"oops"*3700+: are israeli soldiers that inaccurate or is israel guilty of terrorism?

[budullewraagh]

a continuation of the digression of this thread.

 

highlights from previous posts:

 

honestly, I see this "moral equivelence" thing as a load of bs. Speilberg (though I haven;t seen the film, and i don't plan on doing so) is, in essence exusing the actions of the terrorist, by judging them by the root cause and not their actions. A criminal with an unfortunate beckground is still a criminal. It's may be a reason, but not an excuse.

^ecoli admitting he never saw spielberg's movie, then criticizing spielberg for message of said movie after spielberg's denial of any intent to portray said message.

 

"I understand that that understanding the background of your enemies is a healthy thing' date=' but this movie might be misinterpreted to mean that because we understand the root causes of the terrorist's actions, that it would mean that the actions themselves are excusable... which is not the case, no matter how you look at it."

 

well, in response i ask you what you think the general response is to israel's aggressive actions in palestine[/quote']

^me responding to ecoli and calling the double standard

 

I'd say that it is irrelevant in terms of the thread.

 

But if you must have an answer' date=' I say that the Israeli's are trying to protect their citizen's from being murdered by terrorists. [b']If Israel has made mistakes, I don't believe it's a result any specific ill will against Palestinians, in general[/b]. Some of their actions I quesiton, but not their motives.

^please note the bolded section

 

i would say that it is indeed relevant. above' date=' there was discussed the possibility of the public deeming terrorist actions by palestinian militant groups to be acceptable as a result of the film's exposing the perspectives of said palestinian militants. i would say that those actions are indeed justified from the perspective of the said militants. otherwise, they would not commit such actions. but back to the point, what the public thinks of israel's actions in palestine is very relevant indeed. i believe that general public in the us thinks that israel is attempting to defend its citizens and that it has, on occasion, made errors. perhaps if there were only a few isolated cases, "oops" would be a little more acceptable.

 

however, according to statistics, [b']the israeli army has been better at killing palestinians through "accidents" than palestinian militants have been through targeting civilians:[/b]

 

according to:

http://www.palestinercs.org/crisista...of_figures.htm

3,769 palestinians have been killed and 29,358 palestinians have been injured since the 29th of september, 2001.

 

according to:

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Ter... orism%20sinc

"1,093 people have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000."

^me clarifying that the aforementioned question was indeed relevant to the discussion, then noting a few pieces of relevant information (pay attention to the bolded statements and figures)

 

It's not fair to condemn Spielberg based on how you think people might interpret his film.

^sayo makes a good point. which reminds me. i had an english teacher misinterpret a very ambiguous paper i wrote. she said it was on masturbation. i said it wasn't. she still tried to fail me. i pointed out the fact that she couldn't fail me for content, especially if i, the creator of said document, denied any references to masturbation. she backed down.

 

If you don't see it first-hand then your opinions on what Spielberg is trying to convey will be second-hand, at best. Is that what you intend or do you have other specific reasons for not seeing the film?

^mart making a good point that i mentioned above in my quote-by-quote commentary.

 

Statistics are often misleading though. You can't simply determine right and wrong by analyzing pure numbers. Just because the IDF happens to have better technology then their Palestinian counterparts doesn't mean that their evil brutes and the Palestinian terrorist are completely justified. Death on either side is indeed a tragic thing' date=' [b']but just becasue the IDF has killed more Palestinians then Palestinians have killed Israeli's does not make terrorism ok.[/b]

 

No matter how many people were killed, Israeli violence is always in retaliation to some suicide bomber or another evident, or perhaps in pre-emptive stradegies, planned with intellegence collected from Israel's excellent intellegence agency. It's definately a vicious cycle, but how come it always seems that Israel always plans to step up security measures after an attack, the most recent one is a good example.

^ecoli trying to pretend that statistics (the only objective information available) are inaccurate in this case, then also stating the bolded, which i agree with, but was off topic. in the second paragraph, ecoli states that israeli violence is always in retaliation.

 

i was not justifying the actions of palestinian militants. rather' date=' i was pointing out the fact that israel is guilty of terrorism in its actions against the palestinian people.

