Terror attack/murder in Israel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sucks. But how is this news? The Arabs and Israelis will be beating on one another until Judgement Day. They deserve one another.

Assuming this will never end makes it less likely it will end.

I'm a Jew. I've had Palestinian students. Take away the irrational feeling that they have to hate each other and you find they can get along fine. Of course, I have tea party friends, so it's not just true of Jews & Arabs.

[Anonymous]

What exactly did those children do that needed to be avenged? Would it have been ok if these Israeli EMTs had let this Palestinian mother and baby die in the name of "revenge"? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4043536,00.html There are many things that are illegal, that doesnt mean we should tolerate acts of terror and murder bc of some pathetic excuse of "well, thats the law of the land."

NP. I agree that it is a tragedy for the family, but how exactly are the Palestinian people suppose to fight and prevent further takeover of their lands and homes. Should they just stand by and do nothing and pray that the Israel government will stop giving their lands to settlers. Good luck with that!

[Anonymous]

Too much clowning with religion. Religion says do not steal, and basicallly the world is for everybody. Too bad some so bitterly with Godly authority do nothing but make the lives of others a misery.

Do not go and live in the west bank or where the settlements are illegal under international law. Do not do it if you are living in a country that is in a state of war

[jsteele]

Israeli tanks fired shells at a home in Gaza killing four members of a family, including three children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12822493

This attack is remarkably similar to the one described in the original post of this thread.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Israeli tanks fired shells at a home in Gaza killing four members of a family, including three children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12822493

This attack is remarkably similar to the one described in the original post of this thread.

It is always sad when children are victims but I dont see any similarities. The people shelled by the IDF were terrorists who fied rockets into Israel in the preceeding days. The jewish family that was killed had not harmed anyone. The 2 people under 18 (dont know their ages) were killed as casualties of a larger attack. The 3 month old and 3 year old were slashed on purpose in their sleep.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It is always sad when children are victims but I dont see any similarities. The people shelled by the IDF were terrorists who fied rockets into Israel in the preceeding days. The jewish family that was killed had not harmed anyone. The 2 people under 18 (dont know their ages) were killed as casualties of a larger attack. The 3 month old and 3 year old were slashed on purpose in their sleep.

The article was updated since I linked to it and it now includes information about a second Israeli attack that may have confused you. The Israelis shelled a house. The clear intent was to kill whomever was in that house.

The home in the West Bank was similarly attacked with the intent to kill whomever was in it.

In both cases, children were killed.

In both cases, those doing the killing could point to activities of adults to justify their killing.

Are you starting to see similarities? Of course, the Israelis did their killing from long range while the killers of the Jewish settlers (it has not been confirmed that the killers were Palestinians) did their work up close. But, the results are the same.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is always sad when children are victims but I dont see any similarities. The people shelled by the IDF were terrorists who fied rockets into Israel in the preceeding days. The jewish family that was killed had not harmed anyone. The 2 people under 18 (dont know their ages) were killed as casualties of a larger attack. The 3 month old and 3 year old were slashed on purpose in their sleep.

The article was updated since I linked to it and it now includes information about a second Israeli attack that may have confused you. The Israelis shelled a house. The clear intent was to kill whomever was in that house.

The home in the West Bank was similarly attacked with the intent to kill whomever was in it.

In both cases, children were killed.

In both cases, those doing the killing could point to activities of adults to justify their killing.

Are you starting to see similarities? Of course, the Israelis did their killing from long range while the killers of the Jewish settlers (it has not been confirmed that the killers were Palestinians) did their work up close. But, the results are the same.

Mr. Steele, this is an ignorant post that is beneath you. The international law of armed conflict is crystal clear on these points. Intentionally targeting civilians, as in the incident referenced in OP's post, is categorically unlawful. Period. Killing civilians as an incidental side effect of military action, such as happened in the attack you referenced, is legally permissible so long as the military force used (i.e., the shelling of the house), is proportionate to the military objective. While the details of the attack you cited are not clear, if the Israeli military was actually returning fire against Palestinian rocket positions, it is lawful. (Of course, if they were intentionally targeting civilians, it is just as bad as the incident cited by OP, but there is no evidence of this.)

Not making a point on the relative merits of the Israel-Palestinian conflict (I've kind of reached the "a pox on both their houses" view myself), but you are off-base in arguing that the two incidents are comparable. They are not.

[Anonymous]

What about the bus bombing in Jerusalem today? Is that a reasonable/proportional response as well??

[Anonymous]

Why is a murder considered an act of terrorism? Are we to the point now that any crime committed by a Muslim and/or Middle Easterner is going to be considered terrorism? Seriously? Obviously, this is a heinous, heinous crime. But we have crimes just as heinous here. We need to stop politicizing our language to meet our agendas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is a murder considered an act of terrorism? Are we to the point now that any crime committed by a Muslim and/or Middle Easterner is going to be considered terrorism? Seriously? Obviously, this is a heinous, heinous crime. But we have crimes just as heinous here. We need to stop politicizing our language to meet our agendas.

Terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act is defined as the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

All evidence seems to indicate that the settlers were killed due to political or ideological motivations. If thats not terror, I dont know what is. Besides, Fatah's Al-Aqsa Brigade, a known terrorist group, claimed responsibilities for the murders. http://www.politifi.com/news/Fatahs-AlAqsa-Martyrs-Brigades-Claims-Responsibility-For-Terror-Attack-on-Israeli-Family-1744479.html

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What about the bus bombing in Jerusalem today? Is that a reasonable/proportional response as well??

