope not, by the way).

Or maybe S**** just happen in wars, right? Think! We live in an era that the acts of an army come to the light of publicity and it's almost impossible for armies to hide their misdeeds. I am somebody who finds herself in oposition to any sort of authority and govenrment.Government, any government is the worse enemy of any citizen. Still, I expect IDF to apply some standards that exist in peace time, although I know that this is war, real war.

How should I know? Why should I care? All I know is that the IDF has done reprehensible things. As I said before, any debate regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that doesn't take this into account is doomed to be one sided. By the way, I'm happy to see that the Israeli supreme court is trying to put some limits on IDF abuses.

IDF has done some really reprehensible things that contradict even the jewish tradition and I bet that we will been recording such events in the future so our duty is to bring those events into light of publicity and criticize IDF and Israel for its real acts.

Well, Cleo, if certain people in this forum (mainly Mycroft, Zenith-Nadir, Skeptic, and now it seems Wildcat, I'm thinking that Webfusion is getting less adamant now) were able to debate honestly about this subject, I would have probably been less forceful and more diplomatic about my criticisms of the IDF.

Listen. You have started posting only recenlly,otherwise you would have known the welcoming I have organized for zenith-nadir. It was a Cleopatra treatment in full glory. Many times I find myself in disagreement with Mycroft. I might like Mycroft as a person but 7 to 10 of the times I disagree with his points of view. I scrutinize z-n's and Mycroft's posts and frankly I haven't found them lying. They post facts. I am in the position to know that facts many times don't say a word and they don't reveal the truth but I cannot call these people liars just because I disagree with their attitude.

You have to distinguish your personal tastes from facts.

Look, I can act dead serious if I think I am treated with respect. If you keep insisting, after all the human rights reports I have posted, that my claims about IDF attacking civilians (I will cease to use the word "targets", since that seems to have produced a lot of confusion) are a fragment of my imagination (that is without any grounds in some kind of reality), I won't take you seriously.

No, I don't question the reports you linked. Israel has serious issues with violations of human rights and I find myself in a very difficult position when I have to remind to people that even Great Britain made it to the reports of Amnesty International. I consider hypocritical when the interest about human rights is exhausted in Israel.That's all.

You're right, "what the world thinks about Israel is of vital importance for the peace process". What do you think is best for Israel? Debating the issues in an honest manner, or just spouting propaganda and blocking any serious debate with dishonest arguments? 'Cause see, if you behave that way, I will just find a way to get my point across in the most annoying way I can find.

Ok. Why do you expect Israelis to be any different than other people when it comes to state propaganda?

What does that have to do with IDF human rights abuses? Even if the Palestinians were generally a bunch of bungholes (totally hypothetically speaking), how would that justify IDF human rights abuses? It's simple really: I just don't believe that Israeli security requires systematic human rights abuses. Is that an illegitimate stance?

It doesn't have to do with the violations of human rights. It has to do with my asking you to report what is the vital issue for the Palestinians these days.

You seem to have your ears open only for the Palestinian cause which is a fair cause. You have to listen to the Israelis as well.

 

[Mycroft]

What exactly are you saying, Mycroft? That we must not criticise the behaviour of IDF soldiers out of fear of "creating equivalencies between the IDF and Palestinian terrorist organizations"? That's horse manure and you know it

I didn’t say that nor anything like that.

That post was specifically about AUP and how he made his argument. The “horse manure” is how you take my statement ”AUP, your argument is fallacious and here is why” and read it as “You can’t criticize the IDF.” That’s not what I said, and if you would engage your brain and calm your infantile tantrum you might be able to see that.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about these "equivalencies". If the IDF are the good guys, then they should behave like the good guys. Good guys don't drop one-tonne bombs on residential neighbourhoods in order to kill one man.

I’m sorry it offends your sensitivities, but the world doesn’t always work that way. In war, sometimes you take the shot to eliminate an important target even if you know it will also get some civilians. That’s sad, but war is a product of an imperfect world.

