Israel in the Gaza Strip

[rowie]

I have read most of your references, rowie, with keen observation and curiosity. I still maintain my original position which is not to take sides. When an argument you or anyone else proposes doesn't hold water, I comment. But I haven't taken a mortgage out on an extreme position.

NOTE TO MODERATOR:

Can I ask whoever moderates these forums that posters post one post at a time, in sequence with others - unless making a correction? This mortar fire approach is so boring and, I think, bordering on offensive.

LOL, your kidding right?

 

[Sean K]

NOTE TO MODERATOR:

Can I ask whoever moderates these forums that posters post one post at a time - in sequence with others - unless making a correction? This mortar fire approach is so boring and, I think, bordering on offensive.

I can't see that. Just need to read faster lucas!

 

[lucas]

It's only a request - not a demand, and I read plenty fast enough. But I feel that three posts in a row from the same fellow (on a regular basis) is not in the best interests of forum readers.

 

[Sean K]

It is fairly cut & dry really:

Again another article on the use of human shields by the IDF, this time from Israels oldest daily paper:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/867486.html

rowie, the previous person you quoted has been entirely discredited from what I read, so your first reference doesn't hold water, and you have refused to try and support it any further.

Your latest reference is for actions in 2007, which I agree, looks dodgy. IDF forcing Palestinians to enter their neighbours homes before the military to provide them cover. While not 'proof' it's reasonable to assume that the IDF did do this. How often, is unclear, and to what extent unclear.

Why would have they used this tactic? They were trying to flush out the enemy, from civilian homes. From civilian homes.

From your reference....

Last update - 00:17 06/06/2007

IDF probes soldiers' use of Palestinian human shields
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

Israel Defense Forces' criminal investigation division is probing soldiers' use of Palestinians as human shields during raids in the West Bank town of Nablus. The investigation will include the questioning of senior officers, and could have repercussions in the next round of general staff appointments.

The affair began over three months ago, when foreign television crews filmed IDF soldiers forcing Palestinians to search their neighbors' homes for militants, in case the wanted gunmen should open fire. Some two years ago, upon completing a long and drawn out legal debate, the High Court of Justice decided to outlaw the use of Palestinians as human shields, as it endangers their lives and violates their basic human rights. The IDF has since pledged to refrain from doing this, though from time to time there have been recorded incidents of such behavior.

While it was only under investigation and was outlawed by Israel anyway, I do not support this type of action, even if the enemy was hiding in a civilian house, although, that has occurred since day zero, and combatants have fought in and amongst the civilian population since day zero.

What it tells me overall, is that in war, civilians will be in the way and be used, and neither side is innocent, or ever will be.

I think you need to admit some guilt of Hamas in their actions to attempt to both kill innocent Israelis and put their own people at risk to seem more reasonable.

 

[disarray]

It is fairly cut & dry really:

Again another article on the use of human shields by the IDF, this time from Israels oldest daily paper:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/867486.html

oohhh does israeli media qualify as an acceptable source now does it? i've refrained from posting statements by israeli politicians, UN envoys and israeli based sources anticipating you'd just play the "unreliable israeli source" line, but if you think referencing israeli newspapers to further your points is kosher, well then i'd be more than happy to provide more human shield / hamas terrorist / israeli restraint references for you

 

[Macquack]

Everyone agrees it is unacceptable to use innocent civilians as human shields.

So lets move on to the more important question.

Is it acceptable to slaughter innocent civilians that have been set up as human shields?

The answer is NO.

 

[nick2fish]

This is where I am in total disagreement with you on just about every line of your response. And I am not going to try to explain why any more, it really is futile - you have your point of view and I have mine, I agree to disagree. We both have a different take on the reality of the situation.

Now that is one post of yours that I can agree on...We have progress...Now I will move on... Cheers Rowie

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Is it acceptable to slaughter innocent civilians that have been set up as human shields?

OR we could ask just for the thinking caps:
Is it acceptable to use civilians as shields when we know the other side will destory you regardless because you are a threat to peace?

 

[rowie]

oohhh does israeli media qualify as an acceptable source now does it? i've refrained from posting statements by israeli politicians, UN envoys and israeli based sources anticipating you'd just play the "unreliable israeli source" line, but if you think referencing israeli newspapers to further your points is kosher, well then i'd be more than happy to provide more human shield / hamas terrorist / israeli restraint references for you

Ok go ahead. I have posted UN and Amnesty sources anyway. This whole issue came about because of various posts showing Hamas use of human shields. I think I have covered the issue sufficiently to show that the human shield tactic has in fact been used by the IDF as stated by the UN, Amnesty and an Israeli newspaper. Please dont post the video of the Hamas speach because it really isnt conclusive. Try to post actual reports or footage if you can - And not reports from Israeli military or govt officials. Thanks

 

[Macquack]

Is it acceptable to use civilians as shields when we know the other side will destory you regardless because you are a threat to peace?

Could you please restate the question? I dont know what you mean.

 

[rederob]

They have a choice alright and that is too achieve their aims/goals peacefully as opposed to exposing their civilian population to harm.
3 or 4 years ago they had nothing, now they have land albeit a sardine can

Your posts continue to show a mind numbing ignorance of common knowledge.
The Palestinians have less land today than ever.
To say that 3-4 years ago they had "nothing" is a plain and simple lie, or sheer stupidity.
Earlier I replied your previous post, by outlining 60 years of diplomatic and international efforts to resolve the conflict, to no avail. It's naive to think a diplomatic solution is around the corner.

Israel remains in regular and constant breach of UN resolutions, and for years has been engaging in extrajudicial assassinations, which are illegal under international laws and norms. These assassinations have killed many more Palestinians than vice versa.
While Palestinians are guilty of occasional terrorist acts, and misguided rocket attacks, extrajudicial assassinations are State policy. These assassinations usually get a mention when there's a heavy civilian count accompanying them. And they are "justified" because they target "terrorists".
Two wrongs don't make a right.

The side show on "human shields" has cut both ways for decades, in conflicts throughout the world. It's a topic not worth buying into, except to reinforce how dispensable people are in times of conflict.

 

[disarray]

While Palestinians are guilty of occasional terrorist acts

appears more commonplace than occasional to me. these are just the fatal ones and don't take into account the thousands of other attacks which were unsuccessful but still intended to murder as many innocent people as possible.

 

[rederob]

appears more commonplace than occasional to me[/URL]. these are just the fatal ones and don't take into account the thousands of other attacks which were unsuccessful but still intended to murder as many innocent people as possible.

Prone to more exaggeration, disarray?
I counter your laughable response with a claim that the Israelis also unsuccessfully attempted thousands of assassinations.
By the way, your referenced link is an exercise in Jewish fairy tales. Their treatment of the Palestinian issue reads like they refused a very good offer at the outset, and have been vindictively trying to get more than they have rightful claim to. It neatly sidesteps the issue of sheer dispossession.
And for the record, from early this century Jews acted like terrorists in their bid to oust Palestinians from their homes and their lands. Little has changed.

 

[lucas]

Prone to more exaggeration, disarray?
I counter your laughable response with a claim that the Israelis also unsuccessfully attempted thousands of assassinations.

I take it you do understand the difference between murder and assassination? But, sigh, I guess not.

 

[rowie]

I take it you do understand the difference between murder and assassination? But, sigh, I guess not.

Yet again Lucas, u have amazingly missed rederobs point altogether (as well as all the vital facts that he has stated). May as well be debating this issue with a brick wall...

 

[wayneL]

Prone to more exaggeration, disarray?
I counter your laughable response with a claim that the Israelis also unsuccessfully attempted thousands of assassinations.
By the way, your referenced link is an exercise in Jewish fairy tales. Their treatment of the Palestinian issue reads like they refused a very good offer at the outset, and have been vindictively trying to get more than they have rightful claim to. It neatly sidesteps the issue of sheer dispossession.
And for the record, from early this century Jews acted like terrorists in their bid to oust Palestinians from their homes and their lands. Little has changed.

The difference is Rederob, state sanctioned mayhem by men in uniforms or government agents is never considered as terrorism. This is how folks minds are manipulated into picking sides. However, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

There is also a seeming complicity in not reporting the regular acts of Israeli terrorism in the occupied territories.

Folks don't even realize they are being manipulated. When some Muslim bozo commits an atrocity, it all over the news, but when Israel bulldozes palestinian houses, or assasinates a palestinian or bumps off some kid who went too close to a checkpoint, it is scarcely reported.

 

[lucas]

May as well be debating this issue with a brick wall...

Well, aren't you? You don't listen to any other point of view - about a complex issue in which two sides are fighting completely different wars.

The first step out of checkmate is to recognise that both sides have a position - to insist that only one side is ultimately right is to condemn your "team" to eternal chaos. I think the Palestinians deserve better than that - and better than your loose arguments.

The wall strikes back!

 

[rowie]

Rovera isn't really that credible, in some opinions.

From NGO MOnitor:


Amnesty ´s “human rights meltdown”
Sarah Mandel

December 20, 2007

Revised date: December 23, 2007

Amnesty International's new website headlines the statement "Stop the human rights Meltdown. Make human rights real." However, detailed and systematic research published by NGO Monitor and others, and cited by the Economist and the Wall Street Journal, have demonstrated that this “meltdown” has resulted from the failures of NGO superpowers. Amnesty's only researcher for Israel and the Palestinian territories, Donatella Rovera shares the responsibility for this situation. Her claims in the interviews in Haaretz ('Things are far worse in Algeria,' Aryeh Dayan, December 12, 2007) and the Jerusalem Post (‘HR Issues were ignored at Annapolis’, Dan Izenberg, December 17, 2007) not withstanding, Rovera’s work reflects a lack the professionalism, credibility and scrupulous commitment to human rights, and she has consistently contributed to the politicization (and hence, the destruction) of universal human rights norms.

Maybe all's not that cut and dry.

Kenna, looking further into the article you provided that discredited the amnesty official, i found that it was written by a pro-israeli non-govt organisation - NGO Monitor. Really it doesnt instill much confidence coming from a source like this with obvious hidden agendas. In my opinion Amnesty International are a far more credible human rights NGO with a long and proven track record. My question is why would you quote this source to discredit an organisation like Amnesty International?

 

[rowie]

Well, aren't you? You don't listen to any other point of view - about a complex issue in which two sides are fighting completely different wars.

The first step out of checkmate is to recognise that both sides have a position - to insist that only one side is ultimately right is to condemn your "team" to eternal chaos. I think the Palestinians deserve better than that - and better than your loose arguments.

The wall strikes back!

Your comment about the difference between assasination and murder was so beside the point that it simply does no justice to rederobs post. I think it really shows that you either refuse to understand what he is trying to say or u just cant understand. Your posts are quite baffling. Even this post about how 2 sides are fighting different wars - seriously, wtf?

 

[disarray]

Prone to more exaggeration, disarray?

what? hundreds of attacks over decades and thousands of rocket launches is an "occasional" thing according to you?

I counter your laughable response with a claim that the Israelis also unsuccessfully attempted thousands of assassinations.

heh internet debates are serious business. "i counter your laughable response!!1" lol. p.s. if you want to "counter a claim", particularly one that is referenced, then try referencing something other than your own opinion. it also helps if it is relevant to the point, in this case, the palestinians commit lots and lots of terror attacks, not just the occasional one. you don't have to in this case though, israel and mossad are well known for their employment of assassination. seen munich? but sometimes the israelis warn the target they are coming which seems rather civilised even if it defeats the purpose.

By the way, your referenced link is an exercise in Jewish fairy tales.

the israeli ministry of foreign affairs is a fairy tale site is it? anyway i'm not saying the israelis are saints. i'm just countering yours and rowies endless blatherings about how badly the poor palestinians are treated and how israel is some evil aggressor when both are assholes as far as i'm concerned (but i have more sympathy for the israelis because i think palestinian culture and religion is more inherently violent - honour killings, childrens shows that preach jihad, radical islamism etc., and that must be hard to live next door to).

And for the record, from early this century Jews acted like terrorists in their bid to oust Palestinians from their homes and their lands. Little has changed.

and for the record the arabs have repeatedly invaded israel with the express purpose of wiping them off the map, hamas has an official policy to do the same, and they are financed by iran which publicly states their desire to commit genocide against the jews. we'll just sidestep all that too shall we? yes its all about the jews being evil and the poor peaceful palestinians are just innocent victims of an oppressive nation

May as well be debating this issue with a brick wall...

pot, meet kettle

The difference is Rederob, state sanctioned mayhem by men in uniforms or government agents is never considered as terrorism. This is how folks minds are manipulated into picking sides.

hmmm lets see. terrorism is the systematic use of violence to create fear, generally to achieve an ideological goal, it deliberately targets civilians and seeks to create mass havoc and casualties.

assassination is the targetted killing of an individual (or small group of individuals) for ideological, military or various unhinged purposes. by definition they are very different things.

There is also a seeming complicity in not reporting the regular acts of Israeli terrorism in the occupied territories

what are you talking about? the media is full of pro-palestinian bias in the reporting of the situation. this is quite the game of semantics though - terrorism vs. military action but it's a brave new world and lines are becoming blurred, there is no black and white, right or wrong, innocent or guilty, its all one big fkd up mess neither side seems particularly keen to extract themselves from because they've been at it for so long.

Folks don't even realize they are being manipulated. When some Muslim bozo commits an atrocity, it all over the news, but when Israel bulldozes palestinian houses, or assasinates a palestinian or bumps off some kid who went too close to a checkpoint, it is scarcely reported.

crap

let's see, israel bulldozes palestinian houses gives us the independent (uk), the ny times, cnn, the obligitory wiki link and a few blogs, all on the first results page.

the three of you are like peas in a pod, just because someone holds different ideas (which are referenced to various sources that are continually discredited by you armchair experts) we're manipulated, nieve, ignorant, don't have the facts, blah blah blah. get off your high horse.

The first step out of checkmate is to recognise that both sides have a position - to insist that only one side is ultimately right is to condemn your "team" to eternal chaos.

there it is in a nutshell.