Israeli Army Kills 8-Year-Old Palestinian Boy

[Ned]

CyberGnu,

You acknowledge that Hamas wants to destroy Israel and is deliberately disrupting the peace process. You also seeming state that the PA is for peace and against suicide bombing.

And yet, the Israeli's deliberately destroyed the PA's infrastructure because it was, according to them, being used to make bombs and plan attacks. In contrast, Israel has not attacked Hamas infrastructure. It limits its attacks to Hamas members that participate in attacks in one form or another.

If the PA is completely innocent as you suggest it is, then the Israeli attacks on the PA must be explained by motives other than suppressing terrorism. Thus your conclusion that the Likud is against peace.

However, how do you explain the evidence of active participation in terrorist activities that Israel uncovered when it took down the PA some months ago. Fabrication?

Methinks that you have to believe that the evidence was fabricated in order to continue in your position that the PA is innocent - right?

But on the original point of this thread, I find it unacceptable that the IDF is using live ammunition against crowds of children.

[DinoDoc]

I just had to call a spade, a spade.

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

It won't happen again. I honestly didn't see your warnings though.

[Jules]

Actually, I took Dino's remark to be in jest. Sheesh, we can't even kid around with each other anymore?

[Eli]

News :
Two Fatah and Hamas terrorists were killed in the Jenin refugee camp in a helicopter missile strike.

[lightblue]

Hmm, I have said it before and I'll say it again.

Any government which finds itself under attack by terrorist forces is allowed (or even forced to) retaliate in kind against these terrorists. If that causes collateral damage, so be it. Life is tough, deal with it...

That is my defense of the Israeli position.

Now the Pal position:

If people come and take your land and kill your kids because you happen to live within shootin range from a bunch of demented settlers who are so far from reality that they believe palestinians have no right to be on that land, you as a government (note freelance action is terrorism...) have the duty to protect your citizens. However you should not target civilian targets that have nothing to do with the clash points. If the settlers shoot at you, you shoot back.

The solution:

Complete withdrawal from the occupied terrotories by Israel, however if anything happens in the remainder of Israel in terrorist acts, the IDF has every right, and will be assisted by the PA, to bring the culprits to justice, even it results in collateral damage.

[Ned]

Lightblue, When there is a peace treaty, I believe it will require Israel to withdraw most of its settlements. However, I don't believe Israel needs to withdraw the settlements until the PA are willing to sign a peace treaty.

[Ming]

Neither side seems really interested in peace at this point in time... sigh...

[Sirotnikov]

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.

*cough*

Even palestinian researches of the Beir Zeit (iirc) university, reported that there were several bodies of "fighters" among the dead. They were infact, iirc, Iraqi commandos.


The war of 48 started in 47 when the arab states began sending rogue agents to organize the local community in designated israeli land for an upcoming war.

[Sirotnikov]

to explain myself better: I don't claim that Dier Yassin didn't end up being a massacare. I claim it wasn't meant to be, and that there was resistance.

[Sirotnikov]

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.

*sigh*
No where have I seen such a bold claim, trying to seriously declare armed conflict an atrocity, besides some philosophy lessons. There is absolutely no basis for it.

However, you claim that it is completely moral to consider every (israeli) civilian a potencial soldier and thereby kill him.

Your chemistry grade must be pretty high to counter them low grades in ethics and philosophy you ought to be getting.

You again and again prove you lack of knowledge of the morality and laws of war.

I've recently laid my hands upon a good hebrew book on the matter, which gave me insights into how great philosophers have analyzed armed conflict.

I suggest you pick up a similar book too. I can give you several sources out of the bibliography of my book, which you can read. Otherwise, talking to you is like discussing monotheism with a pagan.

[Sirotnikov]

Neither side seems really interested in peace at this point in time... sigh...

In every Israeli party, the leading candidates are the relative doves.

In Labour it's Mitzna (my mayor).
In Likkud it's Sharon (dovish compared to Nethanyahu's statements)
Shas is about to be reduced because it's voters public thinks it's gone too right wing.

