Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Interesting Statistics
Options
-
11-06-2003 2:18pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Hobbes wrote:
> The only thing I found was listing of terrorist attacks and then only by one side.
> So there is bias on your site.
This is incorrect. Terror attacks committed by Jews and Jewish organizations are listed, and Arab victims of Jewish terror attacks are part of our statistics. Try, for example, searching for incidents since 1 January 2001, leaving organization blank, target = School/University. Or look at Vehicles targed in the West Bank; there's one attack on 29 August 2001, another on 16 August, and one on 19 July. You can also look for attacks by Kach - but there haven't been any since the beginning of the "Intifada". (The Jewish attacks have yet to be attributed to any named organization.)
The "problem" is that there are very few Jewish terror attacks, and not that our site is biased. I'd challenge you to find any "missing" incidents of Jewish terrorism.
> You dismiss figures from the other side. Which is fine but you should list off exactly what deaths your claming as not real.
Why? We discuss specifics incident-by-incident. There is no particular reason for us to spend the effort to refute other websites point-by-point; certainly none of them have done the same with us.
> And list your sources. There are not only just two sides reporting the story. There are numerous sides. You can get information from Red Cross/UN workers (from various departments).
Our sources are listed for each incident. And you are wrong about the Red Cross and UN: The Palestinian Red Crescent (the local affiliate of the Red Cross) is run by Yasser Arafat's brother, and its statistics are highly politicized. And the vast majority of the U.N. staff operating in Palestinian areas consists of Palestinians. Even B'Tzelem, always billed as an "Israeli human rights organization", is staffed almost entirely by Arabs.
In any case, you haven't pointed out any real discrepancies between our statistics and anyone else's statistics. In my opinion, you'll find the following:
A) Many people listed as "civilians" by Palestinian organizations were in fact combatants.
Our demographic information is pretty much identical to everyone else's.
C) None of the Palestinian sites addresses the implications of these demographics.
> Or if you want to do a good system. Put names to the statistics for both sides. Show what each side is loosing in the conflict and the far reaching effects of both sides actions.
I'm not sure what exactly you're asking for here, other than what we've already done. Could you clarify?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Gandalf wrote:
quote:
Just to follow up bonkeys post. The problem is this Don I would classify killing civilians to get one Hamas leader as state sponsored terrorism.
I'm talking about the incident today where a Hamas Leader (not identified yet) was assassinated and 5 others killed including a 3yr old child. Now if this man was guilty of running terrorism would it not be correct international legal procedure to arrest and try him as a criminal instead of acting like terrorists and firing rockets from a helicopter onto a busy street. In my eyes that takes the IDF down to the same level as suicide bombers.
While I disagree with your conclusion, you raise a good question. There are (at least) three issues involved here:
1) Was this "targeted killing" an act of terrorism, a war crime, or in some other way illegal?
2) Should senior terrorists be arrested rather than "hit"?
3) Was this series of "targeted killings" a good idea strategically? Was it morally justified?
Now, first read my article, "War Crimes and Gentleman's Agreements", at http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=479 . Done yet?
The Geneva Conventions, which are the main bit of "international law" applicable here, are actually quite fuzzy regarding what is and is not permissable in attacking military targets embedded among a civilian (i.e. "protected") population. It is made very clear that for combatants to shelter among civilians is itself a war crime, known as "perfidy". It is made equally clear that while legitimate military targets may be attacked wherever they are, the attacking power is not to use "excessive" force. The problem is that the Conventions don't define "excessive". While it's clear the nuking Gaza City to get one person would be "excessive", it's far from clear where exactly the line is drawn between "appropriate" and "excessive". In fact, I could make a good point that Israeli missile strikes are often "sub-appropriate" - in the sense that Rantisi emerged from a missile strike with only light injuries.
While the Geneva Accords (as I pointed out, I think, in my article cited above) don't make a clear enough connection between the two issues, it seems to be generally agreed by experts on the subject that if one side commits "perfidy" - that is, an abuse of the "protected" status of a civilian population to shelter combatants, weapons, and so on - the onus is on that side for any civilian casualties that ensue. In other words, if Hamas hides among civilians, and Israeli forces kill some of these civilians in the course of pursuing Hamas combatants, the blame for the deaths lies not on Israel, but on Hamas.
Unless it can be shown that Israel has gone after Hamas members with truly "excessive" force, or has indiscriminately attacked Palestinian civilian neighborhoods without bothering to target specific military personnel or facilities, Israel has committed neither terrorism, war crimes, nor crimes against humanity. I don't think any serious case can be made against Israel in this regard.
* * *
Should Israel arrest terrorists rather than kill them "extra-judicially"? The short answer is that Israel usually does exactly that. There are many more arrests than "targeted killings". However, it is not always simple, safe, or easy to make such arrests. Especially in Gaza, whenever Israeli forces enter a neighborhood to make an arrest, announcements go out over the local mosque loudspeakers for everyone to grab his gun and "confront the Zionist invaders". A gunfight inevitably ensues, and typically a dozen or so Palestinians wind up being killed. While most of these are armed (and therefore "combatants" in our definition), they are not the people we went in to arrest; and innocent Palestinians often get caught in the crossfire as well. In short, arrests often wind up A) getting the "suspect" killed in the firefight; and killing more bystanders (armed and unarmed) than "targeted killings". This is hardly a panacea!
In any case, there is no "correct international legal procedure" being violated here. Soldiers on the battlefield are not entitled to a fair trial; and neither are active terrorists and the leaders of terrorist organizations.
* * *
Are these "targeted killings" a good idea strategically or morally? This is a much harder question for me to answer! I'm no great fan of "targeted killings", and I think that the Israel government has often shown an extremely bad sense of timing in carrying out these attacks. I'm also far from convinced that most of these attacks yield a result that's worth the trouble. (There may be exceptions - for example, when one terrorist has special technical know-how that others lack.) So I won't undertake a spirited defense of "targeted killings" as a strategy, since I'd be pretending to an enthusiasm I don't in fact possess.
Morally, I think there is a genuine case to be made for "targeted killings", as long as the utmost effort is made to minimize "collateral" casualties. The people Israel is targeting are not choirboys; they are vicious terrorists who are responsible for the cold-blooded murder of many innocent noncombatants. As my wife would say (she's from Texas), they need killin'. As they don't do us the courtesy of confronting us on the battlefield, we have no choice other than to let ourselves be killed without making any response, and going in after the killers. I do wish to emphasize, though, that my approval of such attacks is *very* conditional: Only the top commanders should be targeted, and great care must be made to "do the job cleanly".0 -
-
-
-
-
-
That would require that not only the method used, but the primary goal itself would have to be justifiable - and neither is.In fact, I could make a good point that Israeli missile strikes are often "sub-appropriate" - in the sense that Rantisi emerged from a missile strike with only light injuries.
I'd like to see your citations for that, if you please. Frankly, I don't believe you.While the Geneva Accords (as I pointed out, I think, in my article cited above) don't make a clear enough connection between the two issues, it seems to be generally agreed by experts on the subject that if one side commits "perfidy" - that is, an abuse of the "protected" status of a civilian population to shelter combatants, weapons, and so on - the onus is on that side for any civilian casualties that ensue.
That is disingenous. Firstly, the IDF were not "pursuing" Hamas combatants, they were trying to assasinate a Hamas spokesman, and secondly, the method used was assured to cause the deaths of nearby innocent civilians. This wasn't a sniper bullet, it was an anti-tank missile fired in a crowded street. The blame is very, very clearly on the IDF.In other words, if Hamas hides among civilians, and Israeli forces kill some of these civilians in the course of pursuing Hamas combatants, the blame for the deaths lies not on Israel, but on Hamas.
What else do you call using anti-tank missiles in a crowded street?Unless it can be shown that Israel has gone after Hamas members with truly "excessive" force
That's a charge that has been laid against the IDF on many occasions, and it has never been acceptably refuted. The death of Rachel Corrie, for example, was not caused by a bulldozer according to the IDF. James Miller was supposedly shot during an exchange of fire between a tank and an anti-tank group - despite the fact that no such firing is heard on the footage that shows his death. Brian Avery was shot in the face with a mounted .50-cal, in direct violation of even the IDF's rules of combat which state that mounted machine guns cannot be used to fire "warning shots".or has indiscriminately attacked Palestinian civilian neighborhoods without bothering to target specific military personnel or facilities
I beg to differ. Israel doesn't care to listen to such cases, but that's due to prejudice, not facts.I don't think any serious case can be made against Israel in this regard.
That's not even close to a justification for the policy of assassinations. Firstly, the suspect (no inverted commas please, we tend to require people to prove guilt rather than just point to someone, say they're guilty and shoot them), has a right to due process. Secondly, you've given an emotive scene, but not one that's backed up with evidence.In short, arrests often wind up A) getting the "suspect" killed in the firefight; and killing more bystanders (armed and unarmed) than "targeted killings".
Correct. But soldiers are demarked by wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon. If either of those conditions are not met, then that person is entitled to, at a minimum, not be shot out of hand. If armed, they must be shooting at someone to be classed as a target, and if unarmed and in uniform, they are protected by the Geneva Convention.In any case, there is no "correct international legal procedure" being violated here. Soldiers on the battlefield are not entitled to a fair trial;
On the contrary, they are entitled to due process. The only people not entitled to due process are armed soldiers in uniform during time of war.and neither are active terrorists and the leaders of terrorist organizations.
Even such a minimal case is invalid here, as the methods being used are assured to cause additional causalties.Morally, I think there is a genuine case to be made for "targeted killings", as long as the utmost effort is made to minimize "collateral" casualties.
The only proof we have of that is the word of people that fire anti-tank missiles in crowded streets and who shrug off UN charges of violations of the Geneva Convention as though they don't matter, and who have killed or shot several peace activists in the last few months with no remorse.The people Israel is targeting are not choirboys; they are vicious terrorists who are responsible for the cold-blooded murder of many innocent noncombatants.
Whatever texan wives think, the rest of the planet is generally agreed that people are not permitted to wander around killing at random.As my wife would say (she's from Texas), they need killin'.
You would like Hamas to line up to be shot by a militarily superior force?As they don't do us the courtesy of confronting us on the battlefield
Incorrect. There are other effective responses.we have no choice other than to let ourselves be killed without making any response, and going in after the killers.
Which is the precise opposite of what we're seeing.Only the top commanders should be targeted, and great care must be made to "do the job cleanly".
From your own paper :A correct and objective definition of terrorism can be based upon accepted international laws and principles regarding what behaviors are permitted in conventional wars between nations. These laws are set out in the Geneva and Hague Conventions, which in turn are based upon the basic principle that the deliberate harming of soldiers during wartime is a necessary evil, and thus permissible, whereas the deliberate targeting of civilians is absolutely forbidden. These Conventions thus differentiate between soldiers who attack a military adversary, and war criminals who deliberately attack civilians.
The IDF don't come off terribly well under such a definition.0 -
I'd have to agree with most - no, every point made by Sparks in his last two posts (I'm assuming/hoping your comment regarding Hamas lining up on the battlefield wasn't an attempt at justifying Hamas' tactics).
As for bias, it's just plain silly to suggest that that site is totally objective and unbiased. There are very few (if any) sites regarding this conflict that are not biased toward one side or another, whether run by Arabs, Israelis, Liberals or Conservatives.
Even here, on an Irish website, it's near impossible to get an objective view (usually we end up with Sand and Typedef squaring off
). Personally I'm taking the most cynical view possible and basically giving up on both sides, since each apparently has no greater desire than to wipe the other off the map. 0 -
As for bias, it's just plain silly to suggest that that site is totally objective and unbiased. There are very few (if any) sites regarding this conflict that are not biased toward one side or another, whether run by Arabs, Israelis, Liberals or Conservatives.
Agreed - The database is interesting because with a database you can try and bring everything down to known facts/categories. The interpretations of that information can be biased, but at least you can challenge those interpretations with interpretations of your own and back them up.
As for the basic point of the article, It does seem that palestinian targets are far more random and "careless" than Israeli targeting which seems to be far less random. Thats an interpretation of the data presented. Maybe others can be drawn.it's near impossible to get an objective view (usually we end up with Sand and Typedef squaring off
Ive not actually debated/argued (Neither term seems to fit tbh, Im sure Type will have a better term
) with Type for ages, I dont waste my time in Israel/Palestine threads that much anymore for one thing. And for the record Ive read a few posts of Types recently which have convinced me I dont need to post on a given thread because hes pretty much saying what I think. Give yourself to the dark side Type:x 0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement