Terror attack/murder in Israel

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

See, the statistics confused you as well. The Israelis are brilliant weapons experts with the highest morals who employ pinpoint accuracy to surgically target combatants while leaving innocents unharmed. The Palestinians are bloodthirsty indiscriminate killers who routinely ignore valid military targets in favor of babies in prams. So, you would expect the Israelis to hardly kill a civilian and the Palestinians to always kill civilians. Yet, the statistics show that Israel kills far more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians kill Israeli civilians. That is the amazing part.

[Anonymous]

We are all created equal, but some are more equal than others

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

You're missing the point. The question of proportionality deals with the specific military objective. For instance, if there are some Palestinians launching rockets into Israel from a house in Palestinian territory, and Israel artillery shoots back at the rocket launchers' position, this is a "proportionate" response, and if the Israeli artillery accidentally hits the house next door, killing civilians, this is not a violation of international law. If Israel responded to the rocket launch with, say, a tactical nuclear weapon that wipes out the whole neighborhood, that would be a war crime, due to this disproportion between the force used and the military objective (take out the rocket launcher). Most cases in the real world fall between these two extremes, and it depends on the specific facts as to what the legal status is.

Comparing aggregated casualty figures doesn't mean anything to this inquiry, nor does political rhetoric engaged in by Israeli politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

God, you have got to be sh###ing me. Wow. People can always justify anything they want to conform to their beliefs.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

See, the statistics confused you as well. The Israelis are brilliant weapons experts with the highest morals who employ pinpoint accuracy to surgically target combatants while leaving innocents unharmed. The Palestinians are bloodthirsty indiscriminate killers who routinely ignore valid military targets in favor of babies in prams. So, you would expect the Israelis to hardly kill a civilian and the Palestinians to always kill civilians. Yet, the statistics show that Israel kills far more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians kill Israeli civilians. That is the amazing part.

That is not at all what I said, and the fact you have to re-frame my argument into a straw man suggests you have no meaningful response to the points I actually made. The Israelis have vastly superior military capabilities to the Palestinians, and thus in an armed conflict are going to kill vastly more people even if they are much more rigorous about trying to minimize civilian casualties. Warfare always involves harm to innocent bystanders. The question as to whether any particular incident is justified has to be examined on its particular facts. I freely concede that there must be some examples of Israeli actions that are not justified, as there are in any war, but if you don't see the difference between, on the one hand,making a practice of indiscriminately firing rockets at civilian targets, and, on the other, at least trying to focus on targeting actual combatants, there's not much to talk about.

[Anonymous]

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.





That is a bold face lie. Noone except the zealots and/or the ignoramous ibelieve that Isreael tries to reduce collateral damage and that all their actions are justified.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:if you don't see the difference between, on the one hand,making a practice of indiscriminately firing rockets at civilian targets, and, on the other, at least trying to focus on targeting actual combatants, there's not much to talk about.

If you target combatants knowing that non-combatants will be casualties, you are -- for all real purposes -- targeting the non-combatants as well. The so-called "accidental" Palestinians deaths generally are not the sort of accidents in which a shell goes off and unexpectedly kills a child. They are the sort of "accident" in which a general is told that a combatant can be killed but three children will also likely die and the general orders the attack anyway.

[Anonymous]

If the Palestinian terrorist/combatants hide in civilian areas, launch missiles from civilian homes, and protect themselves with schools, hospitals and children, then unfortunately, they are creating a situation that maximizes, rather than minimizes civilian casualties.

When rockets are fired at Israelis from Palestinian civilian areas, how do you propose the Israelis respond? How would America respond?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you don't see the difference between, on the one hand,making a practice of indiscriminately firing rockets at civilian targets, and, on the other, at least trying to focus on targeting actual combatants, there's not much to talk about.

If you target combatants knowing that non-combatants will be casualties, you are -- for all real purposes -- targeting the non-combatants as well. The so-called "accidental" Palestinians deaths generally are not the sort of accidents in which a shell goes off and unexpectedly kills a child. They are the sort of "accident" in which a general is told that a combatant can be killed but three children will also likely die and the general orders the attack anyway.

That is one of the things that make war bad. But international law allows those sorts of decisions to be made, and if the standard was zero civilian casualties, no country would be able to defend itself. Culpability for the civilian deaths in your hypothetical falls on those who located their military operations in a place where civilian deaths were unavoidable, unless the means used were disproportionate to the military objective. You may not like this, but is accepted international law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

That is a bold face lie. Noone except the zealots and/or the ignoramous ibelieve that Isreael tries to reduce collateral damage and that all their actions are justified.

This response is incoherent. I have no view on the merits of the Israel/Palestine dispute. I do believe that Israel generally tries to reduce collateral damage, because if Israel was intending to indiscriminately kill civilians, the casualty numbers would be far higher; I do not believe all Israeli actions are justified, as I think I pointed out above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

You're missing the point. The question of proportionality deals with the specific military objective. For instance, if there are some Palestinians launching rockets into Israel from a house in Palestinian territory, and Israel artillery shoots back at the rocket launchers' position, this is a "proportionate" response, and if the Israeli artillery accidentally hits the house next door, killing civilians, this is not a violation of international law. If Israel responded to the rocket launch with, say, a tactical nuclear weapon that wipes out the whole neighborhood, that would be a war crime, due to this disproportion between the force used and the military objective (take out the rocket launcher). Most cases in the real world fall between these two extremes, and it depends on the specific facts as to what the legal status is.

Comparing aggregated casualty figures doesn't mean anything to this inquiry, nor does political rhetoric engaged in by Israeli politicians.

OK, maybe this needs more historical context for people unfamiliar with Israeli history. The doctrine of "disproportionate response" is an old one. It was first created by David Ben Gurion after he returned to the position of Prime Minister, way back in the 50's. It is not merely rhetoric and it defies the historical record to portray it as such. Here is the first citation I could google, but this is not a disputed point of Israeli history.

http://www.meforum.org/1630/the-end-of-israeli-military-restraint

So when politicians refer to "disproportionate response", they are referring to a specific military doctrine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

You're missing the point. The question of proportionality deals with the specific military objective. For instance, if there are some Palestinians launching rockets into Israel from a house in Palestinian territory, and Israel artillery shoots back at the rocket launchers' position, this is a "proportionate" response, and if the Israeli artillery accidentally hits the house next door, killing civilians, this is not a violation of international law. If Israel responded to the rocket launch with, say, a tactical nuclear weapon that wipes out the whole neighborhood, that would be a war crime, due to this disproportion between the force used and the military objective (take out the rocket launcher). Most cases in the real world fall between these two extremes, and it depends on the specific facts as to what the legal status is.

Comparing aggregated casualty figures doesn't mean anything to this inquiry, nor does political rhetoric engaged in by Israeli politicians.

OK, maybe this needs more historical context for people unfamiliar with Israeli history. The doctrine of "disproportionate response" is an old one. It was first created by David Ben Gurion after he returned to the position of Prime Minister, way back in the 50's. It is not merely rhetoric and it defies the historical record to portray it as such. Here is the first citation I could google, but this is not a disputed point of Israeli history.

http://www.meforum.org/1630/the-end-of-israeli-military-restraint

So when politicians refer to "disproportionate response", they are referring to a specific military doctrine.

I'm not taking issue with this history, but it is not the type of "disproportion" that is relevant to considering the legality of specific military measures that may cause collateral damage, which is the narrow point I have been addressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

You're missing the point. The question of proportionality deals with the specific military objective. For instance, if there are some Palestinians launching rockets into Israel from a house in Palestinian territory, and Israel artillery shoots back at the rocket launchers' position, this is a "proportionate" response, and if the Israeli artillery accidentally hits the house next door, killing civilians, this is not a violation of international law. If Israel responded to the rocket launch with, say, a tactical nuclear weapon that wipes out the whole neighborhood, that would be a war crime, due to this disproportion between the force used and the military objective (take out the rocket launcher). Most cases in the real world fall between these two extremes, and it depends on the specific facts as to what the legal status is.

Comparing aggregated casualty figures doesn't mean anything to this inquiry, nor does political rhetoric engaged in by Israeli politicians.

OK, maybe this needs more historical context for people unfamiliar with Israeli history. The doctrine of "disproportionate response" is an old one. It was first created by David Ben Gurion after he returned to the position of Prime Minister, way back in the 50's. It is not merely rhetoric and it defies the historical record to portray it as such. Here is the first citation I could google, but this is not a disputed point of Israeli history.

http://www.meforum.org/1630/the-end-of-israeli-military-restraint

So when politicians refer to "disproportionate response", they are referring to a specific military doctrine.

I'm not taking issue with this history, but it is not the type of "disproportion" that is relevant to considering the legality of specific military measures that may cause collateral damage, which is the narrow point I have been addressing.

OK then, maybe you should also read about the current thinking of military leaders when designing attacks:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/analysis-idf-plans-to-use-disproportionate-force-in-next-war-1.254954

Colonel (Res.) Gabriel Siboni recently authored a report through Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies backing Eisenkot's statements.

The answer to rocket and missile threats from Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, he believes, is "a disproportionate strike at the heart of the enemy's weak spot, in which efforts to hurt launch capability are secondary. As soon as the conflict breaks out, the IDF will have to operate in a rapid, determined, powerful and disproportionate way against the enemy's actions."

"This strike has to be carried out as quickly as possible, through prioritizing strikes at its assets, rather than chasing after launch sites. Such a response is likely to be remembered by decision makers in Syria and Lebanon for many years, thus deepening deterrence," he said.

[Anonymous]

I would like to think we could all agree that acts of terrorism against civilians should be condemned.

Yet Israeli politicians, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated the 60th anniversary of the King David Hotel Bombing, in which 91 people were murdered, the large majority of whom were civilians, at a conference organized by the Menachem Begin Centre.

So there seems to be a bit of a double standard here - while terrorist attacks by a population that is certainly more oppressed than the Jews were by the British are (rightly) condemned, terrorist attacks agains civilians commited by Irgun are celebrated.

[Anonymous]

As a christian and a tea-partier this is my 2 cents. The Jews are a Huge cornerstone of what we know and enjoy as Western Civilization. Western Civilization is the most moral, humanitarian, most respectful of the sanctity of life and the individual that has ever existed. The Jews have made unbelievable intellectual contributions to modern society /the advancement of science/ entertainment and they are funny as hell (Mel Brooks). The Jews are Gods chosen people (sorry Arabs) and are reflective of Gods nature in that they will be persecuted but never even come close to being destroyed. Israel is the only decent and civilized country in the craphole of the middle east. Israel is an friend we can depend on. The palestinians will never get Israel back , God won't allow it....suck it arabs.