Israel

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby Azrael001 » Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:46 am UTC

Which is not more than the Israeli claim.

My point is barring any religious claims, the territory rightfully belongs to the Jews. The Ottoman empire collapsed and Britain legitimately took control of the land. There were few organized or cohesive (Ooo big important sounding words) groups in the area even though they may have been big. The land was then given to another group (the Jews) legally and the Jews were given control of the land. It is an acceptable practice for any country to give land it controls to anyone they want and make it a country (especially if the rest of the world (the UN) agree).
23111

User avatar
Nullcline
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 2:12 pm UTC
Location: southern Appalachia

Re: Israel

Postby Nullcline » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:21 am UTC

Example: Syria, 1973. Arabs started a conflict. Israel bombed Damascus(capital of Syria). With what? Many of the bombs were teddy bears. Children would see these teddy bears on the streets. The appealing teddy bears attracted and killed(or maimed) the children. That wasn't the end of the story. There was no "happy ever after."

This reminds me of the rumors a few months ago claiming that Israel infected melons with HIV, and that they were spreading a deadly virus through cell phones.
Don't cross me.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel

Postby aleflamedyud » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:26 am UTC

Well, theoretically, the Muslims (yes, not arabs), have more or less the same claim to the as the Jews do. The Jews claim is religious (we were given this land by god, the bible says it is ours...), and the Muslims have claim to it because of the Waqf (Israel was a Muslim territory during the Ottoman empire, and therefore, under Muslim law, it will be Muslim territory for ever).

Wrong. That's identical to the Religious Jewish claim to the land, but the Secular Jewish claim to the land is far more simple, provable, and elegant:

It's where we come from, where we originate as a people. We never left voluntarily, and some population of us have lived there since our birth as a people. Therefore, it belongs to us.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
niende
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:13 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby niende » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:03 am UTC

The way I see it, it is much simpler.
let's ignore (for the sake of argument) the religious/historical/whatever claims of either side.

Ottoman empire ruled this patch of land. when it collapsed the British had a mandate over it sanctioned by the UN. Let's imagine that there was no UN ruling deciding to give the land to Jews or divide it up or anything. the mandate expired, the British left. what happened was a war.
the people who were living in what was then called Palestine divided into roughly two groups. one called the 'jewish side' and one called the 'arab side'. one side won.
the Jewish side beat out the Arab side and gained control of the land. they promptly claimed it as theirs and founded a country called Israel on it.
since then they have successfully defended this claim in several wars.
for that reason, it's theirs.

Are they making mistakes with handling the remaining Arab population? probably yes. but that doesn't disown them of the land.
Is the country racially and religiously prejudiced? definitely. And, although I'd say it's out of necessity at this point, it still doesn't make their claim invalid.

The Jewish entity as a country is now a reality, it's not going to go away.
as is the Palestinian entity. that it didn't exist a few years back is of no consequence. it does now.

solution? I don't believe there is a viable one.
Right now, it's the violence that the problem and not whatever claims people have over land.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:56 am UTC

But that's just "might makes right". There's no point in debating what "should" happen to anything or anyone if that's your moral philosophy: just pick up a gun, impose what you want, and it becomes right.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby Azrael001 » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:46 am UTC

It has been an acceptable practice for all of our history. Should we move all of the white people out of North America and send them back to Europe? what about Australia? Maybe we should move out of Europe too, after all the Neanderthals were there first. [/angry rant]

It is not a case of might makes right. The Jews and the Muslims were going to both have their own separate countries in the area, but the Muslims would not allow the Jews to have their own land and declared war. The Jews won the war. They were not the aggressors. There is more of an argument to kick the Americans out of the USA than there is to kick the Jews out of Israel.
23111

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm UTC

Note that, being Jewish and quite possibly at some point in the future Israeli, I was in no way arguing for kicking the Jews out of Israel. I was arguing that I don't like the notion of "this is our place because we had bigger guns in 1948". That comes dangerously close to justifying the sins of Israel in addition to its rights.

Now if you want to talk about people getting kicked out of places, I've already said that if the Palestinian Arabs can't get along with the owners they should be evicted from the building.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby fjafjan » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:09 pm UTC

Maurog wrote:fjafjan my good chap, if Lebannon actually extradites Hisballah to Israel to be tried, we'll all have a lot more peace on our hands.

except it's more like a local goverment, I was merely drawing the conclusions from yonis assumption that they were not.



B'tselem is the better of the three - I haven't seen them produce any actually false information. But they still do have a general bias. For example, their statistics page:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statisti ... alties.asp

It outlines statistics for a maximally negative image, while ignoring statistics that *should* fall into the page that would show explanations for certain trends... For example, under it's category of individuals killed who were not hostile, which would generally imply civilians, it includes members of terrorist organizations who just didn't happen to be brandishing a weapon at the time.

Considering the IDF tendancy to brandish everyone a terrorist organization/a terrorist (like most repressive regimes, for example South Africa branded guess who a terrorist organization) that's understandable. If some civilian branch of Hamas is targeted that would not qualify, just as someone in the Israeli government would not qualify as an "enemy combatant".

As for Amnesty and HRW - both for example jumped on the 'Jenin massacre' bandwagon even though there was no evidence for any such event
They both also published reports after having done the research that was possible that confirmed this conclusion, I find their behavior to be entirely acceptable if you read the wiki page. Suspected massacre had taken place claimed from a number of sources, IDF was not letting anyone in to do any research on the spot and so they concluded that a massacre might very well have taken place. Then after further research was possible it had not, which they then published. It is typically the case that a regime that has committed a massacre will try to conceal it, and so to do what amnesty did before there is incontrovertible proof is I think entirely acceptable, especially considering that it probably had some role to play in in fact finding out the truth about the event either way. In conclusion if the best you can find is that I find that rather pathetic.

HRW also publicized the clearly fabricated story of the ambulance attack in Lebanon, even though no such attack ever took place. Not only that, but in the face of rather incontrovertible evidence, they stuck to their blatantly false position.

Well I would say it's hardly "incontrovertible evidence".
Their report in response to the hoax allegations is here

You point out that they're supposed to promote "all human rights"? Well, for some reason, their work is disproportionately focused on Israel, even though on this face of this Earth, at *worst*, Israel's violations of said human rights are minimal to those on this planet.

There are worse offenders, correct, but not half as many as you would like to portray. Second an over reporting does not mean that the reporting is in any way inaccurate or undeserved. Is it unfair if you go after a small time mobster when you should go after the mafia? Yes, but it's still a good thing that the Mobster gets his(possibly hers, but unlikely).

Study on focus of Amnesty Int'l work:
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amne ... eport_for_

First of all all of your links are broken, I am not sure if you put those dots in yourself or what but I can't find that specific link. But looking around on that cite it's such a blatantly Zionist an completely biased source it's not realy worthy of mention. Generally anyone advocating for the legality of the separation wall are in blatant disregard for human respect and dignity and the right of the Palestinians.
NGO monitor really is a hoax, such blatant complete and utter Bias simply trying to shout down whoever comes up with legitemate critisism of Israel, while completely ignoring groups on the Israeli side. I think this article is pretty good

Article on topic:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/ ... 20008/1013

Funny story, that is written by the guy from the NGO page, and just like those stories are watchdogs snapping at anyone critizising israel and not critisizing Hamas so is that article not really worth reading.
This is about 10 minutes worth of recollection - there's plenty more. Feel free to present anything close to such falsehoods or bias propagated by the IDF.

The fact that they are the army of a country that has commited a large number of human rights violations and generally have showed little regard to laws against torture, laws against violence against civlians, laws with regards to proportionality.
A much more clear cut case of BS is one I brought up earlier.
A group of brittish journalists are sitting on a well lit porch inside a palestinian settlement clearly visible from an Israeli watch tower. They leave the porch wearing those orange "see in the dark" vests, they wave a white flag around and shout "WE ARE BRITTISH JOURNALISTS" as they approach the tower. One of these Journalists was then shot in the head by an Israeli sniper. He was then aquitted of any charges. Despite videotapes from the journalists at the invident clearly showing that infact they were clearly and BLATANTLY innocent and there was no threat to the soldiers the IDF claimed, and I think it's still the official story, that he was shot in the "crossifre" between the sniper and "an unidentified shooter". Then ofcourse you have a couple hundred kids killed each year by the IDF, often because they are throwing rocks, and often by precision snipers which again are simply unlawful killings which also makes me hesitant to believe their description of any even vaguely similar situation.
Let me quote some other ones,
Normal Finkelstein writes
Norman Finkelstein - Beyond Chutzpah on page 104 wrote:"...There were several victims shot in the back or from behind and in one instance the victim was probably on the ground when shot ... In several of these cases, [Physicians for Human Rights] was able to document that that there was no imminent danger posed to the IDF in the context of the shooting." It also found a "repetitive pattern of high velocity gunshot wounds to the leg, particularily to the thigh. These wounds cause extreme injury... The majority of victims...will have permanent disability in the affected leg....Many of the injured in this manner were at most throwing stones" [Physicians for Human Rights] concludes "The numerous head and eye injuries, the high proportion of thigh wounds and fatal head wounds and the fact that similar patterns of such shootings occered over a period of weeks demonstate two disturbing pattern: 1) IDF soliers are not firing only in life threatening situations and 2) they are firign at heads and thighs to injure and kill, not to avoid loss of life and injury". [cited "Physicians for Human Rights, Evalutation of the Use of Force in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank(Boston, 3 November 2000), pp. 2, 17-18]
in a March 2002 study B'Tselem reported the testimony of Major General Mickey Levi, inventor of he device for shooting rubber bullets, that these bullets "should not be categorized as non-lethal." It goes on to cite testiminies from IDF soldiers that "many soldiers alter rubber bullets to make them more lethal"[cited "B'Tselem, Trigger Happy: Unjustified Shooting and Violation of the Open-Fire Regulations during the al-Aqsa Intifada(Jerusalem, 2002), pp. 19-20 P On rubber bullets, see also B'Tselem, The use of Firearms(Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 15-16.]
an October 2002 Amnesty International study found that the IDF "regularily" used rubber bullets against child demonstrators "at distances considerably closer than the minimum permitter range, ... and the pattern of injury indicates that IDF practise has not been to aim at the legs of demonstrators, as the majority of the injuries suffered by children from rubber coated bullets are to the upper body and head." Amnesty concludes: "The large number of children killed and injured by the IDF through out the Occupied Territories in the past two years and the fact that most children killed or injured were hit in the head or upper body shows that in their use if firearms against Palestinian children, the IDF have consistently breached international standards regularing the use of force and firearms" [cited Amnesty International, Killing the Future: Children in the Line of Fire(London 2002), p. 13]

I could cite all day from a variety of independant human rights monitors, if you wish to ignore them all, the UN, Amnesty international, B'Tselem, HRW, Physicians for Human Rights, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel fine, I can't stop you. I can only appeal to your sence of reason that maybe all of these organizations aren't all lying and instead the accused is guilty of charge, even if there may be some cases of being innocent.
I never said "many dead" before the invasion, reread my post. And yes, I remember it clearly, people were dying and living in shelters well before an IDF soldier set foot in Lebanon. They were bombing Hifa for crying out loud!

And I again would like a source on this.


As a country, 40 lives of my citizens is never insignificant. That is why you have a military force in the first place.

It again is about propotion. Do you think it would be reasonable to nuke a major city to prevent fourty people from dying? I would say that would be unproportional and illegal.


Except the text of the law clearly shows it *is* relevant, whether you'd like to acknowledge it or not.

How? It states that it applies to both cases which means it is irrelevant. You'll find no serious scholar who is not an ardent zionist even trying to argue your flimsy and disasterous interpertation. It's playing with words and it's just BS. Just like saying "whoever murders by accident or by choice shall be sentanced to death" means that wether or not it was accidental doesn't matter.

But your statements clearly implied that it would've been otherwise impossible to realistically meet that goal with such damage, when you were asking me "how exactly believe such an operation could have been mounted without said damage", did they not?

And those methods would not be an invasion but diplomatic ones and utilizing the desire for democracy and dislike of hezbollah that DOES exist in Lebanon.

The pattern of warfare waged by Hezbollah in Bint Jbeil (and
other towns and villages in south Lebanon) is forbidden by the
international laws governing armed conflict, which require
making distinction between civilians and combatants.

Azrael001 wrote:Which is not [i]more than the Israeli claim.

My point is barring any religious claims, the territory rightfully belongs to the Jews. The Ottoman empire collapsed and Britain legitimately took control of the land. There were few organized or cohesive (Ooo big important sounding words) groups in the area even though they may have been big. The land was then given to another group (the Jews) legally and the Jews were given control of the land. It is an acceptable practice for any country to give land it controls to anyone they want and make it a country (especially if the rest of the world (the UN) agree).

"the land"? "the territory"? You are utterly confusing what occured and what is historically relevant. The borders that are argued are the 67 border and in 67' the land was not owned by the jews, it was occupied by the jews.
Second of all there is a big distinction between owning land and being able to do what you want to the residents of that land, and part of the things you cannot and should not be allowed to do is to forcefully displace people with threats of violence and deny them the right to return after the threat is gone. This has occured and it should be condemned.

1. Israel was created by the "west". The West gave them the land from land that they controlled.

So far accurate

2. There would have been an Arab state in the area, but because they didn't want the Jews there, they were unwilling to compromise and ended up with nothing.

Well this is a flimsy and largely inaccurate summary, the zionists realized they could not make a jewish state if they didn't expell arabs and so they wanted a situation where the Arabs would rebel so they could easily drive them out. This occured, had the arabs been more peaceful they would not have gotten away with it but there you go.

3. Rather than help the Palestinian refugees*, the Arab states used their suffering as proof that Israel was evil.

This is true, but there is also a really simply solution to that which makes Israel the GOOD GUY instead of "that guy" which would be what is required international law and give the Palestinians the right of return, or at the very least help them create a sustainable Palestine instead of sacrificing that for short term security goals.

4. A united Arab force ( I don't know exactly who, nor do I care), proclaimed that it would not rest until Israel was destroyed and it's people scattered ore dead.

See this is where time is relevant and your pictures is getting more and more skewed.

5. Israel, who was friendly with the West (who was still feeling pretty bad about the whole Holocaust thing) bought some of the Western weapons and attacked those who threatened their existence. They kick the snot out of them.

And stole some land and displaced another fairly substantial group of people. It should be noted that offensive warfare is also not acceptable.

6. Some of the conquered land is returned for peace, this is why Egypt is no longer an active party (as far as I know) in trying to wipe out the country.
okey the term !conquered land" is really misleading, you shall not and may not conquor land, it is not a spoil of war. returning it is like the police giving back compounded evidence, it's what you SHOULD DO. Second the whole Egypt story is another proof of the deliberate manipulative strategies employed by Israel in order to obtain land, Egypt offered to normalize relations for land etc, but Israel guided by Kissinger declined the offered and Instead chose to invade. And was promptly defeated, and thus had to accept not only to return the land but accept a deal about I believe it was Palestinian refugees.

7. Other Arab states are still mad at the Jews, who are (rightly so) also mad at the Arabs. They both do bad things to each other.

While the tone is still biased (the jews and rightly mad while the arabs apparantly are not) this seems fairly accurate, the part of scale is not noted though, and if you look at the record basically the Israelis are doing far far far worse damage to Palestine and Palestinians than the palestinians do to Israel, which has not much to do with "natural evil" mind you but the power relationship, much like the segragation in South Africa did far more damage to the Blacks than any mad black people attacking white people did. Do not confuse this with supporting suicide bombings, I am just far more understanding of the motives of desperation than the motive of systematic oppression and victimization complex.

8. Here is where things become hazy. For the most part Israel is fighting a defensive war, they do invade a few places but it is because they are provoked. More bad things are done on both sides...
When is "here"?
Second being provoked is really really easy, I would hardly think that is a legitimate excuse to go to war. Third defensive war does hardly describe the occupation of Palestine which is and remains the biggest question, you are not 'defending yourself' against a territory you occupy, that's absurd.

1) Kick out millions of people who have no practical place to go, even though they were given land from the UN. Barring that force them out using nasty guerrilla warfare (which is the only thing Israel's enemies seem to be capable of)

I would just like to point out that the reasons Israels enemies only seem capable of nasty guerrilla welfare that is because primarily Israels enemies are poor people raised in places devastated by aggressive Israeli policies, ie Lebanon and Palestine. Anyone trying to fight an oppressor is forced to guerrilla warfare, there is no way the American revolutionaries could have taken the brittons in open battle.

2) Try to reason with fundamentalists, who hate everything that the west stands for (I'm sure that many of them don't but generalizing is easy)

"you should never negotiate out of fear but you should never fear to negotiate". See I am said this (not that quote but the upcoming argument) several times in this thread already, and it really shouldn't be surprising, you don't negotiate for peace with your friends. you ARE at peace with your friends. You negotiate with you enemies and most likely you won't think your enemies are good people but if we downplay negotiating with people who have less than admirable ideals as unacceptable and war and death as the only solution you are not going to get anywhere. People are not born into peace loving democratic citizens. it takes a working infrastructure and civil society and culture that doesn't just pop up, and war generally is bad for this and peace is good. And so it's better to negotiate with fundamentalist than try to kill a society that likes the fundamentalists since that does and has shown to help them out.


the Jewish side beat out the Arab side and gained control of the land. they promptly claimed it as theirs and founded a country called Israel on it.
since then they have successfully defended this claim in several wars.
for that reason, it's theirs.

Well since your reasoning demands that we ignore the UN and international law your claim needs not be listened to. I might as well say "well let's suppose Arabs are dogs..." or some other absurd claim.


It's where we come from, where we originate as a people. We never left voluntarily, and some population of us have lived there since our birth as a people. Therefore, it belongs to us.

That is so much a religious one it is absurd. Second where do you think the Palestinians originated from? Oh wait, I know, Palestine.
The claim is absurd, has no real basis and is just religious or racist nonsense. Non the less it exists and the viable solution is a two state settlement, but lets not fool ourselves that somehow the jews have some mandate to the land because "they come from there". You get that absurd claim from the bible, or the Torah, either way, which means it's about as reliable as the Deluge/Great Flood.
In fact the Arab claim is far more solid. It is not "we used to live here" because that is true as well, if you look back three hundred years they "used to live there". They also lived there at the time of the dispute. The right to self determination should be granted any people and in fact, contrary to some claims here the Palestinians did seek self determination to found their own country etc, but it was promptly denied by the British on purely racist grounds that a Jewish state might be founded there in the future.



But hey, everyone just go on thinking that Arabs legitimately own some portion of the land. While you do that, I'm going to invade your house, rape your wife, kill your children, raze the building to the ground, build my own house on top of it, and then just hand the new house to my grandkids once I have them -- just like the Arabs did to the Jews in Israel. Since the grandkids weren't the ones raping and pillaging, it becomes legitimately theirs, right? Or do I have to wait until your ownership leaves living memory? I can wait that long.

Okey, are you honestly under the impression that for the two thousand years there was no significant jewish population in Palestine the Arabs who lived there should have just let everything be?
Okey I guess this is the thing, horrible practices were standard before war laws were agreed upon in the 20t century. (there were laws before that as well I believe but they weren't very civilized either). The jews did the same, and were victim of it. if you remember how Israel is created in the bible it's all about rape pillage and murder. So did their enemies, and both of them were being horrible but then there were no laws and no civil society etc. So does that mean it's "ok"? Of course not but trying to enforce laws retroactively has never been a good idea, especially not international laws.
So the story is when the significant treaties were agreed upon you couldn't go to all offended parties and say "well let's not undo whatever has occurred when these laws were not in place" because that is just a pipe dream. What is occurring right now is that a people are having their land stolen from them, they are shot, their children are shot, they are imprisoned and tortured and the international community is standing by and doing nothing. They are demolishing their houses and the Israeli build their new settlements on top, stealing it inch by inch, not to mention precious water resources fertile land.


Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot: conquest is only OK when Arabs do it before the United Nations came along to call it Mean and Wrong. And once the United Nations does proclaim it Mean and Wrong, repatriating the original population of the land becomes Mean and Wrong Conquest, because obviously the map in 1945 is the good, natural and right map of the world.

No, I would say in many ways it was not, but there are some very simple principles you can look at to determine if they are. among them:
Every people have the right to self determination, and this includes the Palestinians, they should not have to be forced to live in a jewish country and they should not have to give up their land or forced from where they live. So where do you draw the line? Well in a perfect world there would be no Israel there and the people who were forced to flee in fear of rape and murder in 47 could still live where their families had lived for centuries. Sadly that is no longer the case and no longer a reality, so it has been agreed by roughly 95% of the world (including a clear majority of Palestinians)that the borders from 1967 should be the borders. Of course minor changes can be made to arrange for the changes since then but these changes should be even handed.


Israel will do with the occupied territories what's best for Israel, as they have every right to do. Screw anyone who wants to expel the Jews from the Jewish homeland.

They sure as hell DON'T. It is occupied territories and there are people living there, who have lived there for ahell of a lot longer than the jews ever lived in Israel and if you think doing whatever Israel wants with them is "ok" then you probably need to learn basic morality. Here is a simple rule: All humans are created equal. So just as the Israelis have a right to life and a right to not have to move and a right to freedom of movement and a right to freedom of press and a right to freedom of speech and a right to freedom of assembly so do the Palestinians, they should not be forced into Cantoons, surrounded by walls and forced to go through checkpoints every ten feet, they should not be forced away from the streets at the fear of being shot and they should be allowed to peacefully protest without being shot by military bullies. These are really really fucking simple rules, simple principles and it amazed me and frankly pisses me off when people think that an occupier can do as they please to the occupied population.

It's too bad Israel didn't just expel them from Israel's land in '67.

Yes it's too bad another heinous war crime was not committed. Oh wait I mean good, not bad. How silly of me.


To get this straight: Hezbollah starts a war, fights from among its civilians, purposely uses the situation to result in the deaths of these civilians, to use for their own ends (as you admit), and you're under the assumption that this says anything about anyone other than Hezbollah?

Ignoring the highly dubious claims that Hezbollah were using human shields let's look at the other picture. Israel using human shields in the occupied territories, and by human shields I mean Palestinian civilians.
Norman Finkelstein - Beyond Chutzpah page 110 wrote:An April 2002 Human Rights Watch report found that "the IDF is systematically coercing Palestinian civilians" --including minors--"to assist military operations." For example, "friends, neighbors and relatives of 'wanted' Palestinians were taken at gunpoint to knock on doors, open strange packages, and search houses in which the IDF suspected armed Palestinians were present. Some families found their houses taken over and used as military positions by the IDF during an operation while they themselves were order to remain inside."[cited Human Rights Watch, In a Dark Hour: The Use of civilians during IDF Arrest Operations (New York, 2002), p. 2...]
A November 2002 report by B'Tselem found that, beyond these practices, Palestinians were ordered to "walk in front of soldiers to shield them from gunfire, while the soldiers hold a gun behind their backs and sometimes fire over their shoulders." It also reported that "the soldiers in the field did not initiate this practice; rather, the use of human shields is an integral part of the orders their receive" [cited B'Tselem, Human Shield: Use of Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields in Violation of High Court of Justice Order (Jerusalem, November 2002), pp 2, 19)]
In May 2002, human rights organizations petitioned the Israel Supreme Court to prohibit use of human shields. The state committed itself to cease the use of human shields as "living shields" against gunfire or attacks, but reserved the right to order Palestinians to direct other Palestinians to leave their house - that is, the "neighbor procedure" [referred to earlier in the text] Deeming this distinction "incomprehensible" B'Tselem wrote: "In each instance, soldiers jeopardize the lives of innocent civilians to protect themselves; thus, these cases are equally forbidden." In August 2002 a Palestinian conscripted by the IDF for the neighbor procedure was killed approaching the house of a Hamas activist. The Supreme Court then issues a temporary restraining order against the use of human shields and the neighborhood procedure. To gain the Supreme Court's approval, the state barely recast the neighbor procedure in December 2002 as "operation directive - prior warning." "Despite the cosmetic changes in the procedure" B'Tselem observed, "it remained illegal and immoral." In January 2003 the Supreme Court prohibited use of human shields but allowed "the state to implement the new procedure". In reality the IDF still conscripted Palestinians in life-endangering military operations [cited B'Tselem, "Human Shields," http://www.btselem.org/English/Human_shield/index.asp, however as this link appears broken, this link will replace it
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Sh ... Events.asp
In March 2004m B'Tselem reported, "IDF continues Using Civilians as Human Shields to Make Arrests" [cited B'Tselem Email Update (29 March 2004). for the eyewitness account of an Israeli rabbi who claim "that police tied a 12-year-old Palestinian boy to the bonnet of a jeep to deter stone-throwing protesters in a village north-west or Jerusalem" see Nuala Haughey, "Israelis used boy (12) as 'human shield'" Irish Times (24 April 2004).]

So while Hezbollah may have used human shields according to the IDF Israel most definately have been using human shields.
So while of course if there were reliable reports of Hezbollah using human shields that would be

It has been an acceptable practice for all of our history.

So has the right to rape the women of the defeated, to murder children and other innocent people aswell. However these practises were agreed to be immoral and unlawful by the entire world, including Israel upon its founding, and so it is no longer allowed.



It is not a case of might makes right. The Jews and the Muslims were going to both have their own separate countries in the area, but the Muslims would not allow the Jews to have their own land and declared war. The Jews won the war. They were not the aggressors.

A dubiouis claim, I would say having your land stolen from you, and a well founded fear of discrimination and ethnic cleansing is a good reason to try and defend your homeland. And to the extent that they were not the agressors they were non the less war criminals and guilty of committing an ethnic cleansing and horrible massacres and other serious war crimes.
Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, page 208 wrote:Deir Yassin is rememberd not as a military operation, but rather for attrocities committed by the IZL and LHI troops during and immediately after the drawn-out battle: Whole families were riddled with bullets and granade fragments and buried when houses were blown up on top of them; men, women and children were mowed down as they emerged from houses; individuals were taken aside and shot. At the end of the battle groups of old men, women and children were trucked through West Jerusalem's streets in a kind of 'victory parade' and then dumped in (Arab) East Jerusalem. According to Jerusalem Shai commander Levy, ... 'the conquest of the village was carried out with great cruelty. Whole families- women, old people, children- were killed, and there were piles of dead. Some of the prisoners moved to places of incarceration including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors.'
In a report the following day, he added: 'LHI members tell of the barbaric behavior of the IZL towards the prisoners and the dead. They also relate that the IZL men raped a number of Arab girls and murdered them afterwards (we don't know if this is true)'. The Shai operative who visited the site hours after the event. Mordechai Gichon reported...:Their commander says that the order was: to capture the adult males and to send the women and children to Motza. In the afternoon,... the order was changed and became to kill all the prisoners... The adult males were taken to town in trucks and paraded in the city streets, then taken back to the site and killed with rifle and machine gun fire. Before they were put on the trucks, the IZL and LHI men searched the women, men and children and took from them all the jewelry and stole their money. The behavior toward them was especially barbaric

How lovely, certainly a just victory.
An Soldier eyewitness of the Ad Dawayima massacre in October 1948 described how Israeli forces easily captured the village, and then
killed about 80 to 100 Men, women and children. the children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks. There was not a house without the dead

the remaining villagers were locked into their houses as they razed the village.
So while you may want to portray the Arabs as the evil attackers and the Israelis as the juste and stalwart defenders of whatever then you are missled.
What of the 67 war?

Well in the UN session following the war not a single country including the US would unilaterally blame the Arabs, instead the two groups were "both were guilty" or "Israel was the aggressor". (Official records of the General Assembly Fifth Emergency Special Session,, plenary Meetings, Verbatim records of Meetings 17 June-18 September 1967, 1827 Plenary Meeting, sadly that is not available online even if the resolutions passed from it are here
So the image that the innocent Israel was attacked also seems highly dubious when looking at independent commentary.

