Israeli Army Kills 8-Year-Old Palestinian Boy

[ravagon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Less inflammatory than shooting a 8 year old kid... When Sharon puts a stop to that, then we can discuss whether the use of the word atrocity is fitting or not.

If you'll reread that article, what little substance it actually has, there is no mention of "intent" whatsoever.
Whether the IDF meant to shoot the 8-year old because he was throwing explosives, whether the explosives were a threat or simply a firecracker, whether he was shot accidentally in an attempt to surpress those who were throwing explosives or whether he was purposely murdered by the IDF with no cause whatsoever (and I'm only including this last for completeness sake) is complete hearsay - based on that article anyway.
Lets leave the rhetoric for something with some sort of concrete substance to it as said article doesn't really have any.

? So if I, a single swede, would drive all the jews into the ocean and walled of all of current Israel into Gnu-land, where only I live, it wouldn;t be ethnic cleansing, since I am only one person? This doesn;t seem to make sense.

The fact of the matter is that the AREA of the settlements are steadily increasing. Whether the settlers themselves breed like rabbits or not I don't care about. It's that the settlements expand and multiply, with the express consent of the IDF and the (oxymoronically called) Israeli legal system.

My point here was that Israel is democratically based. As is the substance of the Palestinian charter. Those settlers have no ability whatsoever to influence a government in any state of Palestine with their numbers.
I don't cede the point that they aren't merely negotiating chips either and a fair portion of what you refer to as their expansion hasn't actually been such at all but rather a clearing/demolition of their surroundings. Given recent attacks made against many settlements this seems more prudence than anything else...

Doesn't matter one bit. You are claiming that buying a piece of land means it can be transfered to another country. You might want to rethink that position.

I didn't intend it to be taken in such a way at all. AFAIK Israel hasn't ever tried to annex such territory? Various political speeches may indicate otherwise but such have very little substance.

Ackording to whom? But yes, there are other infractions as well. Regardless, the second intifada didn;t start until it became clear that Israel was never intending to honor Oslo.

I would date it to the official visit by Sharon to a certain site, the temporary closure of which sparked off riots, the subsequent crackdown and the eventual decline into the present. But this may be starting to split hairs I feel...

What progress was that? The doubling of settlements? The refusal to follow the handover of political authority to the PA? The statements in '96 that "Oslo is dead"?

The PLO went from nothing in '91 to being a fully recognized semi-autonomous government. Perhaps unrealistic expectations regarding the speed of turning that into something more contributed to the decline but I'm still inclined to date the most significant breakdown to the event above.

And I agree. Fact of the matter is, though, that Arafat hsa repeatedly asked for international intervention and the presence of UN troops. Israel vehemently opposes it. Why do you think this is?

Quite honestly the Israelis have no faith in the UN whatsoever. Look at things from Israels perspective for a moment. UN forces have been in place in the past on the Lebanese border and were completely unable to prevent small-scale militant incursions into Northern Israel and resulting Israeli deaths. Ultimately they had to act themselves. Then came the Israeli occupation in which they had to muscle through the UN lines and were widely condemned for it. This is much the same problem Israel faces right now wrt Palestine and they have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe it would resolve any differently.
ie: Israel has abolutely nothing to gain from such a course - other than perhaps a faint hope that a UN presence might change the militants mindset?
Now if they had reason to believe the UN were able to prevent such incursions it might be a different matter entirely...

And I claim they would. So far, I've shown numerous examples why this is so. You have, as far as I know, no backing for your view except a general hope that Israel will behave as a civilized nation....

Up until recently Israel has (IMO of course) acted with great restraint. When they have injured or killed civilians in the course of hunting down militants they have apologized and even tried to make amends. With the increases in violence against them and a mounting toll in Israeli lives this has changed somewhat and they have used more force than they had previously.
The US reacted the same way in Afghanistan after 3000-odd American deaths. They were much less discriminating when striking enemy targets and prepared to accept more collateral deaths than in the Gulf war for example.
Not terribly noble mind you but with more dead on your own side comes a greater urgency in surpressing those responsible. I very much doubt other countries would behave differently if faced with a similar situation.
Let us hope this remains unproven either way though...