 

i also find it to be ridiculous for you to dismiss such statistics as the aforementioned by stating that the nearly 4:1 ratio in deaths of palestinians:israelis is merely a statistic and therefore not effective for portraying a situation. what would be better? biased essays from both sides stating "it's all their fault?" don't try that with me; it won't fly. but again, that was in response to something i wasn't referring to in the first place.

 

....a little idealistic, are we? you know, palestinians would say that their violence is in retaliation for attacks on palestinians that israelis would call retaliation to palestinian attacks, which palestinians would call retaliation against israeli attacks, which israel would call retaliation for palestinian aggression. etc. but of course israel is righteous

and you just try to say that all israeli actions are righteous and not at all excessive. oh dear. by golly, those (us made) israeli weapons blew up a childrens' hospital as well as a "suspected palestinian militant." once again, those "oops" incidents are nearly four times as deadly as those aggressive acts committed by palestinians. would you say that israel should refine their practices so they don't kill so many bystanders? or should the "accidental" ethnic cleansing continue?

[/quote']

^me clarifying, then pointing out how ridiculous it is to disregard statistics, then finally explaining how both sides believe their every action is retaliatory.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by budullewraagh

and you just try to say that all israeli actions are righteous and not at all excessive.

 

I never said that. I said that I don't doubt the Israeli gov't's motives' date=' even if some of their actions seem counter-productive.

 

The rest of your post, I'm not going to respond to because it's way off topic. Reopen an old thread if you want to talk about this.[/quote']

ecoli clarifying (though i didnt actually say that he said that all israeli actions are righteous and not at all excessive, but rather i dared him to say so)

 

 

 

and at long last, we can continue.

 

i ask ecoli how he could possibly believe that israel's aggressive actions in palestine are at all results of "any specific ill will against Palestinians, in general."

 

but before he answers, i ask him to remember the relevant information:

3,769 palestinian deaths, 29,358 palestinian nonfatal casualties (at the hands of israeli soldiers who allegedly never, ever would target them)

 

1,093 israeli deaths (at the hands of palestinian militants who actually target them)

and remember, i could find the economic statistics, which would be far more one-sided.

 

as well, i ask whether he believes that israel should refine their military practices by either training their soldiers to not miss militants, (which generally results in the deaths of large numbers of children ) or by cutting off the terrorist part of their military actions.

[ecoli]

ecoli admitting he never saw spielberg's movie, then criticizing spielberg for message of said movie after spielberg's denial of any intent to portray said message.

 

Because it doesn't matter if Speilberg didn't intend for that message to be there. He could have put it in their inadvertantly, or people may take that message from the movie by themselves. From other sources, princible from critical reviews or other people I know, who have seen the movie, they have told me that they believe that Speilberg is indeed using moral equivilancy.

 

^me clarifying that the aforementioned question was indeed relevant to the discussion, then noting a few pieces of relevant information (pay attention to the bolded statements and figures)

 

The figures you stated I'm not denying the relevancy. I simply stated that statictics often do not accurately represent the real situation. Whether or not this is the case here, one should always be wary about this.

 

^sayo makes a good point. which reminds me. i had an english teacher misinterpret a very ambiguous paper i wrote. she said it was on masturbation. i said it wasn't. she still tried to fail me. i pointed out the fact that she couldn't fail me for content, especially if i, the creator of said document, denied any references to masturbation. she backed down.

 

First, I would like to note that I have nothing against Speilberg, personally, and I have no intention whatsoever to attack the man.

 

On that note, it doesn't matter if you didn't intend the paper to be about masturbation or if Speilberg didn't intend the movie to be about moral equivilance. If that's the message that people take away from the movie (or paper) then that is what the text is about, to that person.

 

^mart making a good point that i mentioned above in my quote-by-quote commentary.

 

Indeed, Mart makes a good point here, but as I said, I lack the funds to go see a movie right now, plus I ask for someone who has seen the movie to come foward and explain things.

 

^ecoli trying to pretend that statistics (the only objective information available) are inaccurate in this case,

 

Just because it's the only information available doesn't truly make them objective. It's possible to take pure numbers and interpret them anyway you want.

 

For example, I could say that 90% of people who have cancer have eaten bread so bread causes cancer. In this case one could say that 4,000 Palestinians were killed by the IDF, therefore the Israeli people are monsters. Or 4,000 Palestinians were killed by the IDF, and there is still terrorism, so obviously IDF isn't killing enough people. None of these statements are accurate, but there are based off the same statistics (except the bread one, but you know what I mean). Statistics are not objective because they are still open to intepretation, I would argue that almost all of the information that exists is subjective, because it's being intepreted by someone else.