Obviously there is no justification for this sort of attack. On a personal note, I had a bit of a scare this morning because one of the people I follow on Twitter (who is a DC resident) just tweeted this morning that he was on the bus from Ramallah to Jerusalem. It was not long after that when I learned of the bombing. Luckily, he is safe.

Some years ago, a former housemate of mine was wounded in an attack by Palestinians in Jerusalem. Both of these incidents highlight the practical problems with such attacks (not to mention the obvious moral problems). They hurt people who are sympathetic to your cause or simply bystanders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sucks. But how is this news? The Arabs and Israelis will be beating on one another until Judgement Day. They deserve one another.

Assuming this will never end makes it less likely it will end.

I'm a Jew. I've had Palestinian students. Take away the irrational feeling that they have to hate each other and you find they can get along fine. Of course, I have tea party friends, so it's not just true of Jews & Arabs.

Dude...of course you have tea party friends. I'm a tea partier and a christian. I grew up with lots of Jewish friends and as a Christian I see Jews as Gods chosen people. The events that occur in Israel / the worlds treatment and attitude toward Jews / the antisemitism rising in Europe and among many of the so-called intellectual elite is indicative of how the world feels about Jews and God as well. If anybody thinks God will allow Israel or the Jews to be destroyed, they have another thing coming.... and I will be right there beside the Jews as a Christian. Now if yall could just start voting conservative .....

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Mr. Steele, this is an ignorant post that is beneath you. The international law of armed conflict is crystal clear on these points. Intentionally targeting civilians, as in the incident referenced in OP's post, is categorically unlawful. Period. Killing civilians as an incidental side effect of military action, such as happened in the attack you referenced, is legally permissible so long as the military force used (i.e., the shelling of the house), is proportionate to the military objective. While the details of the attack you cited are not clear, if the Israeli military was actually returning fire against Palestinian rocket positions, it is lawful. (Of course, if they were intentionally targeting civilians, it is just as bad as the incident cited by OP, but there is no evidence of this.)

Not making a point on the relative merits of the Israel-Palestinian conflict (I've kind of reached the "a pox on both their houses" view myself), but you are off-base in arguing that the two incidents are comparable. They are not.

I'm not going to take offense to you describing my post as ignorant and then admitting that you don't know many of the details involved. I'll just let that slide right on by. But, to clarify one issue, no rockets were being launched from the house. It is amazing that the Israelis routinely kill more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians kill Israeli civilians. Yet, all those Palestinians deaths are accidental or otherwise justifiable. Statistically, that is just incredible.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mr. Steele, this is an ignorant post that is beneath you. The international law of armed conflict is crystal clear on these points. Intentionally targeting civilians, as in the incident referenced in OP's post, is categorically unlawful. Period. Killing civilians as an incidental side effect of military action, such as happened in the attack you referenced, is legally permissible so long as the military force used (i.e., the shelling of the house), is proportionate to the military objective. While the details of the attack you cited are not clear, if the Israeli military was actually returning fire against Palestinian rocket positions, it is lawful. (Of course, if they were intentionally targeting civilians, it is just as bad as the incident cited by OP, but there is no evidence of this.)

Not making a point on the relative merits of the Israel-Palestinian conflict (I've kind of reached the "a pox on both their houses" view myself), but you are off-base in arguing that the two incidents are comparable. They are not.

I'm not going to take offense to you describing my post as ignorant and then admitting that you don't know many of the details involved. I'll just let that slide right on by. But, to clarify one issue, no rockets were being launched from the house. It is amazing that the Israelis routinely kill more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians kill Israeli civilians. Yet, all those Palestinians deaths are accidental or otherwise justifiable. Statistically, that is just incredible.

Dude, you posted to a news story that doesn't provide sufficient information to evaluate whether the shelling was proportionate or not. If there is a more detailed source, link to it. The article states that the targets were people who had fired rockets into Israel, and retaliating against such people is, as far as I can tell, militarily justified. Accordingly, the incidental deaths of noncombatants is legal, so long as the force used was proportionate, and you can't evaluate that from a news article providing such sketchy details.

As to the "statistical" difference in Israeli vs. Palestinian deaths, I don't know why you are surprised that this is the case, and I don't actually believe you are. Someone as familiar with the Israel-Palestine conflict as you are must know that (1) the Israeli military tries to reduce collateral damage associated with its military activities (although you may disagree that these efforts are effective or that all of Israel's actions are justified; those are legitimate points that could be debated); (2) Palestinian acts are generally designed to maximize civilian casualties, such as by firing unguided rockets into civilian areas or, as in the incident OP referenced, just directly killing civilians on purpose. It's not like the two sides are using similar tactics, so it is unsurprising that the impact on non-combatants is different as a result.

[Anonymous]

Gaza war:

Israeli deaths:13
Civilians:3
Wounded:503


Palestinians killed: 1417
Civilians: 926
Wounded: 5,303

When you claim that Israel uses proportionate responses, it flies in the face of the data.

Aldo it flies in the face of stated policy of Israel, which is "disproportionate response". This is not a term that I coined. It was put into use decades ago by Israel and it has been used by Olmert in the recent conflict
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1451625?ca=rdt