Why Israel kills so many civilians

I find it likely that the pictures are genuine, Claus. There are two points I would make though: (1) It's very easy to criticize from a position of dominance. Though tactics used by the Palestinian militants may be reprehensible and may mean that we have to look at casualty rates differently, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Palestinians do not have a just cause, overall. (2) We should also be critical of those pictures of supposedly Israeli kids writing on artillery shells.

I know this, ignoblus. Children fighting is nothing new, but older than I myself. It is not the same as using human shields, and the photos being genuine does not mean that they portray what is suggested in this context. From other reports it is evident that at least some Palestinian children choose to fight Israeli soldiers voluntarily, and against the wishes or orders of their parents, pretending to go to school and showing up at the exact same spot every morning to throw stones and go home when the bell rings. It is tragic and absurd, but under the current circumstances hardly enough to substantiate the headline "Why Israel kills so many civilians".

We should also be critical of those pictures of supposedly Israeli kids writing on artillery shells.

These photos, if true, do not prove anything, except that children are allowed or encouraged to write messages on shells.

Thanks, Yaasov. I enjoyed the accompanying comments as well.

To me it doesn't seem as if the children as being held their against their will, it seems more as if the children are watching out of sheer interest, and perhaps even support - something which would change the situation completely.

Would you say that those little Israeli girls writing messages on artillery shells ought to be killed too? Or are Israeli souls different?

Jimmy, you should do a little research before jumping to conclusions:

Shelly emphasized several times that none of the parents or children had expressed any hatred toward the Lebanese people. No-one expressed any satisfaction at knowing that Lebanese were dying - just as Israelis are dying. Their messages were directed at Nasrallah. None of those people was detached or wise enough to think: "Hang on, tank shell equals death of human beings." They were thinking, tank shell equals stopping the missiles that land on my house. Tank shells will stop that man with the turban from threatening to kill us.

None of those people was detached or wise enough to think: "Hang on, tank shell equals death of human beings."

You're saying they were all stupid?

Jimmy, to spell it out for you: "Tank shells equal death of bad guys who are trying to kill me, my mommy and my daddy." And Israelis, unlike you or Hezbollah, do not equate civillians to bad guys.

Got it. You're saying they aren't intelligent enough to realize what tank shells really do.

Are you suggesting that the children think that the shells will target the Palestinian civillians? Or perhaps that the children have the wisdom to think "Oh, wait, Hezbollah hides among the civillian population, so if bad guys will get hurt, so will civillians..."

Unlike Hamas and Hezbollah, the Israelis do not indoctrinate hatred into their young.

Circular reasoning:

Unlike Hamas and Hezbollah, the Israelis do not indoctrinate hatred into their young.

Therefore, the things those children were writing weren't hateful (no matter what they said).

Thanks for explaining.

Jimmy, you are so blinded by hate that you seem to be unable to understand simple points. Main idea of what I am saying is that those kids had no intention or desire to hurt civillians. They did wish harm upon the "bad guys", who are firing at Israel.

Two Zionists tell me I'm blinded by hate because I'm disgusted by little Zionist children being taught to hate. Go figure.

I understand what you are saying, Tentoglou. But to be fair, this would be the same as telling them not to wage war at all. I don't know if you come from or have visited the occupied territories, but it's a very small geographical area with sparse construction. Urban guerrilla tactics is the only practical way for a resistance to exist or operate. I think it would be more constructive to argue in favor of a process to end the entire conflict, which is saying a lot, history and circumstances considered.

Claus, I too understand what you are saying. But, also to be fair, there is a difference between fighting in a certain context (small geographical area with a large number of civillians) and using children and civillians as shields and warfare.

I too am in favor of a process to end the conflict. That is what I feel Israel is engaging in at the moment.

there is a difference between fighting in a certain context (small geographical area with a large number of civilians) and using children and civilians as shields and warfare.

Is the latter claim substantiated? I know the Israeli Supreme Court recently (about two years ago?) overruled IDF using Palestinian civilians as human shields. So far I haven't seen any evidence that Palestinians do this. The links provided and others I found searching for "Palestinian human shields" appear tendentious to say it mildly.

Yes, Claus, the only support I can find for Palestinians using kids this way are from partisan sources based on claims made by the IDF. One reason to suppose that such tactics are not employed is that other reporters haven't written about such things. However, it is not a certainty that they would. Several people have argued that reporters, in order to be allowed to report from such areas, must be agreeable to Hamas and are reliant upon guides who are under the threat of death. To some extent, it comes down to whether you believe the IDF -- personally, I think they are most often trustworthy even though heavily biased.

Killing terrorists would have to be Lebanon's most effective urban renewal policy.

Claus, what happened to your journalist ethics? You are distorting reality (or I am missing something): IDF was using people for negotiation and the court ruled that the consent these people gave to participate in negotiations can't be treated as real consent due to circumstances. This has nothing to do with using people as human shields. BBC should also be ashamed for the method of presentation. It has first line mentioning body shields with the picture of a soldier guiding a man into a building. Then if you read the story, this is about being able to ask Palestinians to negotiate with the militants before resorting to force with the purpose being their arrest.

nikitab, don't even begin with me.

Maybe it is as you say, my journalist ethics are tainted. But let me tell you straight, I am here in my own name, writing and seeding for no profit, and just being here puts my journalistic career at risk, so in a sane world I would be off to more promising pastures.

I don't known you, your name, your whereabouts or if anything you do or say, except that you pop up and bite me in the knee every once in a while as if you had somehow earned the right to do so. From my perspective, you have no ethics at all, because you have no accountability to anyone. You are just an anonymous little troll in a news forum who might one day aspire to be recognized as a real human being - your chances are better with me if you do not question my integrity. Now, run along...

I meant to write "if *you mean* anything you do or say"

Claus - 4.8.

I'm surprised it took you so long to figure out his little game.

Claus, nice: attack the messenger. Where am I wrong in accusing you of immoral twisting of reality? BTW, I said I might be missing something so you are perfectly welcome to correct me.

Unlike Rhine, I respect what you do. I think you put a lot of thought into your arguments and I am pretty sure that your intentions are good. I pointed out that you let your bias affect the clarity of your journalistic mind. Usually, while I disagree with you on many issues, you generally seem to be receptive to criticism (if it doesn't come from me). I think it was Danzel Washington who said in some movie "I am not questioning your patriotism, I am questioning your judgement".

Re: accountability - since when is not providing your complete credentials a pre-requisite for being taken seriously.

You seem to have taken my post as a personal attack. It wasn't . I sincerely apologize if I've hurt your feelings. My purpose was to point out the fact that your post (perhaps unintentionally) twisted reality in a very sick way. Am I wrong?

nikitab in 4.11,

Son, you seem to have a propensity for following me around. As for attacking the messenger, it looks hypocritical coming from you.

As for your statement,

Unlike Rhine, I respect what you do.

you sure have a twisted way of reasoning. I respect what Claus does, just not what you do. You simply resort to merry-go-round tactics and insults when you feel you are losing a debate. Thanks for that gratuitous link.

If I were Claus, I wouldn't even dignify your question with a response.

In case others didn't know, nikitab has been trying to troll Claus for quite a while now. He knows Claus is too much of a good guy to give him a beating that will leave him battered like this -- click Main->Me->Battered.

Rhine, the fact that you are still trolling despite the issue being very clear and Claus being clearly in the wrong simply shows the only interest you have is trolling. Pathetic.

Aaaalllrrrrrrrrright, here comes the final stage - insults. This is like watching the Jerry Springer show. Everything's cool in the beginning but you just know that the insults are just around the corner.

Man, you are so predictable.

Yaakov in 4.15.

Ok, sorry. I will refrain from responding to nikitab's trolling on this thread for now.

Filipino, that's an interesting point - I've never thought about that. Do you have any sources to back that up?

yes, it can take me 2 seconds to remove a mask and pick up a weapon -- common sense. instant terrorist to civilian.

Your thoughts and 'common sense' are not equivalent to evidence, The Filipino.

Ryan, while I agree with you to an extent, something that's that obvious probably does happen unless proven otherwise.

We could check demographics to verify this theory. If the assertion is indeed true, we may see a higher number of males among the victims.

nikitab, I understand what you're saying, but even so, I'm arguing that it may be 'obvious' enough for occasional occurances but not 'obvious' enough to represent a modus operandi of terrorist support gathering.

I suppose what i'm trying to say is this: There ARE real civillians dying left and right - therefore, there is no NEED for them to go through such a subterfuge, when there are plenty of victims easily mourned on the streets these days. This isn't a war of shadows; for them, it is out in the open. The numbers of the dead that are being reported are as expected, and rational, so (without evidence to the contrary) I have no reason to suspend belief that the person really was killed in the war in the first place.

Ryan, you know, for the number of shells and for the scale of the operation, I think there are significantly fewer casualties than would be expected when an army that is as strong as IDF gets involved in a war. I agree that there is collateral damage, but, given the relatively low (though no less tragic) numbers, it may be beneficial to Hamas to add to the numbers.

Do they do it? Is the "profit margin" large enough for them? I do not know.

In short, as nikitab suggested, I have examined the demographics, and found disproportionate numbers of men in the Lebanese casualties. RyanXP said that casualties have been as expected, but they haven't. Does this mean The Filipino is right, or only statistical anomalies?

In detail, according to Wikipedia the portion of Lebanon's population which is women and children (and the elderly, without the elderly, 61%) is more than 50% the much-bandied-about statistic of women and child deaths, in fact 68%. (Math is involved, 1,324,031 (women) / 2540769 (adults) * .664 (portion of total adult population) = 34.6% - portion of female adults of total population. 34.6% (women)+ 26.7% (kids) + 06.9% (elderly) = 68.2%)

This would suggest that men between the ages of 15 and 64 are disproportionately casualties in this conflict. This could suggest, as The Filipino suggested that possibly Hezbollah fighters, when injured or killed, are being returned to civilian dress to appear to be innocent civilians killed in the fighting. It is also possible that the Wikipedia figures are incorrect, the much-bandied-about figure of 50% women and children is incorrect, men are being targetted by Israel, men are more likely to have their deaths reported, or this is a statistical anomaly. Regardless, in order for Israel to be guilty of indiscriminate killing, 68% of civilian deaths must be women, children or the elderly.

It's tragic that anyone has to die, particularly innocent civilians, and even more particularly children, on either side. Israel's government does have a choice, its citizens or Lebanon's? I believe, at this point, that Israel should exercise more restraint, and withdraw immediately if a neutral party (UN, a European country) is willing to help root out Hezbollah and find Israel's soldiers in Israel's place.