 

then also stating the bolded, which i agree with, but was off topic. in the second paragraph, ecoli states that israeli violence is always in retaliation.

 

I didn't say always, nor do I agree that the statement was any more off topic then yours. but at any rate, this supports what I said in the above posts... both parties have the same statistics and are coming up with different conclusions about what they mean and how to act on them.

 

 

^me clarifying, then pointing out how ridiculous it is to disregard statistics, then finally explaining how both sides believe their every action is retaliatory.

 

I agree with the bolded, but semi-disagree with unbolded. It's true we shouldn't through away the statistics, but just be aware then just because the numbers seem to indicate something, doesn't mean something else could be the truth (or many different truths).

 

ecoli clarifying (though i didnt actually say that he said that all israeli actions are righteous and not at all excessive, but rather i dared him to say so)

 

Why would you dare me to say so? It wasn't the point I was trying to make. I already said I'm against making moral equivlences for exactly this reasons, the world isn't separated into good and evil, each situation is so complex, that mathing good and bad things for each side is kind of ridiculous.

 

i ask ecoli how he could possibly believe that israel's aggressive actions in palestine are at all results of "any specific ill will against Palestinians, in general."

 

but before he answers, i ask him to remember the relevant information:

3,769 palestinian deaths, 29,358 palestinian nonfatal casualties (at the hands of israeli soldiers who allegedly never, ever would target them)

 

1,093 israeli deaths (at the hands of palestinian militants who actually target them)

and remember, i could find the economic statistics, which would be far more one-sided.

 

I know the statistics, before you posted them in this thread, and my opinion has not changed. I believe the only Palestinians the IDF (and the vast majority of Israelis) wants to harm are the terrorist, and the deaths of any others are regreted by all. These deaths, whether blunders or nearsighted orders, still don't indicate that Israel harbors ill will to Palestinians in general. However, because the majority of Palestinians seem to support the terrorists, it's quite the conundrum.

 

as well, i ask whether he believes that israel should refine their military practices by either training their soldiers to not miss militants, (which generally results in the deaths of large numbers of children ) or by cutting off the terrorist part of their military actions.

 

I don't have any ideas about what should be changed, mostly because I don't understand the military part behind everything. I do not know how easy it is for the IDF to change tactics, or the political effects of anything.

[padren]

I think the problem is there are some Israeli military members that believe genocide and indiscrimenant use of force is the only solution, just as some palestinian leaders believe the same against the Israelis is the only solution.

 

The more the violence escalates, the more people with that line of thinking become influencial, because its easier to dehumanize the opposing side as the violence and brutality escalates.

 

 

Getting hung up on which side deserved to be dehumanized more is a route that cannot help to understand the problem better, nor rationally lead towards solutions.

 

Its a bloody mess in the truest sense of the term, but most people on both sides just want to be able to live their lives without fear of being victimized, and don't know how to achieve that.

 

 

I am sure if this was going on in the US, and terrorists were hiding and launching attacks in Connecticut, that citizens would be more than a bit upset if as many accidental civillian deaths were occuring in the process of hunting them down.

That said, the palestinian terrorists are not going out of their way to avoid civilian palestinian deaths - they are often hiding in very densely populated areas, creating a nightmare for the Israelis trying to pursue them without innocent casualties.

 

Again, I am pretty sure most Israelis including those in the military do not want civilian palestinian deaths as they feel it can only worsen the divide, and some others believe that enough civilian deaths can "bludgeon" and break the palestinians as a whole into submission.

 

In the end you can't get sucked into the conflict on these terms, the Israelis will never crush the militants militarily nor will the militants ever influence Israeli policy in the manner they want via acts of terrorism. Every bombing is criminal and the Israelis have to deal with it militarily, and as long as there are Palestinians that feel the Israelis won't let them live as people, they will keep attacking.

 

Until people on both sides believe that progress is hurt by the widescale violence more than they believe the escalators can beat the other side into submission, there will not be advancement towards a resolution.

[ecoli]

Very well said, Padren.

[Pangloss]

Agreed. Nice post.

