Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
advertisement
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Yaakov's column >>

YAAKOV

Home Page
Ponderings and Links on Israel and Jewish Issues and Technology
Articles Posted: 72  Links Seeded: 601
Member Since: 1/2006  Last Seen: 12/04/2011

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

When a Civilian is no longer a Civilian

Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:50 AM EST
world-news, israel, terrorism, women, palestinians, muslims, terrorist, arabs, civilians, missiles
By Yaakov

Live Poll

If your city was being targetted by the rockets, what would you expect your government to do in the scenario described in the article?

View Results
  • 6320
    Fire back if no civilian bodyguards will be hurt
    21%
  • 6321
    Fire back. If the bodyguards are hurt, too bad
    9%
  • 6322
    Fire back. Anyone acting as bodyguard is fair game
    55%
  • 6323
    None of the above
    15%

VoteTotal Votes: 33

Live Poll

How should we classify a woman who willingly chooses to act as a human shield to protect a terrorist?

View Results
  • 6328
    She is a civilian
    29%
  • 6329
    She is a combatant, lower level than the terrorist
    32%
  • 6330
    She is a combatant, equal to the terrorist
    32%
  • 6331
    None of the above
    6%

VoteTotal Votes: 34

Live Poll

In the scenario described in this article, how should Israel react?

View Results
  • 6332
    Fire back if no civilian bodyguards will be hurt
    27%
  • 6333
    Fire back. If the bodyguards are hurt, too bad
    10%
  • 6334
    Fire back. anyone acting as bodyguard is fair game
    47%
  • 6335
    None of the above
    17%

VoteTotal Votes: 30

advertisement

I recently posted a seed (Palestinians form human shield to protect home from Israeli air strike) which detailed the following events:

  1. Israel located Mohammedweil Baroud, a commander in the Popular Resistance Committees in charge of firing Kassam rockets at Israel (a number of these hare fired every day, and have been over the past year+, aimed at cities, with the intention of killing, injuring, maiming and disrupting the lives of Israeli civilians).
  2. The IDF gave warning that in half an hour they would destroy this terrorist's house. As the house was a suspected weapons storage facility, the warning was given to allow civilians to leave before the weapons were destroyed. The intention was to avoid unnecessary casualties (something that is not reciprocal in this case).
  3. A call was put out in the surrounding neighborhood, and a crowd of "civilians" gathered around the house, chanting things like "Yes to martyrdom. No to surrender".
  4. Israel called off the air strike. The crowd claimed victory and the weapons stored in the house survived another day.

In the referenced seed, I wrote that Anyone who is there is accessory to acts of terrorism, is freely and willingly helping those who would like to massacre Jews, and is therefore as much of a threat to Israel as those who are pulling the triggers. If they want to be martyrs, who are we to get in their way?. Almost all of the comments in response to this were either in support of the Palestinians, angry at my comments, or against the Palestinian actions but appreciative of Israel's restraint.

I would like to illustrate a scenario that I believe to be very realistic given the new Palestinian strategy of civilians willingly acting as human shields to protect the terrorists who shoot missiles at Israeli civilians. Imagine that Hamas and their associates enact the following policy:

  • Any commander or fighter affiliated with their organization will always be located among no less than 5 women, who will be at his side at all times.
  • They will be in close enough proximity that if Israel tried to get at him, at least some of them would die.
  • All of the women would be there willingly, believing that their actions in protecting the Hamas people is there way of fighting against Israel
  • Israel has very good intelligence as to the whereabouts of these terrorists, and is able to strike them with precision. If they do so, some or all of the women "bodyguards" will die

What should Israel do?

If Israel does nothing, then 5-10 missiles will be shot at Israeli cities every day. They will hit kindergartens, day care facilities, hospitals, shopping malls and busy intersections. Israeli civilians will die or be maimed for life (as happened a few days ago, when a woman was killed and a man lost both legs from a kassam missile that hit Sederot. They were walking on the street at the time). Hamas, etc, will not hold back from firing these missiles. The opposite will happen. The fact that Israel holds back from responding to these attacks will only encourage them that their course of actions is the right strategy to weaken Israeli resolve (and kill more Jews). The UN may condemn them, they may not get their funding, the Quarter may praise Israel for their restraint, but Israeli civilians will die with increasing frequency, and Israel will have failed in her role of defending Israeli citizens.

If Israel shoots back at the kassam missile squads, their commanders, their weapons silos and factories, their moneymen and their associates, for every terrorist killed, 3-5 women "bodyguards" will be killed as well. After a week of constantly targeting these terrorists, the main organizers will move underground (since they can no longer count on their women bodyguards to protect them from Israeli fire), kassam rocket production will slow down, and an opening will be given to those in power to try to reverse the violent trend and put an end to the missiles. (For as long as they are firing these missiles at Israel every day, they are viewed as heroes, and although it is extremely detrimental to the chances at reaching any kind of theoretical peaceful resolution, any moderate political elements in Gaza are powerless to stop them).

I am personally of the opinion that if a civilian actively and willingly goes to defend a terrorist (who I am defining in this case as someone who actively takes part in planning or executing violent operations aimed at killing Israeli civilians), they lose the status of "civilian" and are to be considered as much of a legitimate target as the people that they are defending. Although Israel should still try to avoid injuring or killing these people, their presence should in no way prevent Israel from trying to kill the people who are directly responsible for targeting Israeli cities and civilians. They made the choice to step onto the "field of battle". They must accept the consequences, if it comes to that. Otherwise, Israeli civilians will pay with their own lives.

(Disagree? Then please explain why these people can still claim protection as "civilians" when they are designating themselves as soldiers. Also, for those who say that Israel has no right to shoot at terrorists when these so-called "civilians" are present, imagine that your own city was being targeted by these "home-made rockets" and this scenario had nothing to do with Israelis and Arabs. Would you still have the same opinion?)

Although this scenario may be restricted to Israel right now, if it proves successful against the IDF, then there is no reason to think that it, as suicide bombing and airplane hijacking have already done, will not spread to other areas of the world where terrorism is prevalent today (or will be tomorrow). The ethics of the situation are complex, but it behooves us to define exactly where the line between civilian ends, and combatant begins. In this case though, I think that the answer is fairly obvious.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Yaakov's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Global War on Terror, Israel Talk, Worldviews
  • Regions: Israel
  • Public Discussion (98)
the egyptian

Hey Yaakov. I've just written an article on this from a slightly different perspective. Looking forward to what you have to say about it: http://egyptian.newsvine.com/_news/2006/11/20/449651-in-defense-of-human-shields.

    Reply#1 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:46 AM EST
    Killfile

    Yakov -- at the end of the day Israel is fighting a Hydra. While I'm sure that bombing, shooting, or killing the leaders of Hamas makes the Israelis feel proactive, I have serious doubts that it is in any way effective as a means of stopping the attacks.

    The Hamas leadership can certainly co-ordinate attacks: yes. But the river of supplies going into the territories will continue with them alive or dead. The terrorists/fighters who use those weapons will continue to fire them be their leadership alive or dead and the bombs and rockets will continue to fall on Israel be those leaders alive or dead.

    In the end, I just don't see striking at Hamas leadership as terribly effective in stopping the attacks.

    Israel is fighting a guerrilla war at this point. Death is not a deterrent in this case and it would seem that it doesn't seem to destabilize the Hamas organization either. Whenever Hamas manages to out-bluff Israel and forces them to halt attacks, Hamas claims a victory.

    How is this helping? Would it really help Israel if they dropped the bombs?

    I think this is a game that Israel can win only by refusing to play.

    • 6 votes
    Reply#2 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:48 AM EST
    Yaakov

    The Hamas leadership can certainly co-ordinate attacks: yes. But the river of supplies going into the territories will continue with them alive or dead. The terrorists/fighters who use those weapons will continue to fire them be their leadership alive or dead and the bombs and rockets will continue to fall on Israel be those leaders alive or dead

    I disagree with your assessment. The advantage of the hydra is that it can regrow its heads. The parallel in terms of Hamas are the people who blow themselves up and launch the missiles. However, even the hydra is defeated if you kill the brains. The same thing here.

    I think this is a game that Israel can win only by refusing to play.