So what of the 1973 way?
In 1971 Sadat offered Israel full peace in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. Israel rejected the proposal, promting Egypt after another two years of fruitles diplomacy to attack.
After the october war however veteran Israeli military correspondent Zeev Schiff wrote "Exact prediction of the nature of a future was is impossible, but the general trends may be deduced. It will obviously be more difficult than its predecessor, more vicious and bloodier. The civilian rear will be hit, and Israel must assume that she will have emmediately to fight on threet fronts." "Israel's military supremacy has been placed in doubt" and concludes that "In the new conditions the importancy of a political settlement obviously increases. Time isn't on Israel's side, and she must make great efforts for achieve a true peace"(Image and Reality by Finkelstein, pages 167-171)
So basically it was assumed that a war would be easily won and perhaps further land stolen so it was taking conscious action towards a war, but then recognized that a war would cost more than would be won so a peace settlement was accepted afterwards. What a peace loving innocent nation.
I could keep going through the record like this but really it isn't necessitated, that the Invasions of lebanon in 1982 and 1978 almost entirely unprovocted and using incredibly disproportioante and undiscriminate force has not seemed to be disputed.
Even if Israel had absolutely no regard for (Arab) human life, why would they spend the resources to go and kill them if they had nothing to gain? And what can Israel possibly gain by purposeful slaughtering of innocent civilians?

What do the Arabs have to win? You will find the same answer.
But Israel had several things to win, and stated them openly. first of all it intended to "bring back Lebanon 60 years", ie damage it horrible economically through infrastructure and other damage, which it succeeded with fairly well. The Benefit of this would be a weakened enemy. of course the misconception is that all Arabs are enemies, a pretty wide spread view I think if completely inaccurate, and so poorer Arabs are weaker Arabs and less Arabs are less enemies. I imagine Hezbollah views it in a similar manner, a good Israeli is a dead Israeli.



Now if you want to talk about people getting kicked out of places, I've already said that if the Palestinian Arabs can't get along with the owners they should be evicted from the building.

Is this a metaphor or not? I am unsure and so I will grant you the benefit of the doubt.

solution? I don't believe there is a viable one.
Right now, it's the violence that the problem and not whatever claims people have over land.

I agree that the land claims are not relevant, those are already solved and the only reasonable solution is one based closely on the 67' borders. Which is why the wall must be torn down as it is a huge barrier to a lasting peace.
How do you stop terrorism? The best way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it, so if Israel would actually adhere to human rights then that would solve a major problem. On the Palestinian side you need to give hope to a desperate people which can both be easy and hard, I think real peace negotiations where Israel atleast attempted to adhere to them out of good will and not because it has been imposed to them, and not do stuff like try to cram in as much action before as possible would do alot, second trying to build up a civil palestinian society instead of destroying it would be a huge step. Try to help those who have less animosity instead of making their life more difficult.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby Gunfingers » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:08 pm UTC

Apparantly peace between Israel and Pelistine is just around the corner.

And all it took was the US stepping in and helping!

...right?

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby fjafjan » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:31 pm UTC

Gunfingers wrote:Apparantly peace between Israel and Pelistine is just around the corner.

And all it took was the US stepping in and helping!

...right?

Well if the US stopped blocking the UN settlement it would certainly help and the US along could pressure Israel to unwillingly create a peace settlement considering how dependant Israel is on the US. Of course this would also be difficult considering the power of the 'Israel lobby'.
How far this settlement will go is quite dubious though, but hey, one can always hope.
It's also quite apparent how biased that report is, the typical language of "Palestinian attacks, Israeli retaliations".
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby Robin S » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:37 pm UTC

Your own language is just as biased in the other direction.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby fjafjan » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:41 pm UTC

Robin S wrote:Your own language is just as biased in the other direction.

Any examples? Ofcourse even if that were the case it doesn't make the biased reporting of the mainstream media any more acceptable.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby Robin S » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:48 pm UTC

I assume you consider everything you say to be justified. If this is the case, any examples I do cite will probably just lead to your branding me biased because I disagree with them. My point is that just because you consider your language unbiased and the writer of the report you quote considers his / her language unbiased, it doesn't mean that either of you is "right".

I think, when trying to come to a resolution of a conflict such as this, it's more important to look at the facts of the situation than to start trying to label a certain attack as aggressive, defensive or retaliatory. Israel attacks Palestinian areas; Hamas attacks Israeli areas. Their motives are, of course, open to debate in both cases. You're never going to get agreement from both sides if you start siding with one or the other, whether or not you view it that way.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Israel

Postby Maurog » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:54 pm UTC

The language in that article is extremely anti-Hamas.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:00 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:Considering the IDF tendancy to brandish everyone a terrorist organization/a terrorist (like most repressive regimes, for example South Africa branded guess who a terrorist organization) that's understandable. If some civilian branch of Hamas is targeted that would not qualify, just as someone in the Israeli government would not qualify as an "enemy combatant".


It takes about 2 minutes and Google News to show that the IDF does not brandish 'everyone' a terrorist (and you have yet to provide any evidence that it does):

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 95,00.html

Meanwhile, the point still stands: instead of specifically outlining civilians, B'tselem compiles their list based on individuals who were killed while 'not engaged in hostilities at the time' - individuals who may still very well be legitimate targets, and whose civilian status might be highly questionable.

For example: Ra'id 'Ali 'Abd a-Rahman Abu al-'Adas
34 year-old resident of Nablus, killed on 02.08.2007 in Nablus, by gunfire. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Wanted by Israel. Killed while trying to escape from soldiers who had come to arrest him.

Farid 'Aish Khamis Abu Daher
41 year-old resident of Juhor a-Dik, Gaza district, killed on 27.08.2007 in Juhor a-Dik, Gaza district, by gunfire. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed when he tried to cross the perimteter fence.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statisti ... ategory=28

fjafjan wrote:Suspected massacre had taken place claimed from a number of sources, IDF was not letting anyone in to do any research on the spot and so they concluded that a massacre might very well have taken place.


Haha, responsible reporting at it's best: when you don't have the ability to research the situation, jump to conclusions.

fjafjan wrote:Well I would say it's hardly "incontrovertible evidence".
Their report in response to the hoax allegations is here


Well then you haven't looked at the case enough. Did you even *read* their response or what they're claiming was supposedly 'possible'? According to HRW, it was apparently possible that a DIME weapon which incinerates everything within about a meter was what hit the ambulance, which suffered basically no burn marks and was left mostly intact...

Well, that's not entirely true, HRW claims it also could have been a STRIKE missile - you know, the one that's built to take out tanks.

Here's the full rebuttal:

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/hrw/

fjafjan wrote:There are worse offenders, correct, but not half as many as you would like to portray.


I haven't given you a specific number, but way to go on the speculation - you're getting good at it.

fjafjan wrote:Second an over reporting does not mean that the reporting is in any way inaccurate or undeserved...


It does mean bias, which was the point.

fjafjan wrote:First of all all of your links are broken...


Perhaps that's because you weren't clicking the original link, but instead either pasting the text directly or clicking a copied version of it?

Here it is again:

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amne ... eport_for_

fjafjan wrote:I am not sure if you put those dots in yourself or what but I can't find that specific link. But looking around on that cite it's such a blatantly Zionist an completely biased source it's not realy worthy of mention...


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

fjafjan wrote:Funny story, that is written by the guy from the NGO page, and just like those stories are watchdogs snapping at anyone critizising israel and not critisizing Hamas so is that article not really worth reading.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

fjafjan wrote:The fact that they are the army of a country that has commited a large number of human rights violations and generally have showed little regard to laws against torture, laws against violence against civlians, laws with regards to proportionality.
A much more clear cut case of BS is one I brought up earlier...


Keep trying - every case you cited was declared as is (well, every concrete case anyway, many of your claims are on par in vagueness with Yoda). For example, the soldier suspected in the James Miller incident was acquitted. James Miller was not labeled a terrorist. You might not like the verdict, but the Israeli government did not lie vis a vis the situation. It did provide an initial statement that there was a crossfire (likely info gathered from soldiers), but on further investigation retracted it.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby westcydr » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:30 pm UTC

Discussing Israel on the internet is like discussing religion on the internet: There are NO sources that can be defined as non-biased, and every camp will hold their views as Truth. What I mean by "no non -biased sites" is that even if there was one, one or both sides would claim it was biased, and discount the information anyway. Another similarity is the obscene number of sites dedicated to pushing hatred and misinformation, both about religions and Israel.
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:17 pm UTC

westcydr wrote:Discussing Israel on the internet is like discussing religion on the internet: There are NO sources that can be defined as non-biased, and every camp will hold their views as Truth. What I mean by "no non -biased sites" is that even if there was one, one or both sides would claim it was biased, and discount the information anyway. Another similarity is the obscene number of sites dedicated to pushing hatred and misinformation, both about religions and Israel.


While in fact there is no such thing as a unbiased site or source of information, that's generally not a sufficient reason for dismissing any given source. In fact, that'd be considered an ad-hominem, should that be the case.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby westcydr » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:44 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
westcydr wrote:Discussing Israel on the internet is like discussing religion on the internet: There are NO sources that can be defined as non-biased, and every camp will hold their views as Truth. What I mean by "no non -biased sites" is that even if there was one, one or both sides would claim it was biased, and discount the information anyway. Another similarity is the obscene number of sites dedicated to pushing hatred and misinformation, both about religions and Israel.


While in fact there is no such thing as a unbiased site or source of information, that's generally not a sufficient reason for dismissing any given source. In fact, that'd be considered an ad-hominem, should that be the case.

You are right, but my point is that with the "sides" on the issues of Israel so strong, they will use every little bias as proof of a huuge bias.. And when their side shows a huge bias, they will in turn try to minimize it.. I know I have my own opinions, and beleive that what my opinions are based on is accurate. I also know that people on both sides will tell me I am not pro-Israel enough, or way too pro Israel, depending on how they see things.. I have never seen anyone change sides on the issues based on some web posts.
Like religion, Israel discussions on the internet thrive off of shady debate practices. I mean, I see responses on some sites that refer to everything from a call to kill all Arabs to idiots claiming that Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars...
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:20 am UTC

I'll call it a win for my side when people, no matter their political or religious stripe, take it for granted that Israel exists and will continue to exist.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:22 am UTC

westcydr wrote:You are right, but my point is that with the "sides" on the issues of Israel so strong, they will use every little bias as proof of a huuge bias.. And when their side shows a huge bias, they will in turn try to minimize it..


Perhaps. That's usually where a rebuttal regarding the absurdity of doing so comes into play... =)

Like in any argument, if a person can do no more than repeat the same lines over and over again, you'll only get so far.

westcydr wrote:I know I have my own opinions, and beleive that what my opinions are based on is accurate. I also know that people on both sides will tell me I am not pro-Israel enough, or way too pro Israel, depending on how they see things.. I have never seen anyone change sides on the issues based on some web posts.


I think I can count at least 3-4 people who've substantially changed their outlook on the situation based on (rather extended) discourse with me. On top of that, I can also count myself as someone whose views have consistently evolved through time spent discussing (ie, arguing) the subject.

Of course, there's idiots who'll believe everything fed to them off of some shoddy conspiracy website using awkwardly large fonts and awful color schemes so long as it reinforces their preexisting bias, but you do what you can... ^_^
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby westcydr » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:37 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:Of course, there's idiots who'll believe everything fed to them off of some shoddy conspiracy website using awkwardly large fonts and awful color schemes so long as it reinforces their preexisting bias, but you do what you can... ^_^

Hey!!There are plenty of decent looking websites full of crap, too..
http://www.palsolidarity.org/
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Israel

Postby Yakk » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:10 am UTC

Just a minor point: Throwing a stone at someone is a possibly deadly form of assault.

If someone threw stones at me (with intent to injure/kill), and the weapon I had to defend myself was a gun, I would feel justified in shooting them.

If 50 to 100 people mass throw stones at the police, and the police shot and killed them, I'd feel bad for the police.

If the police opened fire on a peaceful crowd, who then returned fire with stones which killed any or all of the police, I'd feel bad for the crowd.

You do not get a pass for trying to hurt/kill someone just because you suck at it.

As evidence that I'm not completely off my rocker, here is a case of Felony Assault for throwing a stone, 11 year old girl:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/11-year-old ... in_defense
in which the thrown rock was considered a deadly weapon.

Throwing rocks is violence. Don't start violence that you don't intend to finish.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:31 pm UTC

You do not get a pass for trying to hurt/kill someone just because you suck at it.

DAMN. MOTHERFUCKING. RIGHT. Might does not make right, and neither does weakness!
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby westcydr » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:11 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
You do not get a pass for trying to hurt/kill someone just because you suck at it.

DAMN. MOTHERFUCKING. RIGHT. Might does not make right, and neither does weakness!

So true, but sadly, people these days assume weakness makes right... Why do you think every weakness in the US is slowly becoming a disability?
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby Robin S » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:26 pm UTC

What's that got to do with anything? It's a discussion in its own right and deserves a separate thread.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby westcydr » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:44 pm UTC

Robin S wrote:What's that got to do with anything? It's a discussion in its own right and deserves a separate thread.

Americans siding with the perceived underdog in every situation has EVERYTHING to do with how Americans perceive Israel.
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Israel

Postby Yakk » Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:52 pm UTC

"Soldiers shooting at people who throw rocks at them" is an attack aimed at the Israeli soldiers, as part of a claim that Israel is a pile of thugs.

"It doesn't matter if Hamas says it wants to kill Israel, Israel is strong enough to prevent it. So Israel should negotiate with someone who vows to wipe it off the map" is yet another example where "weakness means it is ok to be violent".

The casualty ratio statistics cited -- yet another example where weakness is used to justify attacking.

So yes, "weakness does not make right" is an important part of this discussion. Because if you presume that weakness means you are right, then Israel is in the wrong with regards to the former Egyptian Gaza Strip and the former Jordan West Bank areas that it occupies simply because it is stronger than the forces there.

So I will attack that point: the fact that Hamas is weak doesn't mean that it is OK for Hamas to say "Israel must be destroyed". Throwing rocks at soldiers is an attempt to kill or injure them, and they should shoot back. If missiles or other attacks are launched from another territory, and that territory cannot or will not prevent it, you (as a nation) are justified in preventing it yourself via invasion, occupation or remote assault.

And yes, that doesn't cover the entire situation. But it covers entire swaths of it.

And yes, that can mean that both sides in a conflict are justified in attacking each other. They can choose to negotiate a peace at that point, but I won't damn either.

And I respect democracies more than the alternatives: but that doesn't mean that a democracies decisions are holy and should be without consequence. I have no obligation, and neither does anyone else, to respect the decisions of a democracy and change my policies simply because they made a decision. If the USA voted that all Mexicans in their territory where freely killable (which they could, legally, by constitutional amendment), I could condemn that action as much as if a dictatorship made the decision.

Now, there are some remaining anti-Israeli positions in this thread, but claiming that this kind of disagreement shouldn't be in this thread is wrong.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:26 pm UTC

Just because a weak asshole picks a fight with you, it doesn't mean that you are justified in killing them or responding disproportionately. The ability of the person or group to do harm, or their strength or weakness, is very relevant to what is justified in response. To say "too bad, they shouldn't have picked a fight" or "too bad, they're weaker than us" leaves you on very shaky moral grounds.

Maybe Israel is justified in its response, or maybe not. I'm not saying anything about that. But the fact that one side is weaker and less able to fight does matter, so don't just shrug it off.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Israel

Postby Yakk » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:05 pm UTC

zar wrote:Just because a weak asshole picks a fight with you, it doesn't mean that you are justified in killing them or responding disproportionately. The ability of the person or group to do harm, or their strength or weakness, is very relevant to what is justified in response. To say "too bad, they shouldn't have picked a fight" or "too bad, they're weaker than us" leaves you on very shaky moral grounds.


Don't attack people. If you attack people and they attack back, I don't blame the defenders.

Sure, the defenders should use the lowest strength response that reliably stops the attack and prevents it from reoccuring. But if that response is out of proportion to the attack, that is acceptable to me.

If you are weak, your weakness means that it is likely that a weaker response can prevent you from continuing to attack. That is the only protection I'm willing to extend to the weak for being weak.

The position that the only response is a proportional one invites asymmetric warfare and terrorism tactics.

When you try to physically harm someone, you cross a line. I find it morally acceptable for that person to defend themselves through any means necessary (necessary is a key word -- not any means, but any means necessary.)

If you can stop the rock throwing and arrest the attackers by using tear gas, then shooting the rock throwers isn't necessary. If that is insufficient to stop the rock throwing, stronger methods are morally acceptable.

Similarly, if you find your nation occupied, and you choose to throw rocks to attack the occupiers, that is morally acceptable to me. If the people you throw rocks at are armed and you get shot, you really should have tried a more effective way to deal with the occupation.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

OK, we seem to agree for the most part. So it's not sufficient to point out the weakness of the Palestinians to justify the higher number of casualties on their side. You must provide an argument for why that force was necessary and why a weaker response could not have been used. That's all I wanted to point out.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:50 pm UTC

zar wrote:OK, we seem to agree for the most part. So it's not sufficient to point out the weakness of the Palestinians to justify the higher number of casualties on their side. You must provide an argument for why that force was necessary and why a weaker response could not have been used. That's all I wanted to point out.


An interesting point though, going from Yakk's statement:

Yakk wrote:If that is insufficient to stop the rock throwing, stronger methods are morally acceptable.


Since terrorism hasn't actually stopped, then methods being currently used are clearly insufficient.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:21 pm UTC

Shooting someone dead is sufficient to stop them from throwing a rock at you. Other less lethal methods are also sufficient. The fact that there are people who continue trying to throw rocks doesn't say that your methods for stopping them after the fact are insufficient, it just shows that lots of different people want to throw rocks. You still can stop them fine when they do, though.

It's a different question entirely if you want to stop them from even attempting to throw rocks, and upping the power you use against them will do nothing to stop the effort on their part.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby fjafjan » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:05 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
fjafjan wrote:Considering the IDF tendancy to brandish everyone a terrorist organization/a terrorist (like most repressive regimes, for example South Africa branded guess who a terrorist organization) that's understandable. If some civilian branch of Hamas is targeted that would not qualify, just as someone in the Israeli government would not qualify as an "enemy combatant".

It takes about 2 minutes and Google News to show that the IDF does not brandish 'everyone' a terrorist (and you have yet to provide any evidence that it does):

It branded the PLO a terrorist organization, despite it being a almost entirely non violent organization trying to defend the basic rights of a people. Basically they were the Palestinian African National Congress.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 95,00.html

Meanwhile, the point still stands: instead of specifically outlining civilians, B'tselem compiles their list based on individuals who were killed while 'not engaged in hostilities at the time' - individuals who may still very well be legitimate targets, and whose civilian status might be highly questionable.

For example: Ra'id 'Ali 'Abd a-Rahman Abu al-'Adas
34 year-old resident of Nablus, killed on 02.08.2007 in Nablus, by gunfire. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Wanted by Israel. Killed while trying to escape from soldiers who had come to arrest him.

So the fact that he was wanted by Israel means killing him was not killing an innocent civilian? Here I thought we were supposed to have trials and present evidence before we found someone guilty.

Farid 'Aish Khamis Abu Daher
41 year-old resident of Juhor a-Dik, Gaza district, killed on 27.08.2007 in Juhor a-Dik, Gaza district, by gunfire. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed when he tried to cross the perimteter fence.

Clearly a terrorist and a threat to IDF forces.


fjafjan wrote:Suspected massacre had taken place claimed from a number of sources, IDF was not letting anyone in to do any research on the spot and so they concluded that a massacre might very well have taken place.


Haha, responsible reporting at it's best: when you don't have the ability to research the situation, jump to conclusions.

Okey let me outline what is reasonable. You have a large number of people telling you "a massacre is taking place", you try to investigate but authorities will not let anyone through. What you do is "we think a massacre has occured, but we don't have entirely reliable evidence" which is exactly what amnesty did. Yes, exactly, they had in their report prime facie evidence of war crimes. I cannot see anything wrong with this, if you have a serious massacre that the goverment is trying to cover up it will be noticed, and if not then you find out the truth, but you investigate it due to the amount of evidence that point towards it.
fjafjan wrote:Well I would say it's hardly "incontrovertible evidence".
Their report in response to the hoax allegations is here


Well then you haven't looked at the case enough. Did you even *read* their response or what they're claiming was supposedly 'possible'? According to HRW, it was apparently possible that a DIME weapon which incinerates everything within about a meter was what hit the ambulance, which suffered basically no burn marks and was left mostly intact...

I did read it, and I do realize that I am not an experts on balistics and I seriously doubt that you are too
Well, that's not entirely true, HRW claims it also could have been a STRIKE missile - you know, the one that's built to take out tanks.


that is quite an insane conspiracy theory. Really. sadly unlike 9-11 myths it's not really wide spread enough for the science establishment to deal with
fjafjan wrote:There are worse offenders, correct, but not half as many as you would like to portray.


I haven't given you a specific number, but way to go on the speculation - you're getting good at it.

You make it seem like we're attacking a country who just did this one little thing while in reality, especially if you look at things like level of education and wealth which are normally things which makes acting civil harder, Israel has a horrendous human rights record.
fjafjan wrote:Second an over reporting does not mean that the reporting is in any way inaccurate or undeserved...


It does mean bias, which was the point.
In what way? It does not mean that they are missrepresenting the actual stories, so to stick with my analogy it does not mean that the evidence brought forth against the small time thug is in any way inaccurate or unfair.



http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_international_report_for_

The article first looks at the number of articles, then say that if you exclude one kind Israel scores higher than Iran. then, the not so surprising following from this is that they use more bad words to describe Israel. It follows from this that their reports are unfactual? It does not follow.
fjafjan wrote:I am not sure if you put those dots in yourself or what but I can't find that specific link. But looking around on that cite it's such a blatantly Zionist an completely biased source it's not realy worthy of mention...


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

It's not an ad hominem, it's an evaluation, if you linked me to Stormfront I would have scoffed at you as well.

fjafjan wrote:Funny story, that is written by the guy from the NGO page, and just like those stories are watchdogs snapping at anyone critizising israel and not critisizing Hamas so is that article not really worth reading.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

Well again, if you can find me someone actually independant and not with a hugely vested interest and biased who will make these allegations of bias and unfairness then I would listen to you, but if all you got are the tired arguments of "you are looking too closely at us" from some super zionist then it doesn't add much.

fjafjan wrote:The fact that they are the army of a country that has commited a large number of human rights violations and generally have showed little regard to laws against torture, laws against violence against civlians, laws with regards to proportionality.
A much more clear cut case of BS is one I brought up earlier...


Keep trying - every case you cited was declared as is (well, every concrete case anyway, many of your claims are on par in vagueness with Yoda). For example,


the soldier suspected in the James Miller incident was acquitted
.
SUSPECTED?!
Wow, the evidence really isn't in on that one, it's not like a soldier clearly and obviously knowingly shot, in the head, a completely innocent civilian? Yes it seems like acquitting him might be a suitable punishment.

James Miller was not labeled a terrorist. You might not like the verdict, but the Israeli government did not lie vis a vis the situation.

They still claim that he was shot in the crossfire which is an outright bald faced lie. But let me cite some relevant statistics.

On may 3rd 2004 a Military Court sentance captain Zvi Kortzky to two months' imprisonment, four months of military tasks and six months of probation. He had been convicted of shooting to death Muhammed Zip, 16... This is the first time that an IDF soldier has been convicted of causing the death by negligance of a Palestinian during al-Aqsa intifada....The conviction of Captain Kortzky is one of the only three convictions related to the killing or wounding of civilians ... Israel has opened only Seventy-two Military Police investigations that deal with killing or causing severe injury to civilians. Only thirteen of the investigations has resulted in indictments, and only three convictions were obtained. The light sentance given to Kortzky, who killed a minor who was sitting in his home and did not even endanger soldiers, gives a strong impression that Palestinian life is worthless

Now if you read how many people have been killed during the al-Aqsa intafada, you know roughly how many it is I am sure, you realize quickly that it's way fucking more than seventy two, and you can bet your ass the IDF plead innocent on almost every one of those. And then there is the thing I mentioned earlier with the rubber bullets, where the IDF ofcourse plead innocent aswell. I mean they were initially defending the guy who on tape had shot this journalist, ofcourse then they realized it was on tape and so they better give the guy some token punishment and went with the weakest possible.

But here is another issue, torture. the IDF ofcourse denies that it uses torture since that is illegal under international law, but then let's look at what they do use and have used to see how reliable this claim is.

So that is 70's and 80's
Well you might say, in 99 the Israeli High Court banned rough interrogation! Well that's true, except they also left the loop hole that if a member of the security service really think that rough interrogation, ie torture, is the only solution to save lives in imminent danger then it will be acceptable. And of course this loop hole is probably the reason that the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel report that torture techniques are still being used in a routinely fashion and the number of detainees against whom no method of ill-treatment whatsoever is used is negligible" (Back to a Routine of Torture: Torture and Ill-treatment of Palestinian Detainees during Attest, Detention and Interrogation, September 2001, april 2003, (Jerusalem, April 2003))
Ofcourse this is not all entirely related to the IDF, and just perpetuated by the Israeli state to which is a part of the IDF.
But generally the IDF won't comment on these things, just do nothing about it. And frankly that kind of dehuman behaviour and such a long history of completely neglecting the dignity of Arab lives suggests far much more of a bias and likelyhood to lie than Amnesty overreporting on Israel. And frankly I think they have a pretty good reason for doing that, in that no one would defend the other nations. Virtually no one is going out and say "Saudi Arabia is working fine and any human rights abuses are tolerable" whereas there are plenty of people who support Israel and it's brutal oppression, which then I think in large part warrants a close examination to show the various abuses that take place.


westcydr wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:
You do not get a pass for trying to hurt/kill someone just because you suck at it.

DAMN. MOTHERFUCKING. RIGHT. Might does not make right, and neither does weakness!

So true, but sadly, people these days assume weakness makes right... Why do you think every weakness in the US is slowly becoming a disability?

You mean people with dyslexia? Or what are you talking about? Because jesus that's just horribly offensive

westcydr wrote:Discussing Israel on the internet is like discussing religion on the internet: There are NO sources that can be defined as non-biased.

This is because people with questionable reasonabilty claim that every human rights organization ever is biased. Claiming that the army is biased should be pretty damn elementary. They have an interest to report unfairly, namely that they are the ones on trial

Yakk wrote:As evidence that I'm not completely off my rocker, here is a case of Felony Assault for throwing a stone, 11 year old girl:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/11-year-old ... in_defense
in which the thrown rock was considered a deadly weapon.

Ofcourse I still think you are, if for nothing else someone charging an 11 year old girl with a felony. That is just horribly messed up. Ofcourse in the occupied territories she would not have been arrested, she would have been shot in the head. Infact the soldiers would have ridden into an area they knew they would get thrown at and then have some "colleagues" with sniper rifles take them out. Very good at working towards peace they are.
Would you qualify this as acceptable?
And I will provide a source on that if you want, I'll quote Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges on the topic though

Chris Hidges - War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning wrote:I had seen children shot in other conflicts I have covered -- Death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo-but I had never watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport


Throwing rocks is violence. Don't start violence that you don't intend to finish.

So now the only responce to violence is killing people? What the hell? If someone throws a punch you think you should just shoot them dead? I guess negotiating and peacefully solving conflicts is being a wuss or something, I don't know. I mean this statement is just so absurd don't quite know how to counter it outside of drawing the insane conclusions that follow from it.
A good idea is to actually not escalate the level of violence and try to act proportionally and with the intent to reduce the number of people who get hurt, rather than act indiscriminately and incite conflict.

Yakk wrote:Just a minor point: Throwing a stone at someone is a possibly deadly form of assault.

How possibly are we going to get here? I'm going to Quote B'Tselem
Likewise with regard to stone-throwing; in most situations, stone-throwing does not constitute lethal force. This does not relieve the stone-thrower of criminal liability, and his crime is plainly noted in our statistics. However, a 14 year-old boy throwing stones at an armoured jeep from a distance of over 50 feet – as was the case when soldiers shot Jamil al-Jabji – is not participating in an armed conflict, and the military does not need to respond with live ammunition (the fact that the military has initiated an investigation into this case would indicate that they retroactively agree)

If we are talking about reality though stone throwing is an act of defiance against an oppressive regime. I mean the obvious paralell to draw is to the founding fathers, they did not sit idly by, while facing a comparably much much ligher opression, apparantly palestinians resisting an unlawful military occupation is not acceptable.


Yakk wrote:Similarly, if you find your nation occupied, and you choose to throw rocks to attack the occupiers, that is morally acceptable to me. If the people you throw rocks at are armed and you get shot, you really should have tried a more effective way to deal with the occupation.