[Sisyphus]

Very well said, Padren.

 

Wait, that's well said, but a movie about the danger of dehumanizing your enemy is excusing terrorism? I'm greatly confused.

[padren]

Wait, that's well said, but a movie about the danger of dehumanizing your enemy is excusing terrorism? I'm greatly confused.

 

To express the dangers of dehumanizing your enemy you have to show your enemy's human side, which induces sympathy, and because many people view the world in a very strong absolute good/evil/right/wrong manner, may loose perspective on the original crimes of terror.

 

Many contend OJ Simpson got away with murder, because the jury saw racism and potentially planted evidence on the part of the police.

 

Personally though, I think its important to challenge people to see the shades of gray whenever possible, though I haven't yet seen this film.

[Sisyphus]

And I agree with that, and I think the dangers of dehumanizing the enemy are greater than the dangers of making someone who can't hold two ideas in his head at once (terrorism is bad, but there is a reason for it other than being "evil") think that terrorism is a good thing. I thought that's what you were saying, which is why I was confused when ecoli applauded you, as earlier he seemed to be saying the opposite. Or not the opposite, but maybe "There are shades of gray, but people shouldn't be allowed to know about them, because they'll be confused."

 

I guess it's a minor point, really...

[ecoli]

Wait, that's well said, but a movie about the danger of dehumanizing your enemy is excusing terrorism? I'm greatly confused.

 

Sorry I wasn't clear before. I have no problems showing the human side of one's enemy, but moral equivilancy, matching up good and point points for parties on each side of the conflict is stupid and a waste of time. Each side will have their own opinions and people outside the situation see two different sides. There are so many different "goods" and "bads" about people that picking some of them out so neither side seems morally better then the other doesn't make sense to me.

 

Was that clearer?

[padren]

Sorry I wasn't clear before. I have no problems showing the human side of one's enemy' date=' but moral equivilancy, matching up good and point points for parties on each side of the conflict is stupid and a waste of time. Each side will have their own opinions and people outside the situation see two different sides. There are so many different "goods" and "bads" about people that picking some of them out so neither side seems morally better then the other doesn't make sense to me.

 

Was that clearer?[/quote']

 

I think I understand - such as the practice of a newspaper, to avoid being accused of taking a "contraversal" stance or bias for one side, presents just enough details about both sides that is not informative or even an accurate represenation of the situation, but gives the appearance of being "thoughtful" and even handed.

 

I definately agree with you on that, especially that is the desired effect of the writer, who has to pick which facts are presented to achieve that result.

 

I'll have to see the film though to evaluate if I personally feel thats the case in it.

[ecoli]

I think I understand - such as the practice of a newspaper, to avoid being accused of taking a "contraversal" stance or bias for one side, presents just enough details about both sides that is not informative or even an accurate represenation of the situation, but gives the appearance of being "thoughtful" and even handed.

 

exactly what I was trying to get at. I never really meant to the original thread to turn into a ISrael vs. Palestine debate.

 

I definately agree with you on that, especially that is the desired effect of the writer, who has to pick which facts are presented to achieve that result.

 

The result hardly ever equals the truth

 

I'll have to see the film though to evaluate if I personally feel thats the case in it.

 

PLease let me know.

[Aardvark]

I think the problem is there are some Israeli military members that believe genocide and indiscrimenant use of force is the only solution.

 

Do you have any evidence to back that assertion? Can you name any of these anonymous 'military members'.

 

Or are you just making that up?

[budullewraagh]

"I think the problem is there are some Israeli military members that believe genocide and indiscrimenant use of force is the only solution, just as some palestinian leaders believe the same against the Israelis is the only solution."

 

while i do believe that the above is a problem, i ask what the israeli army and government are doing to fix these alleged errors. to date, i have heard no news of a rebel soldier being punished by his commanding officer. i have heard no news of a commanding officer being punished by an officer of higher rank, or the government for that matter. because they have done nothing to make amends, the israeli army and the israeli government certainly do not come out looking rosy from my perspective.

[Aardvark]

"I think the problem is there are some Israeli military members that believe genocide and indiscrimenant use of force is the only solution' date=' just as some palestinian leaders believe the same against the Israelis is the only solution."

 

while i do believe that the above is a problem, i ask what the israeli army and government are doing to fix these alleged errors. to date, i have heard no news of a rebel soldier being punished by his commanding officer. i have heard no news of a commanding officer being punished by an officer of higher rank, or the government for that matter. because they have done nothing to make amends, the israeli army and the israeli government certainly do not come out looking rosy from my perspective.[/quote']

 

The Israeli forces have certainly been guilty of lapses and excesses.

 

But that does not justify the word genocide. The casual use of such language is at best sloppy, at worst deeply misleading and dishonest. At the very least padren should make some effort to substantiate the use of such a strong and emotive word.

[budullewraagh]

"The Israeli forces have certainly been guilty of lapses and excesses.

 

But that does not justify the word genocide. The casual use of such language is at best sloppy, at worst deeply misleading and dishonest. At the very least padren should make some effort to substantiate the use of such a strong and emotive word."

 

taken from m-w.com, genocide is:

"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

 

but the point is that the israeli military and the israeli government are apparently doing nothing to stop deliberate attacks on nonmilitary targets. this means to say that the israeli military and the israeli government harbor terrorism. a commanding officer is responsible for the actions of his soldiers. if a commanding officer does not punish his soldiers for destroying civilian targets, be this intentional or unintentional, we can safely say that the commanding officer in the field has harbored such attacks. if knowledge of these attacks is made available to the commander's superiors (and don't say they don't know what's going on- if i know, they do) and they do nothing, it is safe to say that the state supports such actions

[Aardvark]

taken from m-w.com' date=' genocide is:

"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"[/quote']

 

There is no evidence that Israel is undertaking any deliberate and systematic destruction of the Palestinans as a racial, political or cultural group. The actions taken by Israel do not come near meeting that definition.

 

but the point is that the israeli military and the israeli government are apparently doing nothing to stop deliberate attacks on nonmilitary targets. this means to say that the israeli military and the israeli government harbor terrorism. a commanding officer is responsible for the actions of his soldiers. if a commanding officer does not punish his soldiers for destroying civilian targets, be this intentional or unintentional, we can safely say that the commanding officer in the field has harbored such attacks. if knowledge of these attacks is made available to the commander's superiors (and don't say they don't know what's going on- if i know, they do) and they do nothing, it is safe to say that the state supports such actions

 

If the Israeli military was deliberately encouraging or consistently turning a blind eye to the targetting of nonmilitary targets then that would make the military complicit in those attacks.

 

However that is not the case. There have been incidents where Israeli forces have over reacted and incidents where crimes committed by Israeli forces have not been investigated and prosecuted with as much vigour as would seen just, but these are not consistent and do not reach the bar of being either state sponsored policy or terrorism. Israeli soldiers have been prosecuted for crimes committed against Palestinians and there are Israeli soldiers in prison for those offences. Israeli forces have repeatedly acted to prevent attacks on Palestinians by Israeli civilians.

 

It is fair to point at incidents of Israeli overreactions and condemn them. But to move from that to arguing that Israel is guilty of state terrorism, or even genocide, is a false exaggeration. It is that tendency of exaggeration and distorting of facts that is in itself damaging to the Palaestinians cause.

 

If you accuse a pickpocket of being a bank robber it is yourself who ends up looking bad, not the pickpocket.

[budullewraagh]

"There is no evidence that Israel is undertaking any deliberate and systematic destruction of the Palestinans as a racial, political or cultural group. The actions taken by Israel do not come near meeting that definition."

 

of course there is; they are doing nothing to punish those who have committed atrocious acts. as a result, they are effectively endorsing such activities.

 

"If the Israeli military was deliberately encouraging or consistently turning a blind eye to the targetting of nonmilitary targets then that would make the military complicit in those attacks."

 

let's not be naive. of course they wouldn't be forthcoming about their actions. this would not fly in the international community and the us would have to withdraw its aid, which israel depends on. in addition, it is entirely possible that the army is indeed complicit to some extent in these attacks.

 

"However that is not the case. There have been incidents where Israeli forces have over reacted and incidents where crimes committed by Israeli forces have not been investigated and prosecuted with as much vigour as would seen just, but these are not consistent and do not reach the bar of being either state sponsored policy or terrorism. Israeli soldiers have been prosecuted for crimes committed against Palestinians and there are Israeli soldiers in prison for those offences. Israeli forces have repeatedly acted to prevent attacks on Palestinians by Israeli civilians."

 

do identify cases to prove that you are not just thinking wishfully.

 

"It is fair to point at incidents of Israeli overreactions and condemn them"

again, we have the "oops" multiplied by more than 3700. if there were only a few isolated errors, i wouldn't have a problem. but once again, israeli forces are over 3.5 times better at accidently killing palestinians than palestinians are at intentionally killing israelis.

[patcalhoun]

I don't intend to address the moral equivalency points in this post or the purported consequences of that preferred reality. I just want to address one glaring issue of fact.

 

I think the problem is there are some Israeli military members that believe genocide and indiscrimenant use of force is the only solution, just as some palestinian leaders believe the same against the Israelis is the only solution.

 

I think there isn't a shred of documentary evidence--which should be easy to produce--showing that a single high ranking participant in Israeli politics since the beginning of the 20th century has ever advocated the mass murder of Palestinians. On the other hand, the Palestinian political leadership--even the Palestinian national identity--was born out of an explicit and publically detailed mission to "destroy Israel." So I have absolutely no idea what the basis is for your belief that Israel and Palestinian political leaders are similarly culpable of conspiracy to commit war crimes.

[budullewraagh]

congratulations, you are yet another of an ever increasing number of people who have missed my point, despite my continuous attempts to clarify. do you honestly think that israeli military members and/or government officials would actually be forthcoming about intentions of genocide? it's political suicide. and israel needs the us to like it, because otherwise they won't get weapons and aid, as previously mentioned. please consciously read all previous posts to make sure you aren't beating a dead horse over the head and/or making the same errors others made.

[Aardvark]

"There is no evidence that Israel is undertaking any deliberate and systematic destruction of the Palestinans as a racial' date=' political or cultural group. The actions taken by Israel do not come near meeting that definition."

 

of course there is; they are doing nothing to punish those who have committed atrocious acts. as a result, they are effectively endorsing such activities. [/quote']

 

 

No. Try to understand the difference between 'atrocious acts' and genocide. Even if Israel is cupable for all you charge that does not met the definition of genocide.

 

"If the Israeli military was deliberately encouraging or consistently turning a blind eye to the targetting of nonmilitary targets then that would make the military complicit in those attacks."

 

let's not be naive. of course they wouldn't be forthcoming about their actions. this would not fly in the international community and the us would have to withdraw its aid' date=' which israel depends on. in addition, it is entirely possible that the army is indeed complicit to some extent in these attacks.[/quote']

 

Did you actually read my post before replying? I made no comment at all about the military being forthcoming or not about their actions. I simply stated that if the military was turning a blind eye then it WOULD be complicit. Surely a point that you could agree with?

 

"However that is not the case. There have been incidents where Israeli forces have over reacted and incidents where crimes committed by Israeli forces have not been investigated and prosecuted with as much vigour as would seen just' date=' but these are not consistent and do not reach the bar of being either state sponsored policy or terrorism. Israeli soldiers have been prosecuted for crimes committed against Palestinians and there are Israeli soldiers in prison for those offences. Israeli forces have repeatedly acted to prevent attacks on Palestinians by Israeli civilians."

 

do identify cases to prove that you are not just thinking wishfully. [/quote']

 

You are the one who has stated that the Israeli military never prosecutes any cases so really you should be capable of doing some elementary checking of the facts yourself. However, just to be helpful i'll give you a list to get you started.

 

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/new_web/israeli_soldier_jailed_beating_palestinians.htm

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=355261

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11206&Itemid=1

 

Notice how i haven't even had to use any Israeli sources? If you do want to check official Israeli sources, if you could bear to, then you will find that the Israeli Attorney General, Major General Menahem Finkelstein, is investigating several hundred incidents of reported misconduct by Israeli forces.

 

 

 

"It is fair to point at incidents of Israeli overreactions and condemn them"

again' date=' we have the "oops" multiplied by more than 3700. if there were only a few isolated errors, i wouldn't have a problem. but once again, israeli forces are over 3.5 times better at accidently killing palestinians than palestinians are at intentionally killing israelis. [/quote']

 

What a silly comment. There is a low intensity conflict taking place in which civilians are often also combatants. As such civilian causalties are unfortuanately inevitabily high. That does not mean that Israel is deliberatley targeting civilians and it does not mean it is guilty of war crimes, esp not genocide.

 

The idea that because the Palestinians have more causalties than the Israelies therefore the Israelis must in some way be in the wrong is misguided. It is simply a result of the fact that Israel is the stronger power, therefore in a conflict it will likely inflict the higher causalties. Trying to imply that this in someway puts Israel in the wrong is illogical. The number of causalties takes does not correspond in anyway with any percieved rightness of a cause.

[Pangloss]

Let's keep this discussion on an even keel, please. Personal attacks and disparagements will not be tolerated.

[patcalhoun]

do you honestly think that israeli military members and/or government officials would actually be forthcoming about intentions of genocide?

 

I expect you to support such an accusation with evidence. Otherwise, this smacks of irresponsible conspiracy-mongering.

[budullewraagh]

"No. Try to understand the difference between 'atrocious acts' and genocide. Even if Israel is cupable for all you charge that does not met the definition of genocide."

 

am i talking to a brick wall? i already addressed this! read above!

 

"You are the one who has stated that the Israeli military never prosecutes any cases so really you should be capable of doing some elementary checking of the facts yourself. However, just to be helpful i'll give you a list to get you started."

 

don't tell me what to ask or what not to ask. i made a request. if i am not presented with sufficient information, my point will stand.

 

the first article appears to be legitimate. the victim in the second article was british, and was undoubtedly aided in his case by british influence. the third also seems legitimate. so there we have it. two cases in which israeli soldiers have been jailed for hurting innocent palestinians. and these are just "assaults." what about the murders? what about the 29000+ injured? you are hardly proving any case.

 

"What a silly comment."

 

what a pompous attitude.

 

"The idea that because the Palestinians have more causalties than the Israelies therefore the Israelis must in some way be in the wrong is misguided."

 

it's hard to believe that the israelis cant be wrong in killing 3700+ and injuring 29000+ when the palestinians are wrong in killing 1000+

[padren]

I think there isn't a shred of documentary evidence--which should be easy to produce--showing that a single high ranking participant in Israeli politics since the beginning of the 20th century has ever advocated the mass murder of Palestinians. On the other hand' date=' the Palestinian political leadership--even the Palestinian national identity--was born out of an explicit and publically detailed mission to "destroy Israel." So I have absolutely no idea what the basis is for your belief that Israel and Palestinian political leaders are similarly culpable of conspiracy to commit war crimes.[/quote']

 

I did not say that any high ranking officer has proposed complete genocide, I am talking about what people believe is needed to achieve peace.

 

I have seen more than one documentry on the conflict, with many Israelis stating very strongly as long as palastinians exist in those lands the Israelis will never be safe. Its a very natural emotional response to those types of stresses. I never suggested that they have a working plan to commit genocide or that there was a caclulated ongoing genocide.

I am suggesting, that there are those in the Israeli military who do not have faith this conflict will ever be resolved to a manner of peaceful coexistance. I suggest this because a percentage of Israelis interviewed in general have voiced this belief, which largely seemed porportional to the emotional costs of the conflict on them (loss of loved ones and friends for instance.)

The military is likely to share the same percentage, and may likely be higher than average, as the conflict puts their direct co-workers and friends as well as themselves in very high risk positions regularily.

 

Please note my exact words were:

 

"I think the problem is there are some Israeli military members that believe genocide and indiscrimenant use of force is the only solution, just as some palestinian leaders believe the same against the Israelis is the only solution."

 

That does not mean those who believe this can persuade everyone else to enact such policies, but you can bet when people do believe it will come to genocide before there is peace, they will enact any orders to attack with extreme aggression and as much disregard as they can get away with. Such disregard may serve to keep as many of their peers alive in an assault, at the expense of potential combatants' lives who are actually civilians, and it really is very hard to make life and death decisions in those sorts of fast situations.

[patcalhoun]

I did not say that any high ranking officer has proposed complete genocide, I am talking about what people believe is needed to achieve peace.

 

You claim that "members" of the Israeli military believe that mass murder "is the only solution." I've yet to see a shred of evidence that this is the position of any IDF officer or enlisted person, let alone the position of any significant IDF personality. So what is the basis for the claim? I'm not interested in anything else except for this.