Merged General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 2

[Praktik]

Ya I was just poking my JREF friends a bit..

 

[Polaris]

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!

Not a moral failing, a moral equivalence.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Just was reacting to the weird desire that we shall always and only call them terrorists

Same reason we have labels for other kinds of criminals (murderers, rapists, robbers, and so on). Makes perfect sense in my eyes.

 

[sarge]

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

I agree that it would be nice if both sides would act thus.

 

[Giz]

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!

I know, it's like when we talk about Nazis, we always focus on the bad things and not any good that they did as "service provider" or "government". I mean, the jobs and benefits, govt organized excursions to the seaside, roads improved, etc etc. We always end up focusing on genocide and wars of aggression, like that was their raison d'etre or something...

 

[uke2se]

It's going to be mighty difficult for the terrorist sympathizers to pull another propaganda stunt like this. Next time they post up a picture of a dead child for propaganda purposes, tearfully exclaiming "Look wut the Jooz did!", one can just point to this case.

 

[WildCat]

It's going to be mighty difficult for the terrorist sympathizers to pull another propaganda stunt like this. Next time they post up a picture of a dead child for propaganda purposes, tearfully exclaiming "Look wut the Jooz did!", one can just point to this case.

Nah, it's not like this hasn't happened many times before. Like the time a Palestinian family was blown up on a Gaza beach by an IED made with a 155mm artillery shell back in 2006. The Palestinians and several NGOs claimed it was fired from an Israeli ship, even though no Israeli ship is armed with a 155mm gun.

 

[bigjelmapro]

An occurence happens "routinely" if it happens more than infrequently. Israel kills civilian residents of Gaza often. That they (usually) take reasonable precautions against doing so indescriminately doesn't change the fact that Israel routinely kills civilians.
...

So we moved from 'routinely' to 'often'. And then to add to the pile, "reasonable precautions against doing so indiscriminately". How long was the flight of stairs you fell down from?

B'tselem makes no distinction between civilians and those partaking in the hostilities. So again, disingenuous. Nothing new here.

 

[bigjelmapro]

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.

The IDF does not fire into densely populated areas until its certain of the possibility that collateral damage is minimized. Compared to US or NATO forces, this ratio of target(s) vs. collateral damage (deaths) is significantly lower for Israel than the prior. A fraction compared to the acceptable collateral damages (deaths) observed in Iraq/Afghanistan.

There is no arbitrary firing of unguided munitions into densely populated areas. The IDF would accept a hit to Israel if the ratio of hitting a launcher/launching team to the amount of collateral damage were to high. More so recently with GPS guided munitions (much like the Paladin systems of the US), Iron Dome and Davids sling, Israel will take the hit. More often than not, the IAF will use higher-precision guided missiles to hit such targets, not artillery, which have a larger CEP than precision missiles.

Strangely enough though, if the laws of war are observed, mainly that of proportionality, this argument would be completely irrelevant. Israel has the right to respond until the threat is eliminated. The response to attacks from urban areas is nothing new in this regard.

So what position are you arguing from? Other than sheer ignorance.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I know, it's like when we talk about Nazis, we always focus on the bad things and not any good that they did as "service provider" or "government". I mean, the jobs and benefits, govt organized excursions to the seaside, roads improved, etc etc. We always end up focusing on genocide and wars of aggression, like that was their raison d'etre or something...

It's the same with rapists and murderers, I've found. The reporting is always biased to paint them as criminals. Not a word about charity work or anything.

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.

Except they warn the populace in advance what they're going to do and where they're going to attack. They drop flyers, fire 'dud' shells at the target they intend to destroy, and then give civilians (and terrorists) ample time to evacuate. There's always designated 'safe zones' people can travel to where they know they will not be harmed.
Whether they're using 'unguided' or 'guided' munitions is also irrelevant. It's the precision, not the delivery method, that should interest you.

It's going to be mighty difficult for the terrorist sympathizers to pull another propaganda stunt like this. Next time they post up a picture of a dead child for propaganda purposes, tearfully exclaiming "Look wut the Jooz did!", one can just point to this case.

They tend to try and forget incidents like these as quickly as they can. Which is incredibly strange, given that 'Palestine sympathizers' should be the first to express outrage at this kind of events.

 

[Polaris]

They tend to try and forget incidents like these as quickly as they can. Which is incredibly strange, given that 'Palestine sympathizers' should be the first to express outrage at this kind of events.

You'd be tempted to think they only care about the Palestinians inasmuch as they can be used as a propaganda weapon against Israel.

 

[Praktik]

I know, it's like when we talk about Nazis, we always focus on the bad things and not any good that they did as "service provider" or "government". I mean, the jobs and benefits, govt organized excursions to the seaside, roads improved, etc etc. We always end up focusing on genocide and wars of aggression, like that was their raison d'etre or something...

Not analogous to my statement at all.

That said, a full understanding of the Nazis would certainly include the mundane from the way they handled monetary policy all the way up to the meat grinder of the holocaust and the atrocities committed against partisan forces within their occupied lands.

If I focused only on the atrocities I wouldn't be getting a full understanding, but rather be specializing in one particular area.

Given its a huge body of research, and given my own family roots, I prefer to focus on the Eastern Front when it comes to the Nazis, and so you would see if you cared to visit my library a section dedicated to the German/Russian battles and the lives lived between the see-saw of these ruthless giants.

Hamas does more than committ acts of terror and I think its important that we recognize there is more to the picture than that offered from the jingoistic invocation of the word "terror" and the relentless badgering of any who dare to offer other perspectives. You don't have to worry that I don't share an appreciation of what an act of terror means and its violation of human norms (after all, the Eastern Front was worse on this count than it could ever be in Israel). Maybe if you just assumed that common ground we could have more productive interactions on this topic.

 

[sarge]

So we moved from 'routinely' to 'often'. And then to add to the pile, "reasonable precautions against doing so indiscriminately". How long was the flight of stairs you fell down from?

B'tselem makes no distinction between civilians and those partaking in the hostilities. So again, disingenuous. Nothing new here.

Routinely and often are interchangeable, as I've already explained.

Just in case you might have been honestly confused about what I was saying, I bothered to further explain my position. My position hasn't changed, and my position is still perfectly correct.

After it was obvious that no attempt to simplify my posts would lead to you understanding what I wrote, I bothered to look over your 200 most recent posts. I understand now that any post that could be even mildly critical of Israel is going to make you spin. Discussing it further is a waste of time.

 

[sarge]

The IDF does not fire into densely populated areas until its certain of the possibility that collateral damage is minimized. Compared to US or NATO forces, this ratio of target(s) vs. collateral damage (deaths) is significantly lower for Israel than the prior. A fraction compared to the acceptable collateral damages (deaths) observed in Iraq/Afghanistan.

There is no arbitrary firing of unguided munitions into densely populated areas. The IDF would accept a hit to Israel if the ratio of hitting a launcher/launching team to the amount of collateral damage were to high. More so recently with GPS guided munitions (much like the Paladin systems of the US), Iron Dome and Davids sling, Israel will take the hit. More often than not, the IAF will use higher-precision guided missiles to hit such targets, not artillery, which have a larger CEP than precision missiles.

Strangely enough though, if the laws of war are observed, mainly that of proportionality, this argument would be completely irrelevant. Israel has the right to respond until the threat is eliminated. The response to attacks from urban areas is nothing new in this regard.

So what position are you arguing from? Other than sheer ignorance.

It is so unlikely as to be essentially impossible that I do not have more experience and more knowledge about munitions, delivery systems, and methods of employment than you. I am arguing from a position of virtual certainty when I say that Israel takes reasonable precautions against undesirable civilian deaths, yet still kills more Palestinian civilians than deaths it suffers at the hands of Palestinians.

That you attempt to divert attention from this by introducing the irrelevent ( and false) record of other nations demonstrates that you are not interested in an honest discussion.

 

[uke2se]

Routinely and often are interchangeable, as I've already explained.

They're really not.

 

[ddt]

B'tselem makes no distinction between civilians and those partaking in the hostilities. So again, disingenuous. Nothing new here.

Did you even look at the link to B'tselem's statistics? They clearly tally those who were involved in fighting and those who weren't.

 

[WildCat]

Hamas does more than committ acts of terror

And Al Capone funded soup kitchens, and yet all we hear about is his murderrs and bootlegging and such. And John Gacy was active in his local Democratic Party organization, but all we hear about is all those young men and boys he tortured to death.

It's so unfair.

 

[trustbutverify]

It is so unlikely as to be essentially impossible that I do not have more experience and more knowledge about munitions, delivery systems, and methods of employment than you. I am arguing from a position of virtual certainty when I say that Israel takes reasonable precautions against undesirable civilian deaths, yet still kills more Palestinian civilians than deaths it suffers at the hands of Palestinians.

In terms of international reaction, Israel is in a no-win situation when it comes to combat engagement. If they use the degree of force required to neutralize the enemy's attack capability, they are declared monsterous colonial vampires. If they do not, then they are incompetent cowards...who have "lost' yet another war to the plucky "resistors"; and have been "humiliated" despite their overwheming material advantage.

 

[Natan]

Nah, it's not like this hasn't happened many times before. Like the time a Palestinian family was blown up on a Gaza beach by an IED made with a 155mm artillery shell back in 2006. The Palestinians and several NGOs claimed it was fired from an Israeli ship, even though no Israeli ship is armed with a 155mm gun.

You'll believe any crap Israel puts up as defense:

On 9 June 2006, between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m., Israeli artillery and a navy gunboat fired 8 artillery shells at the beach, with two shells landing 200 metres away from the family.[6] The Israeli army and Israeli officials initially took responsibility.[2] A subsequent investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that the explosion was not caused by the shelling of the beach and blamed it on a Palestinian land mine.[7][8][9] This investigation was criticized by Human Rights Watch[10] and The Guardian.[11] The IDF acknowledged a flaw in the report in that it omitted mention of two 76mm naval shells, the IDF maintains had landed too far away to have caused the explosion. At this point, the IDF acknowledged that the cause of the blast may have been an unexploded 155mm artillery shell from an earlier shelling, but suggested it might have been used as an IED by Palestinians.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_beach_explosion_(2006)​

How shall we put it? Like this: yeah, right, whatever you say.

 

[Praktik]

And Al Capone funded soup kitchens, and yet all we hear about is his murderrs and bootlegging and such. And John Gacy was active in his local Democratic Party organization, but all we hear about is all those young men and boys he tortured to death.

It's so unfair.

You're the one talking about fairness, I was the one talking about accuracy and the search for a fuller understanding.

I don't think it's unfair, just myopic...


Again I don't think these sarcastic statements about Capone or the Nazis are really coming to grips with the spirit of what I was saying, and offer instead what could be interpreted as an appeal to willful ignorance. I put my best foot forward in that post you quoted a tiny portion of, I welcome you to try the same if you can!

EDIT: Should the writers of Boardwalk Empire have NOT researched into things like Capone's personal life and other activities as they started to show his rise in the Chicago criminal syndicate - because of some prerogative to stop any inquiry into individuals/groups that have blood on their hands in matters distinct from that blood? Wouldn't that blood actually demand that we grapple with everything, even something apparently innocuous like Capone's funding of soup kitchens? I would imagine nuggets like that would help us better understand Capone "the man", over Capone "the tyrant", and situate his ruthlessness in a richer contextual background.