[CyberGnu]

ravagon:

If you'll reread that article, what little substance it actually has, there is no mention of "intent" whatsoever.
Whether the IDF meant to shoot the 8-year old because he was throwing explosives, whether the explosives were a threat or simply a firecracker, whether he was shot accidentally in an attempt to surpress those who were throwing explosives or whether he was purposely murdered by the IDF with no cause whatsoever (and I'm only including this last for completeness sake) is complete hearsay - based on that article anyway.
Lets leave the rhetoric for something with some sort of concrete substance to it as said article doesn't really have any.

The very fact that there is an Israeli solider firing live ammo in palestine is an atrocity. Doesn't matter whether the kid was killed intentionally or not - the IDF has no right to be anywhere in palestine, even less firing guns.

My point here was that Israel is democratically based. As is the substance of the Palestinian charter. Those settlers have no ability whatsoever to influence a government in any state of Palestine with their numbers.

I don't understand what the point is. I don't care whether there is one settler or one million settlers living in the settlements. I don't think the palestinians care either. What matters is the area of the settlements, and it is steadily increasing.

I don't cede the point that they aren't merely negotiating chips either and a fair portion of what you refer to as their expansion hasn't actually been such at all but rather a clearing/demolition of their surroundings. Given recent attacks made against many settlements this seems more prudence than anything else...

Prudence? Do you know how the settlements expand?

A settlement is founded. The army is called in to defend the settlers from those nasty arabs who have the temerity of defending their own land. The area around the settlement is cleared by army bulldozers to create a empty zone to protect from inflitration. The settlement expands into the emtpy zone until the outermost houses are close enough to the edge of the cleared zone for the palestinians to reach them. The army clears a larger area as a safe zone. The settlement expands. The clearing expands. Continue ad infinitum.

And when your olive grove has been demolished to make room for some more landtheft, then what do you do? Lie down quitly and die? Hardly...

I didn't intend it to be taken in such a way at all. AFAIK Israel hasn't ever tried to annex such territory? Various political speeches may indicate otherwise but such have very little substance.

Then why did Barak refuse to eliminate the settlements in the Camp David accords? Even the Israelis on this site admits that the settlements expand as chits in the barganing... Where I personally think that israel should lose land for every single square meter they expand.

I would date it to the official visit by Sharon to a certain site, the temporary closure of which sparked off riots, the subsequent crackdown and the eventual decline into the present. But this may be starting to split hairs I feel...

If you fill a garbage can with gasoline and throw a match in it, what caused the fire? The simple answer is of course the match, but without all that gasoline the match would just have fluttered and died... Sharons visit was the final straw, nothing else.

The PLO went from nothing in '91 to being a fully recognized semi-autonomous government. Perhaps unrealistic expectations regarding the speed of turning that into something more contributed to the decline but I'm still inclined to date the most significant breakdown to the event above.

You need to elaborate that. So far you have only sweeping claims. (btw, you are off on your dates. PLO proclaimed the "State of Palestine" on Nov 15, 1988.)

Quite honestly the Israelis have no faith in the UN whatsoever. Look at things from Israels perspective for a moment. UN forces have been in place in the past on the Lebanese border and were completely unable to prevent small-scale militant incursions into Northern Israel and resulting Israeli deaths. Ultimately they had to act themselves. Then came the Israeli occupation in which they had to muscle through the UN lines and were widely condemned for it.

What lines? The UN has only an observation force in Lebanon, not a peace keeping force. And the observation force does exactly what it has mandate for: observe and report infractions. According to the treaty written when Israel withdrew from Lebanon are those reports then handed to the respective goverments, which in Lebanons case is too weak to deal with the Hezbollah. If Israel truly wanted to end Hezbollahs incursion they would make sure the US went in to rebuild lebanon from scratch...

So Israel has absolutley no reason to qhine about the UN, apart from the fact that the UN regularly condemns Israels atrocities. Usually this only happens when Israels actions are so thoroughly disgusting that even the US can't defend them...

ie: Israel has abolutely nothing to gain from such a course - other than perhaps a faint hope that a UN presence might change the militants mindset?
Now if they had reason to believe the UN were able to prevent such incursions it might be a different matter entirely...

As you said earlier: The separation from palestine, which in itself would bring about the greatest measure of peace. Furthermore, an independent body to ensure that Israel keeps its end of the bargain would be as valuable as physically stopping Hamas. Anyone who has studied Northern Ireland should know as much.

Up until recently Israel has (IMO of course) acted with great restraint.

Restraint, because they haven't executed everyone who crossed their path? I'm sorry, but nothing short of the full and unconditional withdrawal from palestine constitutes "restraint" when Israel is an occupying power.

When they have injured or killed civilians in the course of hunting down militants they have apologized and even tried to make amends.

Apologies are cheap. What are those amends you speak of?

Furthermore, it is well known that the IDF's internal investigations are complete white-washes. Less than a handful of soliders have been punished for killing civilians during the second intifada...

The US reacted the same way in Afghanistan after 3000-odd American deaths. They were much less discriminating when striking enemy targets and prepared to accept more collateral deaths than in the Gulf war for example.

Well, the US did work WITH a small part of the afgan goverment. I don't know how legal this goverment was, but it is clear that it is more popular than the talibans....

Not terribly noble mind you but with more dead on your own side comes a greater urgency in surpressing those responsible. I very much doubt other countries would behave differently if faced with a similar situation.

Maybe, but a civilized country doesn't invade another country to steal its land either, does it? The last european country to do so was Nazi Germany, and most of us widely condemn the german aggression.

[Illyrien]

Felsh X

"because Europeans have taught Palestinians that violence is okay"


Oh, sure all Evil is the fault of the Europeans....lol, haha, now that is a "automatic response" if there ever was one.

Could you perhaps explain that point.

[Viking Berserk]

The israelians are the true terrorists. Time for people to finally get it!

[Felch]

Originally posted by Illyrien
Felsh X

"because Europeans have taught Palestinians that violence is okay"


Oh, sure all Evil is the fault of the Europeans....lol, haha, now that is a "automatic response" if there ever was one.

Could you perhaps explain that point.

Europeans have refused to condemn the Palestinians for their criminal undertakings, and have instead sided with them, even after they have murdered Israeli civilians intentionally.

If you offer moral support to a side that is using terrorism to acheive its aims, you are teaching them that violence is okay.

I admit that the US has done this a lot, in just about every country we meddle in. But the Palestinians are being supported by Europe, and Europe has to take the blame in this case.

[Viking Berserk]

LOL!!! America is the one to take the blame, they have supported israel with weapons. Have Europe supported Palestine with weapons? NO!

And the israelis are the true terrorists, so keep your fingers off your keyboard felch!

[DinoDoc]

You are a wierd one, Olaf.

[Viking Berserk]

who the f*** is olaf?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
who the f*** is olaf?

You silly! Your name is Olaf Fezorsonn. You are the Norwegien Fez after all and it only fair that you get a name befitting your title.

[Felch]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
But a scientist should not take ANYTHING on faith. Your proposed test doesn't actually give conclusive result.

Wow, who didn't see this stock answer coming out?

Sadly, no one is willing to pay me for my opinions. I'm paid to think about how to convert methane to methanol. (and this is why it is called the luxury of being a teenager)

It's not about doing this for a job, it's about doing this to be a better person. If you don't have the time to reconsider your opinions, then I fail to see how you can waste so much time posting the exact same responses over and over again.

? These villages were wiped out BY ISRAEL. With the express purpose of scaring other arabs into lfeeing the country!

Yep. So what's your point? The Arabs started the war, they bear the blame for anything that happened during the war. If they didn't want those villages destroyed, they shouldn't have invaded a militarily powerful country like Israel.

No terms. It is their land, they have the legal and moral right. If they carry out violence, they should be tried in a court of law.

Moral and legal rights have no meaning outside of Europe and the UN. The only way they can get their land back is by proving to the Israelis that it is in the Israeli best interest to allow them to return. They aren't about to convince the Israelis of that by killing Israeli civilians.

I've been through this argument a hundred times by now... I don't have the energy, but can cut and paste if you want.

Gee, thanks for disregarding the entire point behind what I said. You cut and pasted my comments so they would be out of context and impossible to understand, and then you said you'd heard them all before. Good job showing how mature you are in this debate, CG.

The PA arrested hundreds of Hamas members in the early to mid nighties, to the point where Amnesty International condemned the PA for jailing people without due process and for indefinite times. Check the EB, for example.

Every despot anywhere, who wants to show that he means business about terrorism, or the drug war, or anything else the United States cares about, just goes and arrests a bunch of political enemies. The fact that Amnesty International is condemning them for their failures in due process and indefinite jail terms proves many things.

• Arafat is a criminal dictator, and does not deserve any recognition as a leader.
• There is no way to be sure the prisoners were actually terrorists, since they were not given fair trials.
• Israel is not the only source for misery among the Palestinian people.

Not applicable. The native americans are a strawman.

They are not a strawman, they are an example of useless resistence against overwhelming military force. Don't try to debate with me, unless you're going to be serious, and actually read what I say.

OK, let me elaborate. De Gaulle led the armed struggle against the occupying germans. Under his leadership numerous german civilians were killed by the french resistance fighters, even more french collaborators were killed.

The vast majority of people consider De Gaulle and the french resistance heroes, since they fought for their independence from the occpying power. The palestinians are doing the EXACT SAME THING, but are condemned. For many years this was due to collective guilt over the holocaust, but most of the world has finally gotten over that part and realizes the moral right to resistance the palestinians have.

Israel is a democracy, Nazi Germany was not.

The Third Republic was a democracy, the Palestinian Authority is not.

A deal with Israel can be counted on, there could be no negotiation with the Nazis. This is because of a difference in motive - Nazis sought global conquest, Israel seeks security.

The Free French had the chance to win militarily, the Palestinian terrorists do not.

And - most importantly since you seem so dead set to ignore this - the French resistence did not intentionally target innocent German civilians. A German civilian who was assisting in the domination of France was not the same as an Israeli who tries to board a bus.

If you see no difference in fighting Nazi Germany and fighting Israel you are a sick and twisted individual, and I hope you grow up sometime.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
LOL!!! America is the one to take the blame, they have supported israel with weapons. Have Europe supported Palestine with weapons? NO!

And the israelis are the true terrorists, so keep your fingers off your keyboard felch!

Everytime you post anything you just prove what a gigantic tool you are. You know jack about America and you prove it everytime you come here. Please, leave the debate to people who have successfully kept their heads out of their asses.

[Ming]

Hey DinoDoc... read my warnings in this thread. You are one more post away from a restriction.

Added by Ming...
And that includes you too Felch X... I didn't see your post when I originally did this one.

[Sandman]

Why does Israel never use normal crowd control methods?

As an interesting side note, the new wall they're building is not entirely along the green line, but 'dips' into Palestinian territory, taking prime land away from them. No doubt the land will be confiscated due to it's 'underuse', when it's users can't even get to it without going through an Israeli Army checkpoint.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Felch X
Everytime you post anything you just prove what a gigantic tool you are. You know jack about America and you prove it everytime you come here. Please, leave the debate to people who have successfully kept their heads out of their asses.

Well I don't know about labelling Israelis terrorists over and above anyone else or laying all of the blame on Americas door but as an American I am upset about giving 3 billion dollars in aid to Israel yearly without any sort of revision process in place like in Britain where if equipment given is used outside of certain guidelines then a portion of that aid can be revoked. Actually I think we have a law on the books that does this in theory but I don't ever remember it being dusted off. It certainly would have been helpful to use when Bush was having trouble, or finding it impossible to reign in Sharon's actions.

I think American policy has placed a good amount of the blame on our doorstep.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Felch X
Yep. So what's your point? The Arabs started the war, they bear the blame for anything that happened during the war. If they didn't want those villages destroyed, they shouldn't have invaded a militarily powerful country like Israel.

By the declaration of Israeli independance, Israeli forces had already entered and stayed in arab partition areas. Arab nations only entered Palestine after the declaration and then only arab partition areas, except maybe Syria, not sure on this point. I can't say for sure whether further conflict led the Syrians or Egyptians into Jewish partition land but Jordanian forces stayed within the lines of the arab partition deliberately. We can argue of course but the point is the "facts" you spout are arguable and you seem guilty of many of the faults you claim CyberGnu has.

Deir Yassin, was a village that never resisted, it had in fact had a pact of peace with its neighbours. It was also in the arab partition. It was very deliberately wiped out.

What exactly are you arguing. You say palestinians deserve their fate because of bad moral choices made(?), ie, bombing civilians, refusing the 47 partition plan while you are willing to wave aside Israeli atrocities (I hope we can agree Deir Yassin happened and a number of other massacres) as par for the course (deliberate targeting of civilians?). Clarify your argument or admit that targeting of civilians doesn't really bother you as long as the side doing it has the power.