So what you are saying is might makes right, if soviet had not collapsed it would have been perfectly fine by you, since the population were not good enough at resisting their government? Well that's BS frankly.

Yakk wrote:"Soldiers shooting at people who throw rocks at them" is an attack aimed at the Israeli soldiers, as part of a claim that Israel is a pile of thugs.

"It doesn't matter if Hamas says it wants to kill Israel, Israel is strong enough to prevent it. So Israel should negotiate with someone who vows to wipe it off the map" is yet another example where "weakness means it is ok to be violent".

Ofcourse virtually all claims made support the claim that the Israeli army is pretty horrendous when it comes to human rights, if this means they are thugs, well, doubtful, but it doesn't change the facts and trying to label it as some unfounded slander is not correct at all. The only arguments that are ever brought up is "All NGO's are biased and terrible" or "screw you international law and your laws for protecting civilians from being killed and maimed randomly".

As for Hamas I will also bring in

Yakk wrote:So I will attack that point: the fact that Hamas is weak doesn't mean that it is OK for Hamas to say "Israel must be destroyed".

Except that is a different matter, that is a matter of pragmatism, do you want to actually archieve peace? Well you're going to have to negotitate with less than ideal partners, otherwise there would be no reason to negotiate would there?
There are constant allegations that I am somehow saying Hamas are wonderful which ofcourse is not the case, I am saying they are less horrible than they are painted by much of the media, and that their crimes are by most ways you count it not as great as those of Israel. This does not imply that they are in fact a good organization.


Yakk wrote:And I respect democracies more than the alternatives: but that doesn't mean that a democracies decisions are holy and should be without consequence.

Except condemning is one thing, intervention is another. I do not like Kim Jong Il but that does not mean I think invading North Korea is either a moral, or smart thing to do. The same goes for all nations, typically invasion will end poorly while backing local opposition will turn out better.


Yakk wrote:Sure, the defenders should use the lowest strength response that reliably stops the attack and prevents it from reoccurring. But if that response is out of proportion to the attack, that is acceptable to me.
Then that's fine for you, but is not relevant if we are talking about either international law or actually solving the conflict. So yes, it appears you think standards that would drastically increase the number of preventable deaths from minor quarrels are acceptable. I think that says more about your standards than how reasonable they are.


Yoni45 wrote:Since terrorism hasn't actually stopped, then methods being currently used are clearly insufficient.

False dichotomy that stronger methods are what would stop the violence, looking at a fairly similar case of Ireland/northern Ireland it was not harsher methods but a willing to negotiate with a terrorist organization, working with the more moderate parties and getting them to talk that has not virtually solved the situation. What it took was real guts and not responding to provocation from extremists which just escalates the conflict.

It does follow that the methods have been unsuccessful.
Aleflamedyud wrote:DAMN. MOTHERFUCKING. RIGHT. Might does not make right, and neither does weakness!

Except that whole argument hinges on might makes right, the fact that you have a superior ability to defend yourself means you are justified in killing whoever slights you, them being weak, you being strong, does not mean it is not justified. Of course in any relevant sense it does, shooting a seven year old in the face if they kick you in the shins is by most sane human beings considered intolerable, and similarly that the Palestinian stone throwing children pose no real threat means using excessive force is not acceptable. I mean to most people and international law etc etc.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby mosc » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:08 am UTC

god damn fjafjan...

Gah, I can't keep up with this thread. The ridiculous time requirements for participating in a discussion with posts of that length are overwhelming. :(
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:35 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:It branded the PLO a terrorist organization, despite it being a almost entirely non violent organization trying to defend the basic rights of a people. Basically they were the Palestinian African National Congress.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 95,00.html


Oy, that's just too easy - apparently in the world of fjafjan, airplace hijackings, school shootings, school bus shootings, (all of which are but a needle in the haystack of the PLO's terrorist record) etc. don't count as terrorism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_ ... s_Congress

fjafjan wrote:So the fact that he was wanted by Israel means killing him was not killing an innocent civilian? Here I thought we were supposed to have trials and present evidence before we found someone guilty.


Um, the fact that he was wanted by Israel on its own would arguably make him not an innocent civilian. The fact that he attempted to run away puts that beyond a reasonable doubt.

fjafjan wrote:
Farid 'Aish Khamis Abu Daher
41 year-old resident of Juhor a-Dik, Gaza district, killed on 27.08.2007 in Juhor a-Dik, Gaza district, by gunfire. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed when he tried to cross the perimteter fence.

Clearly a terrorist and a threat to IDF forces.


If you say so. I was going to simply go as far as saying he potentially was both, but if you're under the impression that it's that obvious, so be it.


fjafjan wrote:Okey let me outline what is reasonable. You have a large number of people telling you "a massacre is taking place", you try to investigate but authorities will not let anyone through. What you do is "we think a massacre has occured, but we don't have entirely reliable evidence" which is exactly what amnesty did. Yes, exactly, they had in their report prime facie evidence of war crimes. I cannot see anything wrong with this, if you have a serious massacre that the goverment is trying to cover up it will be noticed, and if not then you find out the truth, but you investigate it due to the amount of evidence that point towards it.


Except you're still losing out on the 'investigation' part. Finally, you're also implicitly admitting to us that a large number of Palestinians were essentially collaboratively manipulating the media. Hardly surprising, but an interesting side-point.

fjafjan wrote:I did read it, and I do realize that I am not an experts on balistics and I seriously doubt that you are too.


You might want to look up the definition of the word ballistics before you try to cite ignorance of it as an excuse for not being to figure out whether or not a missile that can incinerate a tank can leave an ambulance intact upon a direct hit.

fjafjan wrote:that is quite an insane conspiracy theory. Really. sadly unlike 9-11 myths it's not really wide spread enough for the science establishment to deal with


Hardly - the various organizations against Israel have a pretty clear track record of manipulating the media and various NGO's for their own ends.

fjafjan wrote:You make it seem like we're attacking a country who just did this one little thing while in reality, especially if you look at things like level of education and wealth which are normally things which makes acting civil harder, Israel has a horrendous human rights record.


That's rather interesting, considering the fact that Israeli Arabs enjoy levels of education and wealth on par with many first-world nations.

Even more interesting, considering the fact that the *Palestinians*, who are under *Israeli occupation*, have the highest literacy rates of the middle east (outside Israel), the highest life expectancies, and one of the higher human development indexes. This is while essentially *at war* with Israel.


fjafjan wrote:
Yoni45 wrote:It does mean bias, which was the point.
In what way?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias

2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

9. to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly: a tearful plea designed to bias the jury.

fjafjan wrote:
Yoni45 wrote:http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_international_report_for_

The article first looks at the number of articles, then say that if you exclude one kind Israel scores higher than Iran. then, the not so surprising following from this is that they use more bad words to describe Israel. It follows from this that their reports are unfactual? It does not follow.


Would you mind quoting the study on where exactly they conclude that their reports are unfactual?

fjafjan wrote:It's not an ad hominem, it's an evaluation, if you linked me to Stormfront I would have scoffed at you as well.
...
Well again, if you can find me someone actually independant and not with a hugely vested interest and biased who will make these allegations of bias and unfairness then I would listen to you, but if all you got are the tired arguments of "you are looking too closely at us" from some super zionist then it doesn't add much.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

You're basically a textbook example

fjafjan wrote:Now if you read how many people have been killed during the al-Aqsa intafada, you know roughly how many it is I am sure, you realize quickly that it's way fucking more than seventy two, and you can bet your ass the IDF plead innocent on almost every one of those. And then there is the thing I mentioned earlier with the rubber bullets, where the IDF ofcourse plead innocent aswell. I mean they were initially defending the guy who on tape had shot this journalist, ofcourse then they realized it was on tape and so they better give the guy some token punishment and went with the weakest possible.


Interesting - would you care to find me the number of investigations opened by the US in their recent war in Iraq against their soldiers? How about Britain? Canada in Afghanistan?

But here is another issue, torture. the IDF ofcourse denies that it uses torture since that is illegal under international law, but then let's look at what they do use and have used to see how reliable this claim is.

fjafjan wrote:And frankly I think they have a pretty good reason for doing that, in that no one would defend the other nations. Virtually no one is going out and say "Saudi Arabia is working fine and any human rights abuses are tolerable" whereas there are plenty of people who support Israel and it's brutal oppression, which then I think in large part warrants a close examination to show the various abuses that take place.


Which would be a point, if Amnesty's goal was "to refute claims of tolerable circumstances". Unfortunately for you, it's not - it happens to be: "to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights."
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Israel

Postby Yakk » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:11 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:So now the only responce to violence is killing people?


So now you want to kill babies and eat them? What the hell?

(note: this is known as putting words into someone's mouth. My italic comment is an example of me using the same tactic on you. It is equally ridiculous).

I said it was acceptable. Not once did I say it was a required response.

You can turn the other cheek -- but I don't demand that people turn the other cheek.

What the hell? If someone throws a punch you think you should just shoot them dead?


If someone runs up to an armed person and starts punching them, and that armed person shoots them, that's acceptable to me.

I guess negotiating and peacefully solving conflicts is being a wuss or something, I don't know.


Peacefully solving the conflict is also acceptable to me. Not all that is morally acceptable is required.

I mean this statement is just so absurd don't quite know how to counter it outside of drawing the insane conclusions that follow from it.


Ofcourse I still think you are, if for nothing else someone charging an 11 year old girl with a felony.


She got a suspended sentence, and told "don't throw rocks at people".

Infact the soldiers would have ridden into an area they knew they would get thrown at and then have some "colleagues" with sniper rifles take them out.


