Yes, there is blame on both side. But as Ander hypothetical conversation above shows, he only has blame for the radical parts of the Palestinians and Israel.
I am not blaiming Israel as a whole but the Israeli government. If you followed the debate in Knesset up to the acceptance of the "roadmap" you will essential see that Sharon said "Look, the americans want us to accept this plan so we have to do it or we lose support for real this time". The radical parties would never accept whats in it but the but the "great" thing about it is that Israel doesn´t have to do anything until the palestinians do something first. And as everybody knows there will always be someone, no matter how small that group is, who will oppose the plan on the palestinian side and be able to convince one or two young people to waste their lifes for "the cause". So in reality what the small radical parties in the israeli goverment did was to say "yes we accept the plan because we know at some point something will happen that stops it". In other words the military part of Hamas and the radical parties in Sharons government had the same goals, to end the peace plan. And thats why they are brothers in arms.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
No blame is given to the PA and the overall blame is laid at the feet of the Israeli government.
Funny thing because when I present this analysis to people who are more favourably disposed towards the palestinians they say the opposite, that to "deconstruct" the Israeli-palestinian conflict like that and group the government and Hamas together place more blame on the palestinian side.
I don´t place more blame on the government than on Hamas, but it is the Israeli government that has the key to change this. You have to face the fact that the radical element on the palestinian side cannot be bombed away. Not until their lifes get better (and for them that means a independent Palestine) will the support for armed opposition towards Israel go away.
I am not blaiming Israel as a whole but the Israeli government. If you followed the debate in Knesset up to the acceptance of the "roadmap" you will essential see that Sharon said "Look, the americans want us to accept this plan so we have to do it or we lose support for real this time". The radical parties would never accept whats in it but the but the "great" thing about it is that Israel doesn´t have to do anything until the palestinians do something first. And as everybody knows there will always be someone, no matter how small that group is, who will oppose the plan on the palestinian side and be able to convince one or two young people to waste their lifes for "the cause". So in reality what the small radical parties in the israeli goverment did was to say "yes we accept the plan because we know at some point something will happen that stops it". In other words the military part of Hamas and the radical parties in Sharons government had the same goals, to end the peace plan. And thats why they are brothers in arms.
So the knesset was being unreasonable in asking for the PA to actual start trying to stop the mass murders of jews to start the process..bastards!
Also, though it was a small step, the Israeli government did start with some settlements did aknowledge that they needed to be removed..that is a huge step...(even though the settlement removed were not the senitve ones yet)...where is the followup response and action from the PA? nowehere...but that's Israel fault to right? Instead they get some soldiers and civilians blown up and a bus too, as an answer to their steps...but it's still their fault..
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Funny thing because when I present this analysis to people who are more favourably disposed towards the palestinians they say the opposite, that to "deconstruct" the Israeli-palestinian conflict like that and group the government and Hamas together place more blame on the palestinian side.
I don´t place more blame on the government than on Hamas, but it is the Israeli government that has the key to change this. You have to face the fact that the radical element on the palestinian side cannot be bombed away. Not until their lifes get better (and for them that means a independent Palestine) will the support for armed opposition towards Israel go away.
Then you are speaking to very confused people. Not even Hamas says they will stop when their lives are better. They will stp only when the zionist, jewish vermin and erradiacted from Palestine. The Israeli's will stop when their cilivins stop better blown up on busses and in cafes. Oh, yeah that's equitable.
Well, since one has the security and properity of their people in mind and the other simply wants to totally and completely wipe the other out (not just the org, the entire people), I think it is fair to assign more blame to one side.
As horrible as it may seem, I wonder how Hamas would feel if Israeli citizens start strapping bombs to themselves and walking onto Palestinian buses, or into Palestinian markets, mosques or schools...?
Why don't you read my thread in full before jumping down my throat ?
Love your sources lack of definition as to who they define a " civilian " death.
Are Palestinian youths who carry petrol bombs, grenades or other weapons to the battle scenes classified as " non-combatant " civilians ?
Tell me NEW, have you ever been under fire ?
Coz if you ever have you'd know you don't have time to make such clear seperations. It's not a game New, its kill or be killed. When someone shoots at you..believe me, you take it very personally indeed !
So NEW, when your under fire and when palestinian militants ( by there own admission ) fire from between or behind groups of youths (in order to maximise the public outrage of lives lost within the western press.) see if you as an Israeli soldier, who is young and scared, isn't going to shoot first & ask questions later..
But your nice political outrage angle is just that..
Grunt reality is much more tougher & brutal than that...
Statistically, the Palestinians are better at targeting millitary targets than the Israelis.
WOW, sounds wild doesn't it?
Well, the fact is that during the last two and a half years of intifada there have been killed:
1950 civilian palestinians by israelis. But only 103 militants.
(of these civilians 32 were killed by settlers.)
As opposed to:
494 israeli civilians and 28 foreigners by palestinians, and 226 israeli soldiers.
This giving the Palestinians the ratio of 2,3 civilians pr. soldier.
AND the Israelis 18,9 civilians pr. militant.
Now, who is targeting civilians again?
All your quotes show is that the terrorists are better at hiding amounst civilians at best and using them as shields. And a aquafire pointed out, what is their definition of a civilian casualty. A mob attacking a heavily armed outpost will result in civilian deaths. Palestinian militants starting gun battles in a civilian area will result in civilian deaths. Militants running and hiding amonst a civilian population that provides shelter will result in civilian deaths. These are examples of military events that can result in civilian deaths and usually initiated by a terrorist attack or many terrorist attacks. Whereas Israeli civilian deaths can usually only be attributed to one cause...they were specifically targeted.
PA affiliated killers target military if they can and civilians as an easy alternative when the want to. Their purpose is to inflict terror, hence their targets and hence their name.
Israel has no reason to randomly target civilians. None. At best, you can claim they are doing a poor job of hitting their intended targets.
Why don't you read my thread in full before jumping down my throat ?
Your thread? Where?
I don't think I'm jumping down anyones throat. I'm just putting some facts on the table to bring some balance to this thread. (Not that I don't think Anders is doing fine on his own. I'm considering putting his homo statement in my signature, but it might not be fair to gay people ).
Quote:
Love your sources lack of definition as to who they define a " civilian " death.
My source is the best independt source there is. Try discrediting it.
Quote:
Are Palestinian youths who carry petrol bombs, grenades or other weapons to the battle scenes classified as " non-combatant " civilians ?
And settlers carrying uzi are? Did you read the clarification at the top?
Quote:
Tell me NEW, have you ever been under fire ?
Coz if you ever have you'd know you don't have time to make such clear seperations. It's not a game New, its kill or be killed. When someone shoots at you..believe me, you take it very personally indeed !
Stop patronizing. One of my closest friends has worked as a volunteer ambulance nurse in the Gaza. She can tell you all about being under fire. from Israeli military. In an ambulance.
Quote:
So NEW, when your under fire and when palestinian militants ( by there own admission ) fire from between or behind groups of youths (in order to maximise the public outrage of lives lost within the western press.) see if you as an Israeli soldier, who is young and scared, isn't going to shoot first & ask questions later..
But your nice political outrage angle is just that..
So military sources admitting targeting the head of childeren are just scared, eh? Enforcing 24 hour curfew by targeting anything that moves, even old women?
Did you know that traditionally, military service in the West Bank and Gaza has been more popular because of the action and the pay?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Israel has no reason to randomly target civilians. None. At best, you can claim they are doing a poor job of hitting their intended targets.
No, I actually claim that they are hurting civilians intentionally. A report published on 6 September in the (right-wing) daily Ma'ariv revealed that during the first three weeks of the second Intifada, before the wave of terror attacks against Israelis even began, the Israel Defense Forces, according to Army records, fired one million bullets.
The use of Human Shilds is another way Israel is violating the rights of the civilian population.
Bombing an appartment building is not "doing a poor job" of hitting an intended target. It an intentional (miss)use of force.
From your own source with a * star at the bottom of the page in very tiny writing ...( maybe hoping no-one will notice.)
[QUOTE][i] "B'Tselem emphasises that the inclusion of a person's name in our lists does not mean that the death resulted from a human rights violation or that the deceased did not him/herself violate the rights of others."[/B][QUOTE]
Notice ..No Human rights violations.
Notice involment of these "civilians " in acts or attempted acts of violence..
Think you've just scored two own goals mate !
Ps How come you didn't mention the summary executions ( 42 ) by the Palestinian authority against its own citizens ?
I re-iterate for your benefit:
The death of civilians as a result of IDF force attacks on militants is NOT a deliberate political or ideologically driven policy. ( show me in the Kenneset papers where they have passed this measure ? )
The people of Israel would simply not condone it.
On the other hand Hamas, etc have all made it their clear intention to target All Israeli citizens. This is their clear and determined policy.
Your attempts at trying to show some sort of " Moral equivilance" are at minimum either misguided or at worst malevolently biased. Nothing could be more deceptive or dishonest in all the reporting that has saturated the media for the last twenty years, than this moral equivilance " pap " drummed into a frenzy by left leaning liberals.
In closing I stress again the point that Prof Alan Bershowitz ( Professor at Law : Harvard ) put so eloquently .
" Hamas's et al attacks against miltary targets or military infrastructure are all legitimate "
But he goes on to say, ( and I agree with him in this )
That where they, ( terrorist organisations ) step over the line is ..
" when they deliberately target civilians as a matter of ideological or political intent "
That has been my point all along.
The targeting of civilians as policy is only occuring on one side of this war...
But like I also said, The Hague should try any or all war criminals arising from this conflict.
From your own source with a * star at the bottom of the page in very tiny writing ...( maybe hoping no-one will notice.)
[QUOTE][i] "B'Tselem emphasises that the inclusion of a person's name in our lists does not mean that the death resulted from a human rights violation or that the deceased did not him/herself violate the rights of others."
Quote:
Notice ..No Human rights violations.[/B]
Learn to read. That means that all the deaths arn't necessarily the results of human rights violations. I never said they all were.
Quote:
Ps How come you didn't mention the summary executions ( 42 ) by the Palestinian authority against its own citizens ?
Because it wasn't relevant to my point. But you obviously didn't get the point anyway...
Quote:
The death of civilians as a result of IDF force attacks on militants is NOT a deliberate political or ideologically driven policy. ( show me in the Kenneset papers where they have passed this measure ? )
Yeah, they are just real lousy shooters. Infact over 800% lousier shooters than badly trained palestinian militia. That sounds fair.
Keep telling youself that.
Quote:
The targeting of civilians as policy is only occuring on one side of this war...
Then explain the numbers. Explain the use of human shields. Explain the tearing down of houses. Explain the deportation of families.
Comments
Originally posted by Tulkas
The problem with people like you is that blood split is only a problem when it's not jewish. Sometimes a rose by any other name.......
Oh so now I'm the demon hitler antichrist too. How nice.
Originally posted by BR
Oh so now I'm the demon hitler antichrist too. How nice.
No, I shouldn't have directed that at you. It was uncalled for. My apologies.
My statements about Anders howevere stands, and I don't think they are reactionary or uncalled for.
Originally posted by Tulkas
No, I shouldn't have directed that at you. It was uncalled for. My apologies.
No problem.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Yes, there is blame on both side. But as Ander hypothetical conversation above shows, he only has blame for the radical parts of the Palestinians and Israel.
I am not blaiming Israel as a whole but the Israeli government. If you followed the debate in Knesset up to the acceptance of the "roadmap" you will essential see that Sharon said "Look, the americans want us to accept this plan so we have to do it or we lose support for real this time". The radical parties would never accept whats in it but the but the "great" thing about it is that Israel doesn´t have to do anything until the palestinians do something first. And as everybody knows there will always be someone, no matter how small that group is, who will oppose the plan on the palestinian side and be able to convince one or two young people to waste their lifes for "the cause". So in reality what the small radical parties in the israeli goverment did was to say "yes we accept the plan because we know at some point something will happen that stops it". In other words the military part of Hamas and the radical parties in Sharons government had the same goals, to end the peace plan. And thats why they are brothers in arms.
Originally posted by Tulkas
No blame is given to the PA and the overall blame is laid at the feet of the Israeli government.
Funny thing because when I present this analysis to people who are more favourably disposed towards the palestinians they say the opposite, that to "deconstruct" the Israeli-palestinian conflict like that and group the government and Hamas together place more blame on the palestinian side.
I don´t place more blame on the government than on Hamas, but it is the Israeli government that has the key to change this. You have to face the fact that the radical element on the palestinian side cannot be bombed away. Not until their lifes get better (and for them that means a independent Palestine) will the support for armed opposition towards Israel go away.
Sharon has played a bad trick to Bush. I think the US admin won't be happy with that, and don't appreciate to be fooled.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Bombing Hamas is fine in time of war. But during a peace process it's lame.
Sharon has played a bad trick to Bush. I think the US admin won't be happy with that, and don't appreciate to be fooled.
Israel is at war with Hamas - Hamas struck first in the recent round of violence... this was all during peace talks...
Israel is not supposed to respond?
Originally posted by Anders
I am not blaiming Israel as a whole but the Israeli government. If you followed the debate in Knesset up to the acceptance of the "roadmap" you will essential see that Sharon said "Look, the americans want us to accept this plan so we have to do it or we lose support for real this time". The radical parties would never accept whats in it but the but the "great" thing about it is that Israel doesn´t have to do anything until the palestinians do something first. And as everybody knows there will always be someone, no matter how small that group is, who will oppose the plan on the palestinian side and be able to convince one or two young people to waste their lifes for "the cause". So in reality what the small radical parties in the israeli goverment did was to say "yes we accept the plan because we know at some point something will happen that stops it". In other words the military part of Hamas and the radical parties in Sharons government had the same goals, to end the peace plan. And thats why they are brothers in arms.
So the knesset was being unreasonable in asking for the PA to actual start trying to stop the mass murders of jews to start the process..bastards!
Also, though it was a small step, the Israeli government did start with some settlements did aknowledge that they needed to be removed..that is a huge step...(even though the settlement removed were not the senitve ones yet)...where is the followup response and action from the PA? nowehere...but that's Israel fault to right? Instead they get some soldiers and civilians blown up and a bus too, as an answer to their steps...but it's still their fault..
Originally posted by Anders
Funny thing because when I present this analysis to people who are more favourably disposed towards the palestinians they say the opposite, that to "deconstruct" the Israeli-palestinian conflict like that and group the government and Hamas together place more blame on the palestinian side.
I don´t place more blame on the government than on Hamas, but it is the Israeli government that has the key to change this. You have to face the fact that the radical element on the palestinian side cannot be bombed away. Not until their lifes get better (and for them that means a independent Palestine) will the support for armed opposition towards Israel go away.
Then you are speaking to very confused people. Not even Hamas says they will stop when their lives are better. They will stp only when the zionist, jewish vermin and erradiacted from Palestine. The Israeli's will stop when their cilivins stop better blown up on busses and in cafes. Oh, yeah that's equitable.
Well, since one has the security and properity of their people in mind and the other simply wants to totally and completely wipe the other out (not just the org, the entire people), I think it is fair to assign more blame to one side.
As horrible as it may seem, I wonder how Hamas would feel if Israeli citizens start strapping bombs to themselves and walking onto Palestinian buses, or into Palestinian markets, mosques or schools...?
hello?
Click me to learn that there are more about what never gets into the Press
WOW, sounds wild doesn't it?
Well, the fact is that during the last two and a half years of intifada there have been killed:
1950 civilian palestinians by israelis. But only 103 militants.
(of these civilians 32 were killed by settlers.)
As opposed to:
494 israeli civilians and 28 foreigners by palestinians, and 226 israeli soldiers.
This giving the Palestinians the ratio of 2,3 civilians pr. soldier.
AND the Israelis 18,9 civilians pr. militant.
Now, who is targeting civilians again?
Originally posted by New
oh, yeah, Source of statistics, here!
Why don't you read my thread in full before jumping down my throat ?
Love your sources lack of definition as to who they define a " civilian " death.
Are Palestinian youths who carry petrol bombs, grenades or other weapons to the battle scenes classified as " non-combatant " civilians ?
Tell me NEW, have you ever been under fire ?
Coz if you ever have you'd know you don't have time to make such clear seperations. It's not a game New, its kill or be killed. When someone shoots at you..believe me, you take it very personally indeed !