My claims were that the IDF has targeted civilians (in the strictest sense of the word targeted). I know some people wanted me to be implying more, probably in the hopes of building a straw man... And concerning this claim (that the IDF was targeting, or if you prefer, attacking civilians) I gave you many links that I believe to are credible enough to support it.

You spammed the thread with links it’s doubtful you even read, and did so in a way that virtually eliminated any chance of intelligible discussion.

Are your links credible? Some of them are, some are not. Skepticism is about sorting the credible from the un-credible, but that won’t happen with your shot-gun approach. All you accomplish is to announce to the world that you feel anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a “partisan hack” and not worth paying attention to.

Who can take you seriously after that?

 

[Mycroft]

I recall a threat were you said that you thought criticising Israel was "inappropriate".

No, I have never threatened anyone, if you "recall" anywhere that I did, you're welcome to link to it and prove me wrong.

In any case, "self-avowed" means that's what I call myself, not what I'm called by someone else.

 

[Mycroft]

Many times I find myself in disagreement with Mycroft. I might like Mycroft as a person but 7 to 10 of the times I disagree with his points of view.

Hmph! I thought I'd gotten that down to five of ten times at least!

 

[Gurdur]

I just think y'all should talk about something ELSE occasionally, but hey, that's only IMHO.

 

[Mycroft]

I just think y'all should talk about something ELSE occasionally, but hey, that's only IMHO.

There are threads on topics that don't interest me very much. If I read them, I don't tell the people who are interested enough to post their opinions that they should be doing something else instead. That would be rude.

 

[Gurdur]

There are threads on topics that don't interest me very much. If I read them, I don't tell the people who are interested enough to post their opinions that they should be doing something else instead. That would be rude.

Possibly you're quite right, but the sheer number of Israel (pro- or anti-) threads is what prompted my not-too-serious remark. No offence intended.

 

[Mycroft]

Possibly you're quite right, but the sheer number of Israel (pro- or anti-) threads is what prompted my not-too-serious remark. No offence intended.

I may have been unduly snippish. If I haven't said it already, welcome to the forum.

 

[Gurdur]

Many thanks. Didn't mean to be snippish myself, sorry if I came over like that.

 

[Cleopatra]

I just think y'all should talk about something ELSE occasionally, but hey, that's only IMHO.

Generally speaking, this is a very wise advise. For me is a subject I am quite aware of. I am very much interested in the american politics as well but I am not in the position to debate seriously with posters like Randfan,Luke and others because you people live there. I'd rather read those threads than debating because I don't think that I have much insight to offer. On the contrary, I consider my presence in a discussion about Middle East more constructive. One of the most precious compliments I have received was from Supercharts-- an american jew and rather fierce zionist. After a year of reading my posts he has said in mu.nu that he has changed his views regarding Israel and he has realized that Israel isn't always right and that thanks to the resident Israeli!

 

[luchog]

I just think y'all should talk about something ELSE occasionally, but hey, that's only IMHO.

Some of us do talk about other things quite a bit. Just not here.

But if you're interested in my opinions on beer or art...

 

[webfusion]

I was relieved to see that Orwell recognized that "attacking" and "targeting" are two different things.

Look, we probably both want the same thing: an end to violence.

I dunno, is that how you are interpreting what I said before? ----
"I would prefer that the palestinians cease confronting the armed and lethal IDF directly, cease terrorism in our cities, cease their campaign of incitement and involving children in their jihad, and cease their support of radical islamic fundamentalist movements (such as AlQueda). They have the potential to be good neighbors, they have the potential to emulate our robust democracy and hi-tech industry and attract tourism to their valuable and important land; they have such a positive future ahead of them, if they only adopt a path that that leads them there."

Israel's Deputy Premier Ehud Olmert and Palestinian PM Abbas in a photo-op today.