[Felch]

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

Ming, he's full of it. I'm willing to deal with CG, but that Viking Berserk guy is just another troll without a clue.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Clarify your argument or admit that targeting of civilians doesn't really bother you as long as the side doing it has the power.

I think the blame for anything that happens during a war falls squarely on the shoulders of whoever started the conflict. I've looked deeper at what you mentioned, and found that Dier Yassin was about a month before the start of the 1948 was though, so I would say that it was Israel's fault. Sirotnikov seems to know more about it than I do though.

A few years before Dier Yassin, Allied bombers intentionally murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in Germany and Japan. Even today there are occupational forces in those two countries. However, I would be deeply dismayed if Japanese or German terrorists carried out attacks on the US mainland in retaliation for the "unlawful occupation." There are consequences for initiating the use of force, and one of those is that you get no sympathy when you lose. The Arabs initiated the use of force against Israel, according to every source that I've found. The first of these is generally pro-Palestinian, the second is pro-Israel, the third is a Christian pro-Zionist source, and the last is the BBC.

http://www.zmag.org/shalom-meqa.htm

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/refugees.html

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/independence.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/timeline/1948.stm

[Eli]

http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/1125-2.stm

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sandman
Why does Israel never use normal crowd control methods?

Perhaps because they never deal with normal crowds.

[CyberGnu]

Felch:

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

?

"Peter, what is 2 + 2?"

"4"

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

If an answer is right, it is right...

It's not about doing this for a job, it's about doing this to be a better person.

And wasting my time constantly reevaluating the same issue makes me a better person how?

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.

Well, what can I say... I'm an idealist on occasion.

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.

Umm, actually, Israel started the war by springing into existance... You've basically bought into the idea of accepting a fait accompli.

Moral and legal rights have no meaning outside of Europe and the UN.

And this is exactly what I've been saying the whole time. Only civilized nations follow moral and legal rules. Israel is far from civilized, and we should do our best to condemn Israels behaviour, not to mention boycotting it economically and politicially.

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.

The RoR, you mean? We both know that Israel is never going to accept the RoR, so that is a moot point anyway... And since these people know that Israel stole their land and isn;t intending to give it back, what do they have to lose by fighting?

Only by giving the something to live for can one end this conflict.

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.

No, the problem is that I;ve had this discussion before, and I don't have unlimited time.

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.

Actually, the vast majority were arrested becasue Israel pointed them out.

There are some excellent books on the subject, I could probably recommend one or two if you'd like.

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.

In every other debate on ME a pro-Israeli drags out the old Native American strawman. The US commited horrible crimes against the native americans. This was a long time ago, however, when the US wasn't civilized. Since then the nation has matured, and has apologized and doing it's best to compensate the descendants.

If the US was doing the same thing today, then you would have a valid argument, but it isn't.

(Oh, and for the "an example of useless resistence against overwhelming military force" part: Are you saying that the native americans shouldn;t have resisted? They should have meekly let themselves be slaughtered instead?)

Israel is a democracy, Nazi Germany was not.

Hitler was democratically elected. Furthermore, while he remained in power by undemocratic means, the historians agree that if he allowed elections he would have won by a landslide up until 1944.

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

The third republic?

The PA is democratic, however. Yassir Arafat was democratically elected, as certified by an international body of observers. Or you can ask Siro about it, he made a complete ass of himself on this exact question about a month ago.

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.

And I disagree. Israel seeks conquest: Why else would they increase the settlements? Why else would they continually inflame the situation?

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

? The german army crushed the french in less than two weeks. What military chance did Free France have? They could only hope for outside internvetion - exactly the same position the palestinians are in.

And - most importantly since you seem so dead set to ignore this - the French resistence did not intentionally target innocent German civilians.

They sure did. Policestations, railroads, administratinal buildings, even german field bordellos were targets. All of them populated by german civilians. Bombings of bars popular among the germans also occured.

A German civilian who was assisting in the domination of France was not the same as an Israeli who tries to board a bus

I disagree. An Israeli trying to board the bus is at the very least paying taxes which supports the IDF. He might also be working in industry directly supporting the IDF, such as food, fuel or arms manufacturing/transportation.

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.

If that is the best arguement you have, you have already lost... And I think you know it.