So NEW, when your under fire and when palestinian militants ( by there own admission ) fire from between or behind groups of youths (in order to maximise the public outrage of lives lost within the western press.) see if you as an Israeli soldier, who is young and scared, isn't going to shoot first & ask questions later..
But your nice political outrage angle is just that..
Grunt reality is much more tougher & brutal than that...
Originally posted by New
Statistically, the Palestinians are better at targeting millitary targets than the Israelis.
WOW, sounds wild doesn't it?
Well, the fact is that during the last two and a half years of intifada there have been killed:
1950 civilian palestinians by israelis. But only 103 militants.
(of these civilians 32 were killed by settlers.)
As opposed to:
494 israeli civilians and 28 foreigners by palestinians, and 226 israeli soldiers.
This giving the Palestinians the ratio of 2,3 civilians pr. soldier.
AND the Israelis 18,9 civilians pr. militant.
Now, who is targeting civilians again?
All your quotes show is that the terrorists are better at hiding amounst civilians at best and using them as shields. And a aquafire pointed out, what is their definition of a civilian casualty. A mob attacking a heavily armed outpost will result in civilian deaths. Palestinian militants starting gun battles in a civilian area will result in civilian deaths. Militants running and hiding amonst a civilian population that provides shelter will result in civilian deaths. These are examples of military events that can result in civilian deaths and usually initiated by a terrorist attack or many terrorist attacks. Whereas Israeli civilian deaths can usually only be attributed to one cause...they were specifically targeted.
PA affiliated killers target military if they can and civilians as an easy alternative when the want to. Their purpose is to inflict terror, hence their targets and hence their name.
Israel has no reason to randomly target civilians. None. At best, you can claim they are doing a poor job of hitting their intended targets.
Originally posted by grad student
Israel is at war with Hamas - Hamas struck first in the recent round of violence... this was all during peace talks...
Israel is not supposed to respond?
The US admin was not happy of these attack against Hamas. I don't think that the US admin can be called anti-israelian.
Originally posted by aquafire
Why don't you read my thread in full before jumping down my throat ?
Your thread? Where?
I don't think I'm jumping down anyones throat. I'm just putting some facts on the table to bring some balance to this thread. (Not that I don't think Anders is doing fine on his own. I'm considering putting his homo statement in my signature, but it might not be fair to gay people
Love your sources lack of definition as to who they define a " civilian " death.
My source is the best independt source there is. Try discrediting it.
Are Palestinian youths who carry petrol bombs, grenades or other weapons to the battle scenes classified as " non-combatant " civilians ?
And settlers carrying uzi are? Did you read the clarification at the top?
Tell me NEW, have you ever been under fire ?
Coz if you ever have you'd know you don't have time to make such clear seperations. It's not a game New, its kill or be killed. When someone shoots at you..believe me, you take it very personally indeed !
Stop patronizing. One of my closest friends has worked as a volunteer ambulance nurse in the Gaza. She can tell you all about being under fire. from Israeli military. In an ambulance.
So NEW, when your under fire and when palestinian militants ( by there own admission ) fire from between or behind groups of youths (in order to maximise the public outrage of lives lost within the western press.) see if you as an Israeli soldier, who is young and scared, isn't going to shoot first & ask questions later..
But your nice political outrage angle is just that..
So military sources admitting targeting the head of childeren are just scared, eh? Enforcing 24 hour curfew by targeting anything that moves, even old women?
Did you know that traditionally, military service in the West Bank and Gaza has been more popular because of the action and the pay?
Originally posted by Tulkas
Israel has no reason to randomly target civilians. None. At best, you can claim they are doing a poor job of hitting their intended targets.
No, I actually claim that they are hurting civilians intentionally. A report published on 6 September in the (right-wing) daily Ma'ariv revealed that during the first three weeks of the second Intifada, before the wave of terror attacks against Israelis even began, the Israel Defense Forces, according to Army records, fired one million bullets.
The use of Human Shilds is another way Israel is violating the rights of the civilian population.
Bombing an appartment building is not "doing a poor job" of hitting an intended target. It an intentional (miss)use of force.
NOPE!
Originally posted by Scott
No hard words for Hamas and IJ and PA and Arafat and the rest of them?
Originally posted by New
oh, yeah, Source of statistics, here!
Woo Hoo ! Here's the kicker.
From your own source with a * star at the bottom of the page in very tiny writing ...( maybe hoping no-one will notice.)
[QUOTE][i] "B'Tselem emphasises that the inclusion of a person's name in our lists does not mean that the death resulted from a human rights violation or that the deceased did not him/herself violate the rights of others."[/B][QUOTE]
Notice ..No Human rights violations.
Notice involment of these "civilians " in acts or attempted acts of violence..
Think you've just scored two own goals mate !
Ps How come you didn't mention the summary executions ( 42 ) by the Palestinian authority against its own citizens ?
I re-iterate for your benefit:
The death of civilians as a result of IDF force attacks on militants is NOT a deliberate political or ideologically driven policy. ( show me in the Kenneset papers where they have passed this measure ? )
The people of Israel would simply not condone it.
On the other hand Hamas, etc have all made it their clear intention to target All Israeli citizens. This is their clear and determined policy.
Your attempts at trying to show some sort of " Moral equivilance" are at minimum either misguided or at worst malevolently biased. Nothing could be more deceptive or dishonest in all the reporting that has saturated the media for the last twenty years, than this moral equivilance " pap " drummed into a frenzy by left leaning liberals.
In closing I stress again the point that Prof Alan Bershowitz ( Professor at Law : Harvard ) put so eloquently .
" Hamas's et al attacks against miltary targets or military infrastructure are all legitimate "
But he goes on to say, ( and I agree with him in this )
That where they, ( terrorist organisations ) step over the line is ..
" when they deliberately target civilians as a matter of ideological or political intent "
That has been my point all along.
The targeting of civilians as policy is only occuring on one side of this war...
But like I also said, The Hague should try any or all war criminals arising from this conflict.
Woo Hoo ! Here's the kicker.
From your own source with a * star at the bottom of the page in very tiny writing ...( maybe hoping no-one will notice.)
[QUOTE][i] "B'Tselem emphasises that the inclusion of a person's name in our lists does not mean that the death resulted from a human rights violation or that the deceased did not him/herself violate the rights of others."
Notice ..No Human rights violations.[/B]
Learn to read. That means that all the deaths arn't necessarily the results of human rights violations. I never said they all were.
Ps How come you didn't mention the summary executions ( 42 ) by the Palestinian authority against its own citizens ?
Because it wasn't relevant to my point. But you obviously didn't get the point anyway...
The death of civilians as a result of IDF force attacks on militants is NOT a deliberate political or ideologically driven policy. ( show me in the Kenneset papers where they have passed this measure ? )
Yeah, they are just real lousy shooters. Infact over 800% lousier shooters than badly trained palestinian militia. That sounds fair.
Keep telling youself that.
The targeting of civilians as policy is only occuring on one side of this war...
Then explain the numbers. Explain the use of human shields. Explain the tearing down of houses. Explain the deportation of families.
Originally posted by New
No criticism for them? Of their goals and tactics. Their constant rejection of peace and support of terror. Nothing to say about that?
Nope! BLAME THE JEWS! Why do you hate them?
Your obviously blind to any reasonable argument to the contrary..
So why don't you just come straight out and say you support the Palestinaian terrorist organisations..
& say that they're perfectly justified in killing civilians ?
Unlike you, your friend at least has the balls to be out there doing something material. She may be misguided but at least she is there.
You on the other hand are like so many middle class youth feeling rage at all things democratic,supporting the underdog blah blah blah.
You froth with indignation at alledged war crimes of one side but are strangely mute about the other side.
Where is your rage for Israeli children being blown up in buses ?
Your obviously the font of all knowledge & truth.
So may I suggest you go and demonstrate in front of the Kenneset .
Go to the Hague & demand a war trial of all those responsible. I'm sure they'll listen to your facts.
Give the Human Rights Commission the volumes of evidence so obviously at your finger-tips.
But you know what ?
For all your righteous indignation, your opinion will be ignored, because you come across as utterly biased & unbalanced.
You ask fellow readers to read & critique your position & when they do, your emmediately on the defensive.
I can't recommend Alan Dershowitz's book strongly enough.. " Why Terrorism works "
Read it..please.
You might learn a thing or two about Realpolitik.