Don't throw rocks at people. Don't attack someone unless you are willing to accept that they can defend themselves.

A good idea is to actually not escalate the level of violence and try to act proportionally and with the intent to reduce the number of people who get hurt, rather than act indiscriminately and incite conflict.


Refusing to engage in violence invites violence. Always responding to violence with violence breeds violence.

But I won't bind the moral hands of those being attacked. If they choose to respond to violence with violence, that's morally acceptable to me. If they choose to respond by turning the other cheek, that's also morally acceptable to me.

Yakk wrote:Similarly, if you find your nation occupied, and you choose to throw rocks to attack the occupiers, that is morally acceptable to me. If the people you throw rocks at are armed and you get shot, you really should have tried a more effective way to deal with the occupation.


So what you are saying is might makes right


No, I'm not saying might makes right. I'm not saying weakness makes right.

if soviet had not collapsed it would have been perfectly fine by you


I'm happy the soviet union collapsed, so no, that isn't what I'm saying.

I am saying that if a soldier shot someone who threw a rock at them, that soldier didn't do anything morally damning to me in that action. The soldier could be damned for other actions, but that isn't a damning action for me.

Ofcourse [sic] virtually all claims made support the claim that the Israeli army is pretty horrendous when it comes to human rights, if this means they are thugs, well, doubtful, but it doesn't change the facts and trying to label it as some unfounded slander is not correct at all.


When did I try to label your other claims about Israeli actions as unfounded slander?

Except that is a different matter, that is a matter of pragmatism, do you want to actually archieve peace? Well you're going to have to negotitate with less than ideal partners, otherwise there would be no reason to negotiate would there?


Peace is a decent thing, but peace right now is not required. Peace requires both sides to stop attacking and agree to the same thing. If one side requires things that the other side won't accept, then there won't be Peace.

There doesn't have to be a solution to every problem. And the lack of a solution doesn't mean that one side or the other is doing something evil to cause the solution not to exist.

It could simply be that neither side wants Peace enough to accept the other sides demands. In which case, the conflict will continue until one side of the other chooses to change their behavior.

For example, if I went to war with England, and refused to accept anything less than the Crown of England and the return of the Monarchy, England would be quite right in refusing my offer of Peace. Even if I had 1 million people behind me, and the conflict was killing a few thousand people a year, and I was irregularly blowing up buildings.

I might offer to comprimise and allow a house of lords: I'd pick 50, and the populance would get to elect 30 of them, and they would represent the populance. See, I comprimised!

That is just an example of "peace isn't always worth the price": the fact that X must be done for peace to break out within a period Y is not a strong argument for X being done. Sometimes the conflict is better to one side or the other than the price of peace.

Except condemning is one thing, intervention is another. I do not like Kim Jong Il but that does not mean I think invading North Korea is either a moral, or smart thing to do. The same goes for all nations, typically invasion will end poorly while backing local opposition will turn out better.


I find the position that intervention is never justified to be morally bankrupt.

Note I'm not saying that intervention is always justified.

The problem with Kim Jong Il is that invading him will cause millions of South Koreans to die in the bombardment of the SK capital. This will both make the logistics difficult (as SK will be upset), and be a bad thing. So choosing not to invade is a good idea right now I suspect: there is the entire problem with "he has nuclear weapons, he seems willing to sell them for cash, and he has delivery systems capable of hitting allied cities" which make me wonder if we should try something, I will admit.

But it isn't very politically realistic (the loss of SKs capital would be political suicide) even if there was a serious threat that multiple nuclear weapons whre going to be smuggled out: "what if" doesn't sell that well. So it would take a rather serious incident to allow the invasion.

But that is another issue.

Then that's fine for you, but is not relevant if we are talking about either international law or actually solving the conflict. So yes, it appears you think standards that would drastically increase the number of preventable deaths from minor quarrels are acceptable. I think that says more about your standards than how reasonable they are.


Nation-states aren't complete idiots -- if a minor quarrel risked serious consequences, do you think there would be as many minor quarrels?

And yes, if you are dealing with two powers for whom escalation is possible, then responding in purportion is often a smart idea.

However, responding to a terrorist attacks with comprismise encourages terrorism. Responding to a terrorist attack by crushing those who support the terrorism discourages terrorism, if only by weaking the support base of those who engaged in the terrorism.

For that strategy to work, you do have to be able to attack those who support terrorism. If you lack the strength to do that, it can fail miserably. But this is a practical concern to me more than a moral one.

The fact of the matter is, it is pretty damn easy to convince young people to sacrifice themselves for a cause. If all it takes to advance your cause is a few dozen terrorist attacks, terrorist attacks will happen.


[

That's as bad as the comment you disagreed with. He could have been an innocent civilian, or he could have been a hardened mass murderer.

Running away from police doesn't make you a criminal. It does invite being shot in the back if they think you'll get away, and they think you are dangerous enough to shoot.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

yelly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:25 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem, The Original One.

Re: Israel

Postby yelly » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:31 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
Farid 'Aish Khamis Abu Daher
41 year-old resident of Juhor a-Dik, Gaza district, killed on 27.08.2007 in Juhor a-Dik, Gaza district, by gunfire. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed when he tried to cross the perimteter fence.

Clearly a terrorist and a threat to IDF forces.

If shooting a trespasser is somewhat acceptable, shooting a person that is trying to pass a fence you built to stop people killing you from an enemy state makes complete sense. He was basically invading Israel.

fjafjan wrote:But here is another issue, torture. the IDF ofcourse denies that it uses torture since that is illegal under international law, but then let's look at what they do use and have used to see how reliable this claim is.

Well, this is a completely new argument. I am willing to accept that Israel probably does torture people from time to time, but I am not yet convinced that torture is always a bad thing (DISCLAIMER: I think torture is terrible, but bare with me). If you have a person you know for a fact has information that can save lots of civilian lives, is torturing him (not lethally, of course) really that bad? You keep on talking about proportionality, and we will all agree that lots of civilian lives > 1 person's pain. I am not saying that we should torture people in this situation, just a thought.

fjafjan wrote:
Throwing rocks is violence. Don't start violence that you don't intend to finish.

So now the only responce to violence is killing people? What the hell? If someone throws a punch you think you should just shoot them dead? I guess negotiating and peacefully solving conflicts is being a wuss or something, I don't know. I mean this statement is just so absurd don't quite know how to counter it outside of drawing the insane conclusions that follow from it.
A good idea is to actually not escalate the level of violence and try to act proportionally and with the intent to reduce the number of people who get hurt, rather than act indiscriminately and incite conflict.

So if a kid throws a rock at a soldier, should the soldier throw a rock back?

fjafjan wrote:
Yakk wrote:Just a minor point: Throwing a stone at someone is a possibly deadly form of assault.

How possibly are we going to get here?

A (not very close) friend of mine's father was killed in the first intifada by a Palestinian who throw a rock at him. Sounds pretty lethal to me.
What the hell? If someone throws a punch you think you should just shoot them dead?

If you attack someone with a visible (i.e. not hidden) weapon, you should consider the possibility of him using it.
...
"So there are 3 guards, one always tells the truth, one always lies and the third answers randomly"
"But I only want to know the fucking time!"

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:02 pm UTC

Well, this is a completely new argument. I am willing to accept that Israel probably does torture people from time to time, but I am not yet convinced that torture is always a bad thing (DISCLAIMER: I think torture is terrible, but bare with me). If you have a person you know for a fact has information that can save lots of civilian lives, is torturing him (not lethally, of course) really that bad? You keep on talking about proportionality, and we will all agree that lots of civilian lives > 1 person's pain. I am not saying that we should torture people in this situation, just a thought.

Clearly you don't think it's that terrible if you are apparently trying to defend it. Can you name even a single real case where your hypothetical situation has ever happened? Do you even have any evidence that torture is a reliable means of obtaining information?

If not, then have the basic human decency to condemn it. No throat clearing, no dancing around it, just say it's wrong and unacceptable, no matter who's doing it.

Wikipedia wrote:The human rights group B'Tselem estimated that 85% of all Palestinian detainees suspected of terrorism are subject to prolonged sleep deprivation; prolonged sight deprivation; forced, prolonged maintenance of body positions that grow increasingly painful; confinement in tiny, closet-like spaces; exposure to temperature extremes, such as in deliberately overcooled rooms; prolonged toilet and hygiene deprivation; and degrading treatment, such as forcing detainees to eat and use the toilet at the same time. Allegations have been made of frequent beatings. Such acts violate Article 16 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture

There is no possible way that 85% even remotely fit the fictional situation of the "ticking timebomb". And do those treatments sound like they're for interrogation purposes, or just to inflict suffering on the suspects?


If shooting a trespasser is somewhat acceptable, shooting a person that is trying to pass a fence you built to stop people killing you from an enemy state makes complete sense. He was basically invading Israel.

Imagine what would happen if the U.S. shot Mexicans who illegally crossed the border. Even the most extreme anti-immigration people wouldn't say that it's justified. You'll have to do better than say "invasion" if you want to justify shooting someone dead.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:25 pm UTC

zar wrote:Imagine what would happen if the U.S. shot Mexicans who illegally crossed the border. Even the most extreme anti-immigration people wouldn't say that it's justified. You'll have to do better than say "invasion" if you want to justify shooting someone dead.


Let me fix your analogy for you: Imagine what would happen if the U.S. shot Mexicans who illegally crossed the border when Mexico happens to be a hostile enemy state.

You'd have headlines along the lines of "Intrusion averted in recent border incident".
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:37 pm UTC

No, not if it's an unarmed civilian. Shooting unarmed, defenceless people does nothing to help your security situation.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests