Syria - where is the reaction?

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

Then I guess many palestinians were looking for an alternative to the corruption evident with the PA prior to the elections. Or perhaps they looked to Hamas who provided basic facilities in many parts of Palestinian cities. Or they sought a government that would actively seek Israel's destruction. Many Reasons I suppose. But I can't actually see what you're saying refers to what you quoted from me...

I am having problems with the boards today, had to report a few times for it to come up.. I thought off the hook might spark your memory as to what you said, sure you can just scroll and read it.

Did you actually disagree with what I said. Cause I can't see you address it, considering what you quoted from me. Do you really see the Palestinian groups protecting their own people from Israeli attacks, or do you see their own attacks on Israel placing them in more danger? Do the IDF actively protect the Israeli people, or do they seek to place their own people in the most harm?

If you're going to quote me, at least, address the quote.

As above.

Exactly TEN? Really... So sometimes it isn't one or sometimes its more than ten. Or even sometimes no Palestinians will be killed. Nah.. that couldn't right.

Okay what is it? 10.382? 25.2119? If you don't understand what I mean I think most posters will. You kill one Israeli, whoever you are, Israel will visit many times that violence on you.

ok, here's an even better couple. How many attacks have Palestinian forces made on israeli's during the period of those 400 being killed? How many of those 400 were armed? How many died in their own little civil war? or killed in attacks made by Palestinian on Israeli's?

400 were killed by Israeli's, I don't know how many from their 'own little civil war'. How many Israeli's died again? Taking your logic, the IDF should keep attacking and killing Palestinians, till eventually all Palestinians take up arms to defend themselves, then they are technically 'evil militant suicide bombers', and they can all be slaughtered with moral superiority.

You throw out the 400 number, but where are the details. Where is the proof that it was only Israel that killed all of these people? Where is the proof than none of these people were carrying out attacks on Israeli forces? In fact where is the proof at all?

Well then I am extremely surprised news organisations are quoting that number if there is no proof at all, I am of course very sure you accept other body counts from Sri Lanka, Sudan, Congo without needing proof. This quote again astonishes me the way you say "Where is the proof than none of these people were carrying out attacks on Israeli forces?".. How dare the Palestinians defend themselves against attack! Your definition of defense and attack only suits the Israeli agenda.

Fine. No argument here. I'm not expecting you to feel sorry for Israel. I don't believe I've ever asked you to. All I've asked is that you at least try to apply the same level of focus, and citicism towards Palestinian (or even Hezbollah's) actions.

I have already addressed this.

Afterall, who is holding Palestinians accountable for their own actions? You? The nations that supply them with weapons? nobody, except perhaps, the recent(ish) UN stance on Aid.

Who held the French Resistance accountable for their own actions?

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote:

Soldiers? Yes. I believe them to be legitimate targets. It helps to distinguish them because of the uniforms they wear.

Let me ask you then. Do you believe that Hamas and the other paramilitary groups place their own people in danger by dressing as civilians, and using men, women, and children in their attacks on Israel?

Not quite.
given they are not on an unequal footing in terms of conducting resistance operations they would be foolish to be clearly distinguishable for the Israeli military to strike at. However, using civilians as cover to launch attacks is not acceptable.
I am also of the view using women and children in attacks is wrong and it is perverse to foster a culture where children, rather than idolise soccer players and popstars, worship suicide bombers.
In conclusion I support the Palestinians right to resist but object to some of there methods of doing so.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

I am having problems with the boards today, had to report a few times for it to come up.. I thought off the hook might spark your memory as to what you said, sure you can just scroll and read it.

As above.

Actually, no to both, since again you didn't respond to what you quoted me saying. You took a quote and went on about something altogether.

Okay what is it? 10.382? 25.2119? If you don't understand what I mean I think most posters will. You kill one Israeli, whoever you are, Israel will visit many times that violence on you.

Oh, I do understand what you mean, but its the dramatics that you use. If 1 Israeli is killed 10 Palestinians or Lebanese are killed. Would it not be simpler to say that if Israel is attacked they will always attack back, using larger force than is needed? It amounts to the same thing, except you're not suggesting the casualty figure before it happens.

Or perhaps even take the viewpoint that each time you attack Israel making small damage, Israel is going to retalitate using massive damage, so therefore the resistance that you are using is actually the cause of so many deaths. But hey, that wouldn't be fair, considering this is the only way they get to kill their oppressors.

400 were killed by Israeli's,

Prove it. I gave you the option of passing off some of the deaths as being part of the civil war or those killed in firefights between Palestinian forces & Israel, but you've stuck to this. Prove to me that it was Israeli forces that killed every one of those people.

I don't know how many from their 'own little civil war'.

Well, because you don't know, it automatically means that israel killed them. Sound logic.

How many Israeli's died again? Taking your logic, the IDF should keep attacking and killing Palestinians, till eventually all Palestinians take up arms to defend themselves, then they are technically 'evil militant suicide bombers', and they can all be slaughtered with moral superiority.

Huh? No not quite. I asked how many of those that were killed had weapons or were attacking Israeli troops. Instead of suggesting that any of them were like this, you said the above piece.

When you talk about 400 dead, you make out like they're all civilians. That they were never placed in situations by their own people that placed them in harm. That the only guilty party in every death was Israel. All I'm suggesting is the element of doubt, and some proof to backup yuour absolutes.

As for MY logic in that quote, I asked you four questions. Not statements. Questions. The manner you chose to answer was your own, not mine.

Well then I am extremely surprised news organisations are quoting that number if there is no proof at all, I am of course very sure you accept other body counts from Sri Lanka, Sudan, Congo without needing proof.

Lol. I wouldn't believe any news report as being set in stone until its been properly examined for a number of weeks later. Look at Qana, and check for yourself at how the death toll dropped quite considerably over time. And it wasn't just the Media involved, but HRW.

This quote again astonishes me the way you say "Where is the proof than none of these people were carrying out attacks on Israeli forces?".. How dare the Palestinians defend themselves against attack! Your definition of defense and attack only suits the Israeli agenda.

When you believe all Palestinians (whether armed or otherwise) as being civilians, what do you expect? Any Palestinian killed by an Israeli regardless of whether they're attacking Israelis themselves, or collecting weapons to be used against israel, is an innocent in your eyes.

At least thats what I'm getting from your posts, since you object so strongly to any suggestion that Palestinians may be responsible for fighting & killing israeli's.

I have already addressed this.

Ahh yes,

Bad guys do something bad - Not really news, not much debate

"Good guys" do something bad - Is news, is debate - Frederico

So why do you support the one thats not getting much debate or news?

Who held the French Resistance accountable for their own actions?

Who cares about the French resistance? FFS. Bit of a difference in 40 years of violence and their 5 years. Argue for your own sake, rather than throwing out comparisons, that have no real bearing or similiarity on the situation.

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote:

Not quite.
given they are not on an unequal footing in terms of conducting resistance operations they would be foolish to be clearly distinguishable for the Israeli military to strike at. However, using civilians as cover to launch attacks is not acceptable.

You can't really have it both ways. They use civilians as cover, by generating the belief that attacks can come from any quarter. They use men, women, and children dressed in civilian clothes to make attacks on Israeli forces, thus creating the belief that any civilian nearby is a potential threat. Palestinian forces by their very tactics placed their own people in harm.

And thats not even mentioning using civilian areas to launch attacks, or having civilians act as couriers.

In conclusion I support the Palestinians right to resist but object to some of there methods of doing so.

And I support Israel's right to exist, but object to some of their methods of doing so.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

How about you back up your earlier accusation with something a bit more concrete then "I heard" and we can start from there again.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3261513,00.html

So does this mean we can discuss Syria again? Because scrolling down through here it just seems that the whole thing has bizarrely descended into yet another slanging match about Israel. Apparently, even when it seems that Syria is casually taking out the political leaders of a sovereign state, we still gotta pin it on the Israelis.

Heh, fair enough . Any discussion of the middle east tends to degenerate into a discussion about Israel, and Palestine.

Regarding Syria, I think they're still dabbling in the politics of the region. For decades they've made no effort to hide their desire that lebanon should become part of their country. Their occupation of Lebanon years ago was a clear indication of this. That they've changed their minds, and just want peace in the region, I can't find myself believing, considering the backing they provide Hezbollah, and their unwillingness to agree on the Sheba Farms dispute.

The side effect of this is that many people in Lebanon have a major distrust of Syria and their motives due to the occupation. After Israel, Syria would probably be their next biggest fear. I can't see the Lebanese people welcoming a Syrian force in Lebanon proper, and Hezbollah siezing control under Syrian guidence is probably the closest thing they'll get to it.

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

Actually, no to both, since again you didn't respond to what you quoted me saying. You took a quote and went on about something altogether.

Quote.

Oh, I do understand what you mean, but its the dramatics that you use. If 1 Israeli is killed 10 Palestinians or Lebanese are killed. Would it not be simpler to say that if Israel is attacked they will always attack back, using larger force than is needed? It amounts to the same thing, except you're not suggesting the casualty figure before it happens.

Or perhaps even take the viewpoint that each time you attack Israel making small damage, Israel is going to retalitate using massive damage, so therefore the resistance that you are using is actually the cause of so many deaths. But hey, that wouldn't be fair, considering this is the only way they get to kill their oppressors.

Prove it. I gave you the option of passing off some of the deaths as being part of the civil war or those killed in firefights between Palestinian forces & Israel, but you've stuck to this. Prove to me that it was Israeli forces that killed every one of those people.

Its almost impossible to prove. Israeli forces are responsible for these deaths. This is the nature of casualties in conflicts and bodycounts.

Huh? No not quite. I asked how many of those that were killed had weapons or were attacking Israeli troops. Instead of suggesting that any of them were like this, you said the above piece.

Of course some of them had weapons and of course some of them were attacking Israeli forces.

When you talk about 400 dead, you make out like they're all civilians. That they were never placed in situations by their own people that placed them in harm. That the only guilty party in every death was Israel. All I'm suggesting is the element of doubt, and some proof to backup yuour absolutes.

Thats your interpretation.

Lol. I wouldn't believe any news report as being set in stone until its been properly examined for a number of weeks later. Look at Qana, and check for yourself at how the death toll dropped quite considerably over time. And it wasn't just the Media involved, but HRW.

Doubtful, unless you are living in the disputed zones, seeing things with your own eyes I am guessing you are believing reports from Israeli military 'officials' every day.

When you believe all Palestinians (whether armed or otherwise) as being civilians, what do you expect? Any Palestinian killed by an Israeli regardless of whether they're attacking Israelis themselves, or collecting weapons to be used against israel, is an innocent in your eyes.

I am saying the Israeli's are 90% of the problem here, something you clearly fail to see. They created the problem, they have exacerbated it.

At least thats what I'm getting from your posts, since you object so strongly to any suggestion that Palestinians may be responsible for fighting & killing israeli's.

I have no problem with Palestinians defending themselves and having some sort of resistance to the occupation. There are elements to that resistance I don't agree with but nonetheless understand (suicide bombing, etc).

Ahh yes,

Bad guys do something bad - Not really news, not much debate

"Good guys" do something bad - Is news, is debate - Frederico

So why do you support the one thats not getting much debate or news?

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here.. I think you've missed my point entirely. I am saying it IS news and there IS debate because Israel is involved. If it was some vicious dictatorship oppressing the Palestinians noone would really pay any notice (unless Oil was involved of course).

I think some people are failing to notice the reality of the situation, that both these sides HATE each other, which, yes, I'm afraid to say includes the Israeli's HATING the Palestinians. The Israeli's claim they are always acting in self-defense which is sheer rubbish half the time, what they kill reporters out of self-defence? the IDF are trigger happy thugs regardless of the propaganda we here everyday from well groomed military officials. They do provoke, they do attack.

This is getting waaaaay off topic I know.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

Its almost impossible to prove. Israeli forces are responsible for these deaths. This is the nature of casualties in conflicts and bodycounts.

If its impossible to prove then why make the statement? Its not like the statement that God exists. Thats a belief without any real indicators for or against. However, in Palestine, people have died in clashes between Fatah, and Hamas. Between rival gangs, and in riots. For also taking up weapons and attacking israeli's. For a number of reasons, all of which, you include as being innocent civilians killed by Israeli's.

The Palestinians themselves are responsible for the deaths they cause themselves. they're responsible for the deaths that are caused by attacking Israeli forces, and they're responsible for the deaths they themselves generate amongst their own people. Just as Israel is responsible for their own actions.

Stop passing the buck.

Of course some of them had weapons and of course some of them were attacking Israeli forces.

What? They're packing weapons, attacking Israeli's, and they're still innocent civilians? How does that work out?

Thats your interpretation.

Sure it is. Based on your own posts listed above....

Doubtful, unless you are living in the disputed zones, seeing things with your own eyes I am guessing you are believing reports from Israeli military 'officials' every day.

I take it you haven't been bothered to check the Qana story, and the death toll reports that were made? I take my information from many sources including media reports, government reports, HRW, blogs etc. Then I compare to get an idea of whats going on. And oddly enough I'm usually closer to the truth than the rushed out stories by the media giants, looking for the big dramatic report.

I am saying the Israeli's are 90% of the problem here, something you clearly fail to see. They created the problem, they have exacerbated it.

And in your eyes Israel is at blame regardless of the actions of Palestinians. I'm actually getting this from your posts above. Like the continued violent resistance by Palestinians, hasn't shaped the situation in the slightest. Or the actions of the Arab nations over the decades, regarding Palestine hasn't had any impact. Or the meddling of western organisations in the situation hasn't skewed the way the west see's the situation in the slightest.

Nope. Israel is completely and utterly wrong. They started it all, and palestinians are merely the victim in every encounter. Right. Err, nope. Doesn't float. Israel has done many things wrong in the past, but oddly enough so too have the Palestinians. I wonder why you can't believe that Israel isn't the source of all evil?

I have no problem with Palestinians defending themselves and having some sort of resistance to the occupation. There are elements to that resistance I don't agree with but nonetheless understand (suicide bombing, etc).

How do you understand it? Have you tried it? :rolleyes:

I don't agree with Artillary shelling civilian areas. I don't understand it, and I'm not going to seek to justify it. Same as I don't understand firing rockets from Helicopters or shells from tanks into civilian areas. Or the random acts of violence that the israeli government throws out with the most advanced weapons. I don't agree with it, I don't understand it.

What elements of the resistance do you agree with and what do you disagree with? nevermind about understanding it. What is worth condemnation in your eyes?

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here.. I think you've missed my point entirely. I am saying it IS news and there IS debate because Israel is involved. If it was some vicious dictatorship oppressing the Palestinians noone would really pay any notice (unless Oil was involved of course).

Yup, thats what I'm saying too. People expect israel to be better, so more focus is made on them. So why do you ignore the Palestinian actions? If they're so bad, why do you place them on such a Pedestal of innocence?

I think some people are failing to notice the reality of the situation, that both these sides HATE each other, which, yes, I'm afraid to say includes the Israeli's HATING the Palestinians. The Israeli's claim they are always acting in self-defense which is sheer rubbish half the time, what they kill reporters out of self-defence? the IDF are trigger happy thugs regardless of the propaganda we here everyday from well groomed military officials. They do provoke, they do attack.

Partially agree. Israel is not always acting out of self-defense. They do make the first move. Just as the Palestinian forces make the first move aswell. Its a pretty fluid conflict. So, yes, they do provoke. They do attack. They do kill. They do target civilians. They do break international law. Quite similiar to Palestinians in every respect, except that Palestinians haven't had the opportunity to occupy Israel yet....

The Saint

Just some info on Gaza for those interested.

In the past four months, the Israeli military has killed over 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Over half of those killed were unarmed civilians who did not participate in the fighting. Among the dead, 61 were children.

On 28 June, Israel bombed Gaza ' s only independent power station, which produced 43% of the electricity needed by the residents in Gaza . Since then, most of the population has electricity between 6 and 8 hours each day, with disastrous consequences on water supply, sewage treatment, food storage, hospital functioning and public health.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp


B'Tselem's research indicates that, over the past two years, from June 2004 to July 2006, fourteen civilians (six of them minors) were killed by Qassam gunfire fired by Palestinians into Israeli territory and at settlements in the Gaza Strip. Eight of the casualties were Israelis, five were Palestinians, and one was a Chinese national. The Qassam fire increased appreciably in June and July 2006, causing property damage for the most part. In the four-week period from 26 June – 24 July, IDF actions in the Gaza Strip to cease the Qassam rocket fire caused the death of 126 Palestinians, sixty-three of whom did not participate in the hostilities. Twenty-nine of the casualties were minors.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Israeli_Civilians/Qassam_Missiles.asp

Frederico

The Palestinians themselves are responsible for the deaths they cause themselves. they're responsible for the deaths that are caused by attacking Israeli forces, and they're responsible for the deaths they themselves generate amongst their own people. Just as Israel is responsible for their own actions.

Stop passing the buck.

Just like the Iraqis are responsible for their own deaths? I can see the warped logic that is being applied here - the Palestinians are ultimately responsible for the Israeli's bombing them, shooting them, cutting water/electricity, degrading them, occupying them, etc, etc.

I take it you haven't been bothered to check the Qana story, and the death toll reports that were made? I take my information from many sources including media reports, government reports, HRW, blogs etc. Then I compare to get an idea of whats going on. And oddly enough I'm usually closer to the truth than the rushed out stories by the media giants, looking for the big dramatic report.

Aaah Qana I knew that would come up somehow, yes I do know the story, I've heard it over and over from rightwingers.

And in your eyes Israel is at blame regardless of the actions of Palestinians. I'm actually getting this from your posts above. Like the continued violent resistance by Palestinians, hasn't shaped the situation in the slightest. Or the actions of the Arab nations over the decades, regarding Palestine hasn't had any impact. Or the meddling of western organisations in the situation hasn't skewed the way the west see's the situation in the slightest.

Israel is to blame because of the actions of Israel. Judging by your posts you don't seem to understand the hatred many Israeli's have for the Palestinians and also the mindset of being occupied.

Nope. Israel is completely and utterly wrong. They started it all, and palestinians are merely the victim in every encounter. Right. Err, nope. Doesn't float. Israel has done many things wrong in the past, but oddly enough so too have the Palestinians. I wonder why you can't believe that Israel isn't the source of all evil?

Sounds like a bit of a rant to me, but anyway..

How do you understand it? Have you tried it? :rolleyes:

I don't agree with Artillary shelling civilian areas. I don't understand it, and I'm not going to seek to justify it. Same as I don't understand firing rockets from Helicopters or shells from tanks into civilian areas. Or the random acts of violence that the israeli government throws out with the most advanced weapons. I don't agree with it, I don't understand it.

Neither do I.

What elements of the resistance do you agree with and what do you disagree with? nevermind about understanding it. What is worth condemnation in your eyes?

Attacking military elements of the occupation. Killing civilians will only harden the other side's resolve and is deplorable.

Yup, thats what I'm saying too. People expect israel to be better, so more focus is made on them. So why do you ignore the Palestinian actions? If they're so bad, why do you place them on such a Pedestal of innocence?

Two jewish settlers were killed by rockets recently, its almost like you are saying the violence is equal, when in reality the Palestinians are taking the overwhelming amount of casualties, deaths, injuries, state-terror, demolitions, and general suffering.

Partially agree. Israel is not always acting out of self-defense. They do make the first move. Just as the Palestinian forces make the first move aswell. Its a pretty fluid conflict. So, yes, they do provoke. They do attack. They do kill. They do target civilians. They do break international law.

The Israelis should not be provoking, attacking, targeting civilians and breaking international law. No country should be doing those things. This only makes their situation worse and I cannot understand for the life of me why they do it, unless its just based on sheer hatred/overwhelming revenge/bloodlust??

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote:

You can't really have it both ways. They use civilians as cover, by generating the belief that attacks can come from any quarter. They use men, women, and children dressed in civilian clothes to make attacks on Israeli forces, thus creating the belief that any civilian nearby is a potential threat. Palestinian forces by their very tactics placed their own people in harm.

And thats not even mentioning using civilian areas to launch attacks, or having civilians act as couriers.



And I support Israel's right to exist, but object to some of their methods of doing so.

you can't have it both ways either. if you support there right to exist you must acknowledge as an inferior fighting force they can't fight in a coventional manner. What about the Israeli troops in uniform frequenting public places- like bus stops, are they putting their own citizens at risk? Or as in cities like Haifa having a weapons facility near a civilian aera.
I reiterate i'm not advocating suicide bombers and sending women and children as bombers. Nor do i support using civilian as cover to launch an attack.
My view is you can't realistically expect a sniper or a bomber against Israeli military positions to stand in the open and display a placard saying he/she is a militant. Also, if Israel is using informants then the Palestinians have to use couriers and spotters to try and counter this.

none of this justifies Israel actions whereby they carry out collective punishment and killing palestinians indiscriminately who are not part of the resistance. Though, to be fair you have acknowledged this already.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

Just like the Iraqis are responsible for their own deaths? I can see the warped logic that is being applied here - the Palestinians are ultimately responsible for the Israeli's bombing them, shooting them, cutting water/electricity, degrading them, occupying them, etc, etc.

They're choosing the manner of their resistance. They're also choosing to combat israel with their own people in the area of attacks. They're choosing to use tactics that place their own people under constant suspicion. They're increasing the likelyhood of their enemies treating the general population as a threat, due to attacks being made by men, women and children in civilian attire.

Warped logic? Nope. It makes sense actually.

Aaah Qana I knew that would come up somehow, yes I do know the story, I've heard it over and over from rightwingers.

But you know nothing about it yourself, simply because right wingers mention it? Cause the death toll was hugely inflated, and taken as fact from the beginning.

Israel is to blame because of the actions of Israel. Judging by your posts you don't seem to understand the hatred many Israeli's have for the Palestinians and also the mindset of being occupied.

Actually I understand that both sides have a hatred for each other. Based upon the manner of the resistance, and the manner of Israeli occupation.

As for being under occupation, I've never been under occupation. Are you saying that you actually have?

Sounds like a bit of a rant to me, but anyway..

read over what you said, and you'll understand what I mean. You place all blame at Israel's feet regardless of the actions of Palestinians themselves.

Attacking military elements of the occupation. Killing civilians will only harden the other side's resolve and is deplorable.

But dont you take the stance that all palestinians including those carrying weapons are civilians? Thats what I got from your posts above.

And I agree that killing civilians is wrong. Completely wrong. Whether its the Israeli's, Palestinians, or anyone else for that matter that is doing it.

Two jewish settlers were killed by rockets recently, its almost like you are saying the violence is equal, when in reality the Palestinians are taking the overwhelming amount of casualties, deaths, injuries, state-terror, demolitions, and general suffering.

Look back over the history of the region. When has Israel ever not responded to attacks with overwhelming force? Don't you think that Palestinians have realised this yet? What has their attacks actually achieved, except Israel launching fresh campaigns which result in Palestinian deaths?

But answer the question. Why do you attribute Palestinians with such a level of innocence, when by your own words they would be the ones most expected to be the bad guys, and therefore not as important to comment upon?

The Israelis should not be provoking, attacking, targeting civilians and breaking international law. No country should be doing those things. This only makes their situation worse and I cannot understand for the life of me why they do it, unless its just based on sheer hatred/overwhelming revenge/bloodlust??

Again, no mention of anyone else having an impact on the situation. No mention that Palestinians shouldn't be provoking, attacking, targeting civilians and breaking international law.

As for why they do it? I guess nobody has offered them a realistic alternative recently. Look at the recent ceasefire. I would have though Palestinians would love to have a breathing period from Israeli attacks. Instead two groups which had previously agreed to it, continue to launch rockets into israel. What do those rocket attacks achieve?

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote:

you can't have it both ways either. if you support there right to exist you must acknowledge as an inferior fighting force they can't fight in a coventional manner.

I'm not expecting Palestinians to march out into the open to instigate attacks on Israeli forces in the "old" manner. There's plenty of other options available to them that don't include using their women and children to launch attacks. They don't have to use rockets launched from civilian areas, which don't actually achieve anything. They don't have to fight Israeli patrols while their own people are walking the streets.

They're a highly mobile force, thats' capable of choosing their own targets. If anything Israel is at the worse position since, all their emplacements are well known, their troops wear uniforms which set them apart from the people, and are forced to move in larger groups (increasing their visibility & vulnerability to "hit & run" attacks).

And when you come down to it, tanks are next to useless in town/city warfare. Planes and gunships have no real use in the type of warfare that this conflict takes place in. So what do you really have? Apc's and actual troops are the only real weapons that Israeli's have to truely control the area, which doesn't place them that far above the palestinians, considering the advances in hand held weaponry over the last 4 decades. And someone mentioned nukes earlier. What use is a nuke against the palestinians?

What about the Israeli troops in uniform frequenting public places- like bus stops, are they putting their own citizens at risk? Or as in cities like Haifa having a weapons facility near a civilian aera.

What of it? I can think of very few militaries that don't have some bases or production centres near civilians. Even if they were established away from civilians, they'd tend to grow up about such places naturally. But I see them as legitimate targets. I would ask you whether you consider placing arms dumps in Refugee camps, and people's homes is acceptable, and should be considered a valid target?

As for troops frequenting public area's, they're security forces responding to attacks in public places. There have been attacks in the past on civilian areas, without any military presence. I can only assume this is an effort to provide some extra security to prevent such attacks. I would guess that it actually works.

Added to this though, do you believe that Palestinian attackers should only target military personel, without putting civilians in harm? (since civilians in the area would be caught in the crossfire, stray rounds, or random dangers)

I reiterate i'm not advocating suicide bombers and sending women and children as bombers. Nor do i support using civilian as cover to launch an attack.

I'm not accusing you of doing so. Rather I'd like to get to the foundations of this. Many posters say that they support Palestinian efforts, but don't agree with their tactics. I often wonder how far does this actually go.

My view is you can't realistically expect a sniper or a bomber against Israeli military positions to stand in the open and display a placard saying he/she is a militant. Also, if Israel is using informants then the Palestinians have to use couriers and spotters to try and counter this.

And am I saying that informants shouldn't be killed? In fact since they're going to be Palestinians dressed in civilian clothes, don't you think that Israel will ultimately be blamed anyway? However, Israel shouldn't be targeting those in civilian dress that don't have weapons, and yet these people are actively supporting those that do have weapons, and are actively fighting them.

I'm not asking them to come out into the open (although i often wonder why Israeli forces should be in uniform openly displaying who they are). I'm asking for them to stop using their people as a screen. To stop making attacks from civilian areas, or from crowds of civilians. To stop using civilians as a "shield" against Israel retalitation. Although I guess that's of limited use since Israel does attack back through the civilians.

none of this justifies Israel actions whereby they carry out collective punishment and killing palestinians indiscriminately who are not part of the resistance. Though, to be fair you have acknowledged this already.

Aye I have. But I would clarify this slightly. I don't believe that all those that are killed and claimed as civilians, actually are. Or that its only Israeli's that kill Palestinians. I firmly believe that in some cases its Palestinians that are killing Palestinians, whether by accident or by design.

The problem is, how do you tell which civilians are Not part of the resistance? Wearing civilian attire doesn't distinguish them as noncombatants, since the paramilitaries wear civilian attire. Their sex or age doesn't distinguish them as being non-combatants, since the paramilitaries have used all ages and sexes for attacks. And not even the lack of a visible weapon can be relied upon, since they may very well may be packing a belt of explosives, or a few grenades.

While I deplore civilian casualties, I wonder why people don't realise that this situation is partially Palestinians' fault. They've generated a situation whereby the general population is very much the enemy to Israeli's, and it doesn't take much thinking to understand why Israel tends to fire first and ask questions later when attacked. Unless "you" (not, nacho libre, as such) continue to blindsight yourself to the previous paragraph and lay all the blame on Israel.

Mods, Admin, can someone please close this thread?

Post after post about Israel, Palestine, heck even the French get a mention. My question was why don't people condemn Syria. The answer is pretty clear, posters don't want to even mention Syria much less condemn them. Ergo question answered and thread has served it purpose.

Conor, you could stear the thread back on course if you really wanted.

Syria wont get condemnation because they haven't actually done anything wrong. No more than a dozen of other countries that dabble in other nations affairs.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote:

Mods, Admin, can someone please close this thread?

Post after post about Israel, Palestine, heck even the French get a mention.

...and yet, not a single reported post.

Sure where would I start?

Anyway, that's snitching. Even the Syrians wouldn't snitch.

Ping Chow Chi

Deleted User wrote:

I'm not asking them to come out into the open (although i often wonder why Israeli forces should be in uniform openly displaying who they are). I'm asking for them to stop using their people as a screen. To stop making attacks from civilian areas, or from crowds of civilians. To stop using civilians as a "shield" against Israel retalitation. Although I guess that's of limited use since Israel does attack back through the civilians.

and Isreal does attack anyone who it considers a militant at any time it likes, so your basically asking the militants to cut themself off from the civilian population completely. Which would be tantamount to 'Palestinians marching out into the open' Unless you think that Gaza's rural areas are large enough to hide a few 1000 people, which I would doubt.

Ping Chow Chi

Ping Chow Chi wrote:

and Isreal does attack anyone who it considers a militant at any time it likes, so your basically asking the militants to cut themself off from the civilian population completely.

I can't see why so many of you find this so hard to understand. Its the very tactics used by the Palestinian forces that caused the Israeli's to go through the civilians to get to the attackers. By attacking in civilian attire, and launching attacks while civilians are around, they created the temperment that Israeli's would react to attacks by targeting civilians. This is not an attempt to absolve Israel from responsibility. They still choose to respond in this manner. But the Palestinians shaped the response by the manner of their resistance.

Its a logical step in response to such tactics. While I can't agree with the targeting of civilians, surely you can see that the palestinian tactics of using the civilian environment for camoflage placed the civilians in that kind of risk?

Which would be tantamount to 'Palestinians marching out into the open' Unless you think that Gaza's rural areas are large enough to hide a few 1000 people, which I would doubt.

Again why do they need to march out in the open? They can still launch their attacks from the town and cities. They can still attack border crossings and fixed emplacements. They can still set up ambush points for Israeli patrols. Why is it that you can only see one other option for them to do, other than using civilians?

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

I can't see why so many of you find this so hard to understand. Its the very tactics used by the Palestinian forces that caused the Israeli's to go through the civilians to get to the attackers. By attacking in civilian attire, and launching attacks while civilians are around, they created the temperment that Israeli's would react to attacks by targeting civilians. This is not an attempt to absolve Israel from responsibility. They still choose to respond in this manner. But the Palestinians shaped the response by the manner of their resistance.

Its a logical step in response to such tactics. While I can't agree with the targeting of civilians, surely you can see that the palestinian tactics of using the civilian environment for camoflage placed the civilians in that kind of risk?

How do you think the IDF should respond to Palestinians (teenagers) who throw petrol bombs, should they be classed as militants?

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

How do you think the IDF should respond to Palestinians (teenagers) who throw petrol bombs, should they be classed as militants?

If they're throwing petrol bombs then yes. If they're throwing stones, then no. But what is it that you think about such a situation? If a teenager throws a petrol bomb resulting in a number of dead soldiers, is he an innocent or a militant?

nacho libre

"They're a highly mobile force, thats' capable of choosing their own targets. If anything Israel is at the worse position since, all their emplacements are well known, their troops wear uniforms which set them apart from the people, and are forced to move in larger groups (increasing their visibility & vulnerability to "hit & run" attacks)."

Alastair Campbell would be proud of such a paragraph. Israel is not in the worst position. Their intelligence on militants allied with their military resources places them at a distinct advantage

"And when you come down to it, tanks are next to useless in town/city warfare. Planes and gunships have no real use in the type of warfare that this conflict takes place in. So what do you really have? Apc's and actual troops are the only real weapons that Israeli's have to truely control "the area, which doesn't place them that far above the palestinians, considering the advances in hand held weaponry over the last 4 decades. And someone mentioned nukes earlier. What use is a nuke against the palestinians?"

The Israeli soliders have far better weaponry, armoury and protective military fatigues. They also now have rifiles with tiny cameras that can see around corners- ideal for fighting militants at close quarters in a maze of streets.


"What of it? I can think of very few militaries that don't have some bases or production centres near civilians. Even if they were established away from civilians, they'd tend to grow up about such places naturally. But I see them as legitimate targets. I would ask you whether you consider placing arms dumps in Refugee camps, and people's homes is acceptable, and should be considered a valid target?"


"As for troops frequenting public area's, they're security forces responding to attacks in public places. There have been attacks in the past on civilian areas, without any military presence. I can only assume this is an effort to provide some extra security to prevent such attacks. I would guess that it actually works."

as it happens i don't agree with placing an arms dump in a refugee camps. I also don't agree with having bases or military installations near civilian aeras. neither do i agree with young Israeli Soliders not on active duty mingling with the civilan population as i have on occasion seen on tv. If there presence is preventing attacks then your argument about the capability of resistance groups to pick military targets and launch attacks doesn't add up.

"Added to this though, do you believe that Palestinian attackers should only target military personel, without putting civilians in harm? (since civilians in the area would be caught in the crossfire, stray rounds, or random dangers)"


it works both ways- there is an onus on both sides not to put civilians in harm ways nither side can claim to hold the moral high ground in this regard.

I would ideally prefer if the palestinians could fight like Hezbollah did in the recent conflict with Israel this is use the villages for logistics and do their fighting from fortified bunkers



"And am I saying that informants shouldn't be killed? In fact since they're going to be Palestinians dressed in civilian clothes, don't you think that Israel will ultimately be blamed anyway? However, Israel shouldn't be targeting those in civilian dress that don't have weapons, and yet these people are actively supporting those that do have weapons, and are actively fighting them."

Well, the same can be said about israelis who support Likud and those who have friends in the Israeli army.


"Aye I have. But I would clarify this slightly. I don't believe that all those that are killed and claimed as civilians, actually are. Or that its only Israeli's that kill Palestinians. I firmly believe that in some cases its Palestinians that are killing Palestinians, whether by accident or by design."

I agree with most of that. It is the nature of guerrilla conflict that Palestinans will kill other Palestinians whom they suspect as being collaborator's- especially given that the resistance groups are riddled with Shabak/Shin Bet informers

"The problem is, how do you tell which civilians are Not part of the resistance? Wearing civilian attire doesn't distinguish them as noncombatants, since the paramilitaries wear civilian attire. Their sex or age doesn't distinguish them as being non-combatants, since the paramilitaries have used all ages and sexes for attacks. And not even the lack of a visible weapon can be relied upon, since they may very well may be packing a belt of explosives, or a few grenades."

"While I deplore civilian casualties, I wonder why people don't realise that this situation is partially Palestinians' fault. They've generated a situation whereby the general population is very much the enemy to Israeli's, and it doesn't take much thinking to understand why Israel tends to fire first and ask questions later when attacked. Unless "you" (not, nacho libre, as such) continue to blindsight yourself to the previous paragraph and lay all the blame on Israel."

yes it is a difficult problem but if you hold yourself up as a paragon of democracy in an otherwise undemocractic region you must be held accountable for your actions that on numerous occasions have infracted international law.
I have an Israeli friend who is what most people would refer to as right-wing in his views and he sees all Palestinians as animals. He says this view is prevalent among many Israelis.
I'm not saying this mentality is exclusive to Israelis- it clearly isn't, just that with this view point you can justify almost any act against the other side.
you have conceded earlier in this thread that no side can claim the moral high ground. so with that in mind isn't it futile to always support one side over the other?

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote:

Alastair Campbell would be proud of such a paragraph. Israel is not in the worst position. Their intelligence on militants allied with their military resources places them at a distinct advantage

Really? And the Palestinian forces are at such a disadvantage? Lack of uniforms gives them mobility to move through the general population and hit any number of targets. Their use of light weaponry, and a lack of reliance on heavier equipment reduces the need to have highly skilled fighters, since they don't need the more advanced weapon systems that nations tend to use. They have access to intelligence gather from the general population itself, with the ability to track every Israeli force in civilian areas.

The Israeli soliders have far better weaponry, armoury and protective military fatigues. They also now have rifiles with tiny cameras that can see around corners- ideal for fighting militants at close quarters in a maze of streets.

"Reporter: "These are weapons that Hamas members smuggled into Jordan. They stored them in several places in Jordan. Automatic weapons, submachine guns, ammunition, hand-grenades, mines, different types of explosives, Grad missiles, LAW missiles that can be used against buildings and cars, and Katyusha missiles, some of which are Iranian-made."
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=1489

Israeli seizures of weapon caches have shown that Palestinians have access to weapons like, M-16's, Ak-47's, Dragunov Sniper rifles, and... Anti-Tank rockets.

You really believe the Palestinians are poorly equipped for the type of warfare they employ?

as it happens i don't agree with placing an arms dump in a refugee camps. I also don't agree with having bases or military installations near civilian aeras. neither do i agree with young Israeli Soliders not on active duty mingling with the civilan population as i have on occasion seen on tv. If there presence is preventing attacks then your argument about the capability of resistance groups to pick military targets and launch attacks doesn't add up.

So what should soldiers do when off-duty? Forget that they're also part of the population, and stay on bases until they're back on active duty? The majority of the Israeli population at one time or another serves in the military, and their presence in markets just reinforces the image that they're still part of the general population while being in the military. It could be one of the reasons that Israeli's have such a high opinion of the common trooper.

Deleted User wrote:

"Added to this though, do you believe that Palestinian attackers should only target military personel, without putting civilians in harm? (since civilians in the area would be caught in the crossfire, stray rounds, or random dangers)"

it works both ways- there is an onus on both sides not to put civilians in harm ways nither side can claim to hold the moral high ground in this regard.

Sure, I agree. But what of Palestinian attacks on israeli patrols both inside palestine & Israel while civilians are around? Seems a common enough occurance, and the deaths of civilians is laid at rest on Israel the majority of times. No mention is made of the Palestinian attack on the patrol, or their putting their own people in the line of fire.

I would ideally prefer if the palestinians could fight like Hezbollah did in the recent conflict with Israel this is use the villages for logistics and do their fighting from fortified bunkers

Hezbollah did both. I still stand by the idea that hezbollah orchestrated the conflict to gain as much sympathy as possible by having civilians put in places of danger, similiar to what they did with the UN compound that was shelled.

Deleted User wrote:

"And am I saying that informants shouldn't be killed? In fact since they're going to be Palestinians dressed in civilian clothes, don't you think that Israel will ultimately be blamed anyway? However, Israel shouldn't be targeting those in civilian dress that don't have weapons, and yet these people are actively supporting those that do have weapons, and are actively fighting them."

Well, the same can be said about israelis who support Likud and those who have friends in the Israeli army.

Sure, It could be said. But do you disagree with what I said?

I agree with most of that. It is the nature of guerrilla conflict that Palestinans will kill other Palestinians whom they suspect as being collaborator's- especially given that the resistance groups are riddled with Shabak/Shin Bet informers

But its more than that. Palestinians will die by bullets fired by other palestinians. Friendly fire and all that. Added to this the Paramilitaries have a position to protect against people that don't want to involve themselves in the troubles. I can think of very few Paramilitary groups (if any, actually) that didn't have firm links to the crinimal side, and practiced "protection", threats, and control over their own people.

yes it is a difficult problem but if you hold yourself up as a paragon of democracy in an otherwise undemocractic region you must be held accountable for your actions that on numerous occasions have infracted international law.

I dunno. I find that the people that hold Israel up to be a paragon of democracy are the very ones that want to point out what they've done wrong. The times I've heard people that support Israel mention it is only in comparison to the other arab nations in the region. Being democratic doesn't make a country a wonderful entity. It doesn't change all that much. Look at Western countries. Are we wonderful nations just because we're democracies? I dont particularly think so.

I have an Israeli friend who is what most people would refer to as right-wing in his views and he sees all Palestinians as animals. He says this view is prevalent among many Israelis.I'm not saying this mentality is exclusive to Israelis- it clearly isn't, just that with this view point you can justify almost any act against the other side.

I daresay its not uncommon. Just as I figure that most palestinians would feel the same about Israel's.

you have conceded earlier in this thread that no side can claim the moral high ground. so with that in mind isn't it futile to always support one side over the other?

So whats your excuse then? Its human nature to pick a side. I don't know anybody that can realistically sit in the middle. Do you?

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote:

Really? And the Palestinian forces are at such a disadvantage? Lack of uniforms gives them mobility to move through the general population and hit any number of targets. Their use of light weaponry, and a lack of reliance on heavier equipment reduces the need to have highly skilled fighters, since they don't need the more advanced weapon systems that nations tend to use. They have access to intelligence gather from the general population itself, with the ability to track every Israeli force in civilian areas.

In direct confrontations between the Israeli military and Palestinian fighters what is the fatality ratio for Israeli soldiers compared to Palestinian fighters?
if the fatality rates are lower on the Israeli side what does this indicate to you?



"Reporter: "These are weapons that Hamas members smuggled into Jordan. They stored them in several places in Jordan. Automatic weapons, submachine guns, ammunition, hand-grenades, mines, different types of explosives, Grad missiles, LAW missiles that can be used against buildings and cars, and Katyusha missiles, some of which are Iranian-made."
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=1489

Israeli seizures of weapon caches have shown that Palestinians have access to weapons like, M-16's, Ak-47's, Dragunov Sniper rifles, and... Anti-Tank rockets."

You really believe the Palestinians are poorly equipped for the type of warfare they employ?

Yes i think so as i don't recall such weapons ever being used by the Palestinians. And as we have seen Hezbollah had far better weaponry than the Palestinians currently have. I recall an israeli general fearing what would happen if Palestinians got possession of sagger anti-tank missiles used to such devastating effect against the IDF in south Lebanon.

Hezbollah's anti-tank weapons consist of a variety of wire-guided missiles (usually of Russian design and manufactured and/or supplied by Iran and Syria) and rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs). The missiles include the European-made Milan, the Russian-designed Metis-M, Sagger AT-3, Spigot AT-4 and the Russian-made Kornet AT-14. The latter is a Syrian supplied missile capable of targeting low-flying helicopters. Iraqi Fedayeen irregulars used the Kornet against U.S. forces in 2003. The most portable versions of these weapons are carried in a fiberglass case with a launching rail attached to the lid.

so either the Israeli military has great intelligence(i.e they have intercepted all shipments/attempts to smuggle these weapons) or Palestinian resistance groups don't have access to these weapons.

I think if the Palestinians had access to such weapons they could disable
the Israeli Merkava tanks. If they had parity or effective means to attack the Israeli Military, wouldn't the rate of Israeli deaths and injuries in the recent incursion into Gaza be far higher than the one solider reported dead in the month long incursion.

So what should soldiers do when off-duty? Forget that they're also part of the population, and stay on bases until they're back on active duty? The majority of the Israeli population at one time or another serves in the military, and their presence in markets just reinforces the image that they're still part of the general population while being in the military. It could be one of the reasons that Israeli's have such a high opinion of the common trooper.

well, i'm specifically referring to a nice looking black haired woman, while still in uniform, going into a shopping mall with her friend or the Israeli soliders on leave mingling with the general populace in public places. you will argue the palestinians have a moral responsibility not to attack the soliders in such situations but what about the soliders doing this. I acknowledge these incidents are probably not the norm- but you imply it might be for psychology reasons and this is part of the national psyche.


"Sure, I agree. But what of Palestinian attacks on israeli patrols both inside palestine & Israel while civilians are around? Seems a common enough occurance, and the deaths of civilians is laid at rest on Israel the majority of times. No mention is made of the Palestinian attack on the patrol, or their putting their own people in the line of fire."

Dropping a 500 pound bomb on a house killing 12 children, a mother and a militant is not acceptable in my view. neither is blowing up a bus stop mixed with civilians and soldiers in uniform, who have just come off duty.
if Israel kills a fighter driving his car and the shrapnel kills a child 15 metres way that is very unfortunate but an ugly reality of conflict(of course if i was the brother of the child i might not think the same) If an Israeli patrol is passing through the occupied territories and is attacked which results in an Israeli settler who is hit by flying metal being killed. Again i see that attack as being justified. Each side should not intentionally target civilians.

Hezbollah did both. I still stand by the idea that hezbollah orchestrated the conflict to gain as much sympathy as possible by having civilians put in places of danger, similiar to what they did with the UN compound that was shelled.

well, i don't agree and neither does an Israeli Colonel interviewed about what it was like to fight Hezbollah. You might cite an Israeli think tank who recently issued a report which says they did. However, Amnesty have concluded nothing new is raised in the report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/05/ap/world/mainD8LR05MO1.shtml



well, this thread is being dragged slowly back to Syria by means of Lebanon:)



"I dunno. I find that the people that hold Israel up to be a paragon of democracy are the very ones that want to point out what they've done wrong. The times I've heard people that support Israel mention it is only in comparison to the other arab nations in the region. Being democratic doesn't make a country a wonderful entity. It doesn't change all that much. Look at Western countries. Are we wonderful nations just because we're democracies? I dont particularly think so."

well, i'm very tempted to answer this but i won't as it will drag the thread further off course.

So whats your excuse then? Its human nature to pick a side. I don't know anybody that can realistically sit in the middle. Do you?

I sympathise with the Palestinians desire for a state. However, i'm not picking sides. I don't go out of my way to defend the actions of one side over the other. You automatically seem to side with Israel.

Also, what about people who join medicine without borders then go to war zones to treat the injured civilians regardless of whose side they are on? Are they taking sides?

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote:

I sympathise with the Palestinians desire for a state. However, i'm not picking sides. I don't go out of my way to defend the actions of one side over the other. You automatically seem to side with Israel.

Automatically? Actually I do, somewhat. You see on boards like these the natural response by most posters is to side with Palestine over anything that occurs. Israel is naturally in the wrong, regardless of what is occuring. So after a while, I started defending Israel when I saw how little criticism the Palestinians receive for their actions.

Saying that, If Israel does something I'm opposed to, I'm not going to defend them for it. Although I did when i first started posting up about Israel/Palestine. If you only look at the surface of this conflict its very easy to pick a side. After a while of reading about this conflict, and having numerous discussions, eventually you start to realise the responsibility of both parties in the whole conflict.

I guess I've evolved from blindly loyal to israel, to being sceptical of both. But if you can be involved in these types of discussions without picking a side, I find that very commendable. Something for me to aim for.

Also, what about people who join medicine without borders then go to war zones to treat the injured civilians regardless of whose side they are on? Are they taking sides?

Depends how they're involving themselves. How about medics in WW2. No weapons, and no real involvement in their units, beyond the caring of troopers. That for me isn't taking sides, because they treated both Allied and Germans alike (regardless of personal likes/dislikes).

But on the other hand there's volunteers that go to places like Palestine and do pick a side. They preach of their neutrality, but they actively help only one side, or act beyond their duties. Actions speak louder than words in these cases. And if they truely stay out of the conflict without taking sides, they have my full respect.