Merged General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 2

[Praktik]

More actually, the 77 were from IDF forces not engaged in targeted killings - these were from all other sources so would include shootings at checkpoints and by tanks and in the many incidents that will occur - necessarily - over the course of military occupation.

It lists 33 who were killed from targeted killings in addition to the 27 that were the objects of that killing. Seemed to me then that there was as much as a 50/50 ratio of actual targets to collateral damage on the targeted killings front.

Injuries may bring the "routine" word into a more tenable light for you, for instance just under 750 palestinians were injured by IDF munitions from beginning of 2011 to september 2012, around a quarter of which were women and children.

 

[marksman]

I think the problem here is that for some people "routine" indicates "as a matter of policy", meaning that it is the routine for Israel to go out and kill Palestinians, and that it is not done for other reasons.

For others "routine" is being used just to show numbers. Lots of Palestinians are killed by Israelis and that makes it "routine" even if the deaths were justified or accidental.

This is just a semantical argument.

 

[Praktik]

That 322:4 ratio of men to women killed is quite unusual for random killings, yes? It's almost like Israel was targeting fighters or something.

There are certainly qualitative differences between IDF and Palestinian asymmetric tactics. This will flow from their relative power and filter through their culture. I think not many will disagree that there is certainly an appreciable and meaningful difference in the way they target. There are also quantitative differences as the disparate body counts clearly show.

The issue is whether this targeting serves to give Israel carte blanche and whether it explains away the claims of cruely and capriciousness on the part of the IDF in the many incidents that occur over the course of a military occupation.

 

[sarge]

My entire post, clarified for those that are struggling:

"Well good. Now the father of the dead child can move on."

A father had a child killed by an instrument of war. Learning that it was not an Israeli that launched the device that killed his child is probably not of that much comfort to the father.

It might be of considerable comfort to Israeli's however. Learning that my country did not kill a child, however unintentional the killing might have been, would be of comfort to me.

"Israel pretty routinely kills Gaza residents"

Israel regularly fires munitions at GAza with the absolute knowledge that civilians will be killed. There is no disputing this - it is an inescapable consequence of firing unguided projo's at urban areas.

Israel takes what I believe to be reasonable precautions (and I am qualified to make this assessment) to minimize the collateral killing of civilians - but still, "routinely" kills civilians.

',and Gaza residents pretty routinely kill non-Gaza Israeli's."

Strange. Everyone seemed to understand this portion.

"I don't see how which rocket killed this child is especially important except to those that would use it to shape public opinion."

So far, 100% of the responses to my post support my proposition that who fired the rocket is important only from a public perception standpoint. It is far more important to the "Israel is never at fault" crowd that Israel didn't fire the rocket than it is that a child died.

I generally side with Israel. They have an absoulte right to defend themselves. Sometimes, they kill civilians while exercising that right, even though they usually take resonable precautions to minimize the number of deaths There has never been a year in which they did not do so.

I do believe that Israel contributes unnecessarily to the unrest in the region.

 

[ddt]

That 322:4 ratio of men to women killed is quite unusual for random killings, yes? It's almost like Israel was targeting fighters or something.

All minors are male suddenly too?

There is a breakdown in "involved in fighting" and not involved below on the page.

But hey, if you want to argue that the shells that Israel lobs into the Gaza strip are accurately aimed at fighters, be my guest.

So, over a 44-month period, according to that site, 77 Palestinians who did not take part in the hostilities were killed by Israeli security forces. And that's a "routine"?

I guess witha word as vague as "routine", any amount of killings might be defined as such.

I'm not going into that semantical discussion of what is "routine", I just wanted to link to the numbers, so you can discuss based on facts. Click on the numbers and you even get the details.

 

[marksman]

Israel regularly fires munitions at GAza with the absolute knowledge that civilians will be killed. There is no disputing this - it is an inescapable consequence of firing unguided projo's at urban areas.

Again, I think the confusion is from your use of the word "routinely". Some interpret that, and not unreasonably as "with casual intent". You seem to be using it as "frequently, regardless of intent".

',and Gaza residents pretty routinely kill non-Gaza Israeli's."

Strange. Everyone seemed to understand this portion.

Because people understand that Gazans kill Israelis both frequently (2nd definition) and with casual intent (1st definition)

 

[marksman]

I'm not going into that semantical discussion of what is "routine"

Neither did I. I just wanted to point out that seems to be the point of contention, not the numbers.

 

[ddt]

Again, I think the confusion is from your use of the word "routinely". Some interpret that, and not unreasonably as "with casual intent". You seem to be using it as "frequently, regardless of intent".


Because people understand that Gazans kill Israelis both frequently (2nd definition) and with casual intent (1st definition)

Actually, I don't see the latter borne out by the numbers I presented. When you consider the 326 Palestinians not routine, how can the 20 Israeli civilians and the 5 Israeli security forces (that's all in Gaza, West Bank and Israel added up) be called routine?

 

[WildCat]

All minors are male suddenly too?

Because as we all know the Palestinians would never allow 15, 16, and 17 year olds to fight. It's unheard of! And even if we made the unfounded assumption that everyone under 18 wasn't a combatant it doesn't change the ratio much.

There is a breakdown in "involved in fighting" and not involved below on the page.

And how was that determined? And how do you explain the ratio of male to female, and adults to children? Certainly untargeted munitions would kill people relative to their numbers in the population, yes?

But hey, if you want to argue that the shells that Israel lobs into the Gaza strip are accurately aimed at fighters, be my guest.

I guess Israel has shells that kill only people with a Y chromosome?

I'm not going into that semantical discussion of what is "routine", I just wanted to link to the numbers, so you can discuss based on facts. Click on the numbers and you even get the details.

Man, the "non-combatants" seem dominated by military-aged males. Another astonishing concidence!

 

[marksman]

Actually, I don't see the latter borne out by the numbers I presented. When you consider the 326 Palestinians not routine, how can the 20 Israeli civilians and the 5 Israeli security forces (that's all in Gaza, West Bank and Israel added up) be called routine?

When your definition of "routine" accommodates intent.

Texas executed 248 people between 2000 and 2009. I would qualify that as "routine", even though that constitutes a little more than two a month.

In New Orleans, 109 police officers were killed in the line of duty in 2012 alone. And yet, I would not consider a police killing "routine", even though far more New Orleans police officers were killed annually than Texas inmates on a per capita (or even a flat) basis.

Others may certainly call the killings of New Orleans officers "routine". but that's entirely because "routine" will mean different things to different people.

Context matters.

 

[ddt]

And how was that determined? And how do you explain the ratio of male to female, and adults to children? Certainly untargeted munitions would kill people relative to their numbers in the population, yes?

Click the numbers, you get a list with details on each and every casualty. FTR, B'Tselem is an Israeli human rights organization. From your doubting their numbers, must I infer you think they're self-hating Jews?

Man, the "non-combatants" seem dominated by military-aged males. Another astonishing concidence!

US traffic accident numbers also are dominated by military-aged males. I'm pretty sure the underlying cause of that is part of the explanation for this as well.

 

[ddt]

When your definition of "routine" accommodates intent.

Texas executed 248 people between 2000 and 2009. I would qualify that as "routine", even though that constitutes a little more than two a month.

In New Orleans, 109 police officers were killed in the line of duty in 2012 alone. And yet, I would not consider a police killing "routine", even though far more New Orleans police officers were killed annually than Texas inmates on a per capita (or even a flat) basis.

Others may certainly call the killings of New Orleans officers "routine". but that's entirely because "routine" will mean different things to different people.

Context matters.

Let's see then what you wrote:

Because people understand that Gazans kill Israelis both frequently (2nd definition) and with casual intent (1st definition)

We can argue about the second, but when people object to calling the 300-odd Palestinians killed since Cast Lead "frequent", certainly the handful of Israelis killed by Gazans is not frequent (at most 5 Israeli civilians on Israeli soil; 4 Israeli security forces on Gaza soil).

 

[marksman]

Let's see then what you wrote:

We can argue about the second, but when people object to calling the 300-odd Palestinians killed since Cast Lead "frequent", certainly the handful of Israelis killed by Gazans is not frequent (at most 5 Israeli civilians on Israeli soil; 4 Israeli security forces on Gaza soil).

First, as I already explained "routine" does not necessarily "connote" frequency.

Second, I guess sarge was wrong when he wrote "Everyone seemed to understand this portion" (when he described Palestinians routinely killing Israelis). I will agree, on that basis, that I wouldn't describe Palestinian killing of Israelis as routine either.

 

[sarge]

Second, I guess sarge was wrong when he wrote "Everyone seemed to understand this portion" (when he described Palestinians routinely killing Israelis). I will agree, on that basis, that I wouldn't describe Palestinian killing of Israelis as routine either.

It seems that I was wrong - although at the time I wrote that, no one had taken exception to my describing the killing of Israeli's by Gazans as "routine" - even though Israel kills far more Gazans than vice versa.

I am satisfied that any further attempts to paint my comments as anti-Israel can be safely ignored. A reading person will understand my explanatory posts, even if they managed to misunderstand my first rendition.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I think the problem here is that for some people "routine" indicates "as a matter of policy", meaning that it is the routine for Israel to go out and kill Palestinians, and that it is not done for other reasons.

For others "routine" is being used just to show numbers. Lots of Palestinians are killed by Israelis and that makes it "routine" even if the deaths were justified or accidental.

This is just a semantical argument.

I suppose so. Glad to have that sorted out.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9071878#post9071878

But hey, if you want to argue that the shells that Israel lobs into the Gaza strip are accurately aimed at fighters, be my guest.

The IDF goes for combatants and their assets, yes. Not only that, but they kill fewer civilians per combatant than does NATO.

Only difference is that when NATO kills someone in Afghanistan or some other backwater country, it's barely mentioned in the media, but when the Palestinians lose someone, you can be pretty damn sure there's a TV team no more than a 100 metres away.

 

[trustbutverify]

I wish they would refer to them as "The Resistance".

Hamas is the "resistance"?

 

[Natan]

Hamas is the "resistance"?

Read very carefully, he shall only write this once.

 

[trustbutverify]

Well good. Now the father of the dead child can move on.

No, but maybe he could hold the appropriate party responsible, instead of having his horrible tragedy used as a propaganda bonanza by fundamentalists.

 

[Praktik]

Hamas is the "resistance"?

That was tongue in cheek. I actually think all those labels can fit them at different times: "resistance" "terrorist" "asymmetric force" "murderers" "government" "service provider" "zealots" "militants"

Just was reacting to the weird desire that we shall always and only call them terrorists, and that not doing this at all times is a sign of... something or other... likely some kind of really horrible moral failing I imagine!

 

[trustbutverify]

Fair enough, I misunderstood your comment.