    Please see my comment below (3.1). If Israel should "refuse to play", how does this help the people in Sderot and Ashkelon? What is your solution to that?

    • 1 vote
    #2.1 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:24 AM EST
    Killfile

    Yaakov -- the solution isn't clear yet, but I think we can say pretty categorically that what's being done isn't solving the problem. How many times has Israel killed a top ranking Hamas militant this year?

    How is that strategy working out for Israel?

    Palestinians are second class citizens in Israel. It sucks but it's true. What if Israel just stopped treating them as such. What if she took down the fences, got rid of the various settlement restrictions, stopped taking people's land and just generally stopped treating the Palestinians as second class citizens?

    I can't imagine it would be all that much worse than it is right now.

    Guerrilla warfare tends to peter out once the impetus for the resistance goes away.

    • 6 votes
    #2.2 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:59 AM EST
    FL Independent

    Arent they treated as second class citizens because of how they act, ie suicide bombers? I would stop all the restrictions until they show they can be trusted. Trust must be earned both ways.

    • 1 vote
    #2.3 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:20 PM EST
    Yaakov

    Killfile:

    How many times has Israel killed a top ranking Hamas militant this year? How is that strategy working out for Israel?

    That's exactly the problem. They are not going after the high ranking people. If they did, there would be results.

    • 1 vote
    #2.4 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:55 PM EST
    Killfile

    Yaakov - I can't place the sources, but I recall several times that Israel has fired into buildings and residential areas trying to hit a high ranking militant. Of course I'm not in the thick of it and have followed that news only in passing -- are those not strikes against high level operatives? How does Israel justify hitting a car in a residential area (at great risk to many civilians) for some low level grunt?

    • 3 votes
    #2.5 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:04 PM EST
    Reply
    the egyptian

    Also-- although you may find this incredibly obvious-- I disagree with your assessment of what happens if Israel does or does not fire on the militants who are attacking it. What you have written as occuring should Israel do nothing is what is happening right now, while Israel is pursuing an extremely aggressive campaign in the territories to end terrorism. The campaign has been ineffective and has failed to do anything to stop terrorism, something I would think of as self-evident given the fact that you live in Israel and have seen the terrorism go up, not down, since Olmert began his Gaza and West Bank offensives. Similarly, what you have written as occuring should Israel "shoot back" (which is itself incorrect because Israel is not shooting back at rocket launchers but destroying their homes and killing them from above several hours or even days later) is also incorrect. I believe, and again I believe this is self-evident, that if Israel "shoots back" all it does is create more angry Palestinians who are willing and able to return violence with violence.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#3 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:50 AM EST
    Yaakov

    while Israel is pursuing an extremely aggressive campaign in the territories to end terrorism

    It's funny that you should say that. The perspective "on the ground" here is that the IDF is being very unaggressive, relying solely on firing back from helicopters and artillery instead of actually going in with troops and clearing up the missile factories (like they did in Jenin in 2002). People here would agree with your assessment that it has failed, but would blame not its intent and methods, but rather its lack of aggressiveness and intensity.

    (which is itself incorrect because Israel is not shooting back at rocket launchers but destroying their homes and killing them from above several hours or even days later)

    Israel is shooting at rocket launchers, at the homes of people affiliated with the terrorist groups, at homes used for weapons storage and at the locations where they are produced. And as this event demonstrated, when they are aiming for a weapons storage facility, they are warning people in advance, so as to avoid killing people.

    I believe, and again I believe this is self-evident, that if Israel "shoots back" all it does is create more angry Palestinians who are willing and able to return violence with violence.

    I hear what you are saying (and what others are saying along very similar lines). Every time I hear this, I have the same response: What should Israel do in response to the daily bombardment of Sderot by terrorists who are hoping to kill as many schoolchildren and civilians as possible? And if your answer is that Israel should just extend the olive branch and hope for the branch, I challenge you to show why this strategy will work in this case, when in the past it has done nothing other than encourage Israel's attackers.

    • 4 votes
    #3.1 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:13 AM EST
    the egyptian

    What should Israel do in response to the daily bombardment of Sderot by terrorists who are hoping to kill as many schoolchildren and civilians as possible?

    To be honest, I think that if Israel wants to do "something" it should send ground troops in to arrest militants and bring them back to Israeli courts for trial. This may result in increased casualties for the IDF but I think as a long-term strategy it allows Israel to claim the moral high ground. The policy of killing militants from the sky-- militants who most Palestinians think are legitimate freedom fighters-- is extremely counterproductive and only further radicalizes the populace.

    • 1 vote
    #3.2 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:37 AM EST
    Yaakov

    To be honest, I think that if Israel wants to do "something" it should send ground troops in to arrest militants and bring them back to Israeli courts for trial.

    Then you are in agreement with the majority of the Israeli public. (Not that that means anything regarding what will actually happen).

    You do realize though that Israel sending in ground troops to arrest "militants" will results in armed conflict, more deaths, more "massacres" or human shields...

    • 3 votes
    #3.3 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:45 AM EST
    Reply
    Oluseye

    Yaakov this raises a serious moral issue. It depends on what perspective you start out with. If you already see Israeli actions occupying those lands as a major part of the problem, you would be sympathetic to people acting this way. if you see it as an act of terror, and subscribe to Israeli anti-terrorism viewpoints you will see it as them being accessories.

    Because it is not clear-cut one must give credit to the IDf for backing out on that action. It provides a dilemma. Here's why it is a dilemma. You can not wish away the natural instincts of people to protect their own. It took a lot of bravery for these people to do what they did, and in the end it is about these people, their land, their community against a foreign threat. Just the same way that people in your community Yaakov would protect the guys who did the Qana Massacre if they were under threat from a Palestinian terror attack.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#4 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:24 AM EST
    Yaakov

    You can not wish away the natural instincts of people to protect their own

    I agree. But at a certain point, when their instinct to "protect their own" results in the deaths of "my own", then their bravery is criminal in my book.

    Just the same way that people in your community Yaakov would protect the guys who did the Qana Massacre if they were under threat from a Palestinian terror attack.

    Do you really see Israel trying to blow up a weapons cache and backing off civilians show up as parallel to Palestinians trying to maximize the deaths of Israeli citizens?

    • 2 votes
    #4.1 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:49 AM EST
    Oluseye

    No I don't see Israel doing that but I don't see Israel prosecuting or even demonising the guys behind the Qana incident. They're not unpopular for what they did.

    • 2 votes
    #4.2 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:18 PM EST
    Reply
    Babar Ali

    I understand that being Israeli is a bias in writing this opinion, but I simply can not understand how you are making the IDF to be the upright and morally superior force in this conflict. As a matter of fact, Israel has committed more atrocities and war crimes than anyone since Hitler (although the Pres. of Darfur is trying to catch up to that... sorry, tangent). The humanatarian crisis going on the occupied territories is getting out of hand. I'm not sure if you've ever been to a refugee camp, but the lives that those people are subjected to is inhumane in every way possible. And keep in mind that this is already the 3rd generation that has never known what it is to live in peace, to not know if your family, friends, and neighbors will be dead the next day. Sanctions and other action by the UN have been consistently blocked by ONE veto (I'll let you guess which country) for political reasons, so please don't make it look like Israel is the beacon of peace and goodwill in the MidEast.

    I know your argument is that Israel is defending itself from the rocket attacks, and I agree that a few militants are causing retaliation on a whole bunch of people, but I also find it difficult to swallow that they should after nearly 60 years just roll over and die.

    It is cherry-picking events to say that Israel is so humane in conflict that they warn the people just before flattening their homes. How many civilians were killed in the last invasion of Gaza? And who are you classifying as a "Terrorist" or "Militant" in this situation?... anyone that is anti-Israeli? or simply anyone of them that won't just go away? This issue has more than one side to it, and asserting Israel is on the moral high-ground is absurd.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#5 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:47 AM EST
    Yaakov

    Israel has committed more atrocities and war crimes than anyone since Hitler

    Would you care to document this most serious allegation?

    The humanatarian crisis going on the occupied territories is getting out of hand. I'm not sure if you've ever been to a refugee camp, but the lives that those people are subjected to is inhumane in every way possible.

    I have not. Have you? If so, can you please compare the lives of "refugees" in Gaza with "refugees" in Syria? From what I have read, the ones in Syrian have a much worse lot.

    And why exactly have they been kept in these camps for three generations?

    Sanctions and other action by the UN have been consistently blocked by ONE veto (I'll let you guess which country) for political reasons

    Excuse me? And you mean to say that the sanctions and condemnations were not for political reasons? Everything is political in the UN, and the Arab bloc (and their oil) carries alot of weight.

    so please don't make it look like Israel is the beacon of peace and goodwill in the MidEast.

    OK, so who is the beacon of peace and good will in the MidEast?

    I agree that a few militants are causing retaliation on a whole bunch of people, but I also find it difficult to swallow that they should after nearly 60 years just roll over and die.

    No one is asking them to roll over and die. What we are asking them to do is to admit that they are not going to destroy all of Israel, admit that Israel exists and that they cannot change that fact, and because Israel exists, that they are not going to get all of the land here. Then work out a compromise on the land, and try to live in peace. The ongoing conflict comes down to the fact that they still cannot get over the fact of Israel's existence, and would rather maintain hate and war, than try to go on with their lives.

    How many civilians were killed in the last invasion of Gaza?

    Many fewer than would have been killed if the NATO or US troops would have been the ones going in, I can assure you that.

    And who are you classifying as a "Terrorist" or "Militant" in this situation?... anyone that is anti-Israeli?

    See above for my definition. It is not anyone who is anti-Israel. People are entitled to be anti-Israel. They are not entitled to seek the deaths of Israeli citizens, or attempt to injure and terrorize Jews and Israelis for political gains.

    • 3 votes
    #5.1 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:57 AM EST
    Reply
    Babar Ali

    Yaakov,

    Would you care to document this most serious allegation?

    Well, it is not difficult to find records of these war crimes and atrocities, and although I think you already know this, I'll go ahead and indulge you.

    BBC News

    American Conservative Talk show host, Hal Turner (i've personally never listened to him, but beware of graphic content.
    British Paper, The Sunday Times.
    Central Rabbinical Congress of USA and Canada.
    Another BBC News article.
    Regarding UN recognition of Israel War Crimes...

    I could go on, but you have Google at your fingertips.

    I have not. Have you? If so, can you please compare the lives of "refugees" in Gaza with "refugees" in Syria? From what I have read, the ones in Syrian have a much worse lot.

    And why exactly have they been kept in these camps for three generations?

    I spent this summer working in refugee camps in Kashmir (another mess), and from what I hear it is nothing compared to the Palestinian camps.
    As for why they are in the camps?... well, basically because they were kicked out and put there. I thought that much was clear.

    OK, so who is the beacon of peace and good will in the MidEast?

    You can look at a lot of Gulf states for that UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar... any one that isn't war-torn by Colonialism or Israel basically.

    As for your other points, negotiations for partition of the land have been tried well before the intifada, and before the violence. The Knesset essentially got greedy and abused it's position of power in negotiations and disagreed with UN and other international proposals. So it is unlikely that they will change overnight and agree to anything at this point. Negotiating with Israel is essentially a fruitless cause, so the refugees rightly got upset about this and turned violent. What would you do?

    There are no political gains in attacking Israel, unless you count survival to be political.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#6 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:48 PM EST
    Yaakov

    Babar Ali - For every one of your gruesome graphic pictures of Arab children, I could show you others of Jews who were killed, maimed and injured in bus bombings. You still have done nothing to show that "Israel has committed more atrocities and war crimes than anyone since Hitler".

    And apprently you have not even read the links that you posted. The link that came from the Central Rabbinical Congress of USA and Canada (an extremely anti-Zionist organization, definitely not mainstream) is protesting...the Israeli government digging up and relocating thousands year old Jewish graves in order to make room for construction. And this is one of your main examples why Israel has committed more atrocities and war crimes than anyone since Hitler?

    Nice try. Your accusations are disgusting and backed up by nothing.

    As for why they are in the camps?... well, basically because they were kicked out and put there. I thought that much was clear.

    Nope. not so clear. You may call them "kicked out". I call them the losers when the Arab countries ganged up to destroy Israel in 1948 and 1967. And Israel is not locking them in. The other Arab countries have kept them there, part of a 60 year political agenda of keeping the heat on Israel.

    And since you have Google at your fingertips, there is no need for me to go on about this.

    Negotiating with Israel is essentially a fruitless cause, so the refugees rightly got upset about this and turned violent. What would you do?

    Obviously Israel is to blame for every failed negotiation that has happened in the past, since their negotiating partners always made such good-faith efforts at achieving peace, and have always been free about admitting that they accept the fact that Israel exists, and no longer desire to destroy Israel.

    • 3 votes
    #6.1 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:02 PM EST
    Babar Ali

    if you ask for sources, i'll give them to you. but then you'll have problems of "oh, not those sources, they don't work for me." they are out there, amongst thousands and thousands of others.

    if you want more war crime examples relating to why i compare the atrocities to that of Hitler, look at your former PM Sharon's actions. even the Israeli's recognize this man's actions against his enemies in Lebanon to have been ruthless, inhumane, cruel, and just plain savage, kicking him out of the defense cheif spot and banning him for life. but then he gets elected as PM... amazing! a death sentence would have been more appropriate.

    the Arab countries are keeping the Palestinians in the camps? why? how? Because they won't absorb them into their own population?... maybe it's because the Palestinians already have a homeland and should be there!... just maybe.

    Hitler too walled off his domestic enemies into camps and killed them if they tried to resist, saying they are a threat to the nation.

    I'm not saying that it is exactly the same, but i expect better from a people who know what it is like to be on the other end.

    • 3 votes
    #6.2 - Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:22 PM EST
    ignoblus

    Hal Turner is a white supremacist. Just don't link to him. There is never anything he says that's worth repeating that can't be found elsewhere. How is it that you came across that link?

      #6.3 - Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:46 PM EST
      Babar Ali

      google. i never heard of him before that.

        #6.4 - Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:01 PM EST
        ignoblus

        Each time you link to him, he'll be a little higher in the google rankings. Take care of your sources. Not only does it help you preserve your credibility, but it I doubt you'd like to promote someone who'd like both of us dead. I recently seeded this article that discusses the interactions of contemporary discourse on the far left, far right, and islamist right. Well worth reading, despite its length, for anyone interested in maintaining a sensible discourse that doesn't teach hate.

          #6.5 - Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:27 PM EST
          Yaakov

          Babar Ali -

          if you ask for sources, i'll give them to you. but then you'll have problems of "oh, not those sources, they don't work for me." they are out there, amongst thousands and thousands of others.

          Please show me your sources. So far, I have not been convinced that you did anything more than copy the first 5 links that came at the top of a Google search. One was to a white supremacist. Another was to a document with the words "Israel Atrocity" in the title, that had absolutely nothing to do with the point you were trying to prove. And then English tabloids...

          So please, indulge me. I would loke to see the "thousands and thousands" of other sources that you have.

          • 1 vote
          #6.6 - Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:43 PM EST
          Reply
          Lucid

          I understand your point of view, but as regards the poll, I really think you should make an attempt to present the poll questions in a more nuetral manner. The goal of taking one is to get an idea of what people think, not to gather support for your own opinion by skewing the poll question. Standing in front of someone who is about to be shot is not the same as being their bodyguard.

          Incidentally, I totally disagree with comparisons between Israel and Hitler's Germany. I think that people have gotten so worked up over what's going on, that some conclusions are being reached as far as Israel's conduct that are not appropriate. I have a real problem with Israel's actions, but I haven't seen anything to support that correlation

          Nonetheless, I think the real problem here is what I have maintained all along, an ever-worsening issue of escalation.

          As Israel attempts to deal with these problems with force, it strengthens its enemy.

          • 3 votes
          Reply#7 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:47 PM EST
          Yaakov

          Standing in front of someone who is about to be shot is not the same as being their bodyguard.

          It is when your presence helps protect them from being shot (as was exactly the case the other day).

          As Israel attempts to deal with these problems with force, it strengthens its enemy.

          So I will ask you my favorite question: how should Israel respond to daily rocket attacks aimed at killing Israeli citizens?

          • 1 vote
          #7.1 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:58 PM EST
          Brian WhiteDeleted
          kandid

          "how should Israel respond to daily rocket attacks aimed at killing Israeli citizens?"

          By doing justice, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with God (as the scriptures put it). Less poetically, Israel should respond to daily rocket attacks by undercutting in the long term the reasons why people become terrorists.

          This will not work in the short term, but then nothing works in the short term.

          Hopelessness breeds terrorism, so asking the Palistinians to stop terrorism first before changing behavior so as to give them hope is just never going to work. Israel is in the position of power (militarily) and it is up to her to change first.

          I do not deny Isarel's right to defend itself. But I do deny that Isarel should continue acting unjustly and causing people to suffer.

          • 3 votes
          #7.3 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:50 PM EST
          Oluseye

          Thank you for this, thank you.

            #7.4 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:15 PM EST
            cleareyes

            So I will ask you my favorite question: how should Israel respond to daily rocket attacks aimed at killing Israeli citizens?

            Ha I can see it is and it's quite a hard one to answer. Well lets look at firing back vs. doing nothing. Both ways rockets are still being fired at Israel. Israel can not completely stop the arms trade into Palestine without shutting down the entire area of land. Since that is not possible, rockets will continue to be fired. There is also the fact that by firing back, Israel is creating more anti-Israeli Palestinians. So by firing back it is a sure bet that Israel is increasing the army against them. Yet by not firing back, there is at least the hope that moderate Palestinians to be heard. I know how you can't sit back and that let rockets just be fired in. But by firing back, you are just continuing the violence and hence, making more rockets fly into Israel. Now if you want more rockets, well then Israel is on the right track. But don't make it seem that firing back at Palestine is helping peace or even helping the situation of rockets being fired at Israel.

              #7.5 - Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:59 AM EST
              NikitaB

              cleareyes, are you familiar with statistics concerning the number of rockets fired before and after Israeli offensives?

              • 1 vote
              #7.6 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:44 AM EST
              cleareyes

              Even if numbers go down, it is only temporary. Firing back is still increasing Israels problem in the long run.

                #7.7 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:22 PM EST
                NikitaB

                can you prove that?

                • 1 vote
                #7.8 - Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:16 AM EST
                Reply
                lycan

                You know Yakov, I would love to get into the middle of this, but I tend not to get into any Chicken or egg type of arguments.
                Arabs think that jews stole the land/Jew think that arabs stole the land.
                Arabs think thet they are attacking the enemy to preserve thier way of life/Jew think that too.
                Arabs dont hate Jewish people but hate the Jewish state/Jew don't hate arabs but hate arab states.
                Arabs don't like the collateral damage but think it is necessary/Jews don't like the collateral damage but think it is necessary.
                Arabs think they are on God's side/Jews think they are on God's side.

                I'm telling you, this could be very confusing for outsiders. but you and I know how this will end. It's in our scripture, if you are into that kind of thing.

                But I like your article nonetheless, even though I disagree with it. Like I said, I will not get into a chicken egg conversation.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#8 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:12 PM EST
                Brian White

                The egg was first ;)

                  #8.1 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:29 PM EST
                  lycan

                  LOL

                    #8.2 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:40 AM EST
                    Reply
                    categorythree

                    Hey Yakov,

                    You have really backed yourself into a corner with this strain of reasoning. Air strikes on civilian populations defy all known ethics and morality. To stop the "daily rocket attacks," one must in effect appeal to those who attack with missiles. Why not just return to the negotiating table or just simply launch a tactical nuke strike on Gaza. I mean why not just level the entire place, because the longer the military aspect of this conflict rages there probably will always be internal attacks on Israel. Launch a couple missiles at some civilians, whether by their momentary acts are shields or no, this will only increase the infamy of the conduct of the State of Israel, and of course bring about more rocket attacks.

                    People who have nothing or little to do with militias, Hamas, attacks or actions against the State of Israel are brought into the conflict by the response of the Israeli military, people who ordinarily would condemn attacks against the State of Israel. And then you have another child who takes up the rocket after his cousin was killed when he strayed to close to the Israeli Military rocket attack.

                    If the question is, how do we stop the rocket attacks, then one would have to say, cease the oppression and marginalization of the Palestinians. If the question is, how do we exact retribution for the ever annoying rocket attacks, then tit for tat rocket attacks back are the answer. Do you see the difference there, that's revenge approach vs an approach to peace approach, (redundant but it's ok).

                    The killing of a group of civilians who are standing as shields is a real problem, and would surely have been the worst decision that the military, actually any military, could have made. Look at all the heads that have rolled in the US over the killing of a family by US marines, of course this was highly vindictive, but is it not similar, would not the missile attack on 180 human shields been equally as brazen. Please take a look at the body count from Israeli military actions vs "the not Israelis." There is nearly over a 100:1 ratio in favor of the Israelis. Does that mean that those dang "not Israelis" are hanging out with the wrong crowd or that the military is super effective, or that the military takes a ballistic and not tactical stance. In this air-strike the potential for 100 plus deaths at one blow was averted. Could this individual been apprehended in another fashion with greater results? Does not the Israeli military control the entire border, shore and airspace above Gaza? Still you call for blood, why? If this action was taken for certain this would have been on the floor debate at the UN within a day, and universal condemnation would have followed. Easily the US congress could have similarly have cut the purse strings to the State of Israel in protest.

                    Still you provide excuses for more bloody actions, you present us with polls in order to create even more schism and dissent, I will not answer your malapropisms. For what? In the end, whenever it is, both sides will return to the table, that is clear. Why more blood when this situation could have been dealt with nearly 12 years ago. But no, an Israeli terrorist assassinated, and mind you this was not a Hamas terrorist or a Hezbollah or a Syrian, but an Israeli extremist militant assassinated the PM on the eve of peace. And here we are today debating whether an air strike on unarmed civilians is justified? Clearly the aggressive stance by Israel has been fruitless! Clearly the hard line governments of Israel have not been effective at bringing the Palestinians around to seeing the "nice" point of view that they cannot take over Israel. I have an idea, how about upholding existing land claims for the Palestinians, and make them full citizens of the State of Israel, not marginalized people living in squalor. That may have an effect! It might take some time but in the end equal treatment might actually stabilize the crisis. Would it not feel better to say, hey together we tore down the wall and planted a olive grove or started a desalination project to bring cleaner water to Gaza and its inhabitants?

                    • 5 votes
                    Reply#9 - Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:28 PM EST
                    pseudonihilist

                    Civilians are accidental, not purposeful. Broader, and not necessarily deeper, issues aside, if it places itself in a combat zone, it ceases to be a civilian. What could be simpler?

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#10 - Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:56 AM EST
                    Brian White

                    Since when are people referred to as "it"? And how does your rule apply when you're talking about residential neighborhoods? Where do you think the people should go to stay out of combat zones in Palestine?

                      #10.1 - Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:02 PM EST
                      Babar Ali

                      that line of thinking worked great in medieval times, when they had large square blocks of armies and the two sides met on an open field and fought it out to the last man standing. ahhh the good ol' days.

                      the "combat zone" you speak of is now THEIR HOMES!!!!... they were outside of a HOME. and i'm sure that home had other homes around it, known as a neighborhood, and neighborhoods have families with children.

                      that was one of the most ignorant statements i have seen on newsvine since... umm.. well, ok, there are some pretty ignorant people in here.

                      • 1 vote
                      #10.2 - Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:18 PM EST
                      Reply
                      Koozebane

                      Israel is fighting criminals. They may be politically or religiously motivated, but it all boils down to unlawfulness through murder and blackmail.

                      Crime will always be a part of society as long as free men and women are allowed to control their own fates. In a truly free society, murder can not be wiped out because the population must be free to make their own decisions, good.......or bad. Suppression to lower a death rate is no longer freedom.

                      Murder has not been wiped out after centuries of developing law enforcement techniques to combat killing and aid in bringing murderers to justice. This failure to end murder as we know it completely is NOT a reason to give up the fight and start using hydra analogies.

                      Murderers need to be brought to justice. And if they're using techniques of mass murder.....they need to be stopped by any means necessary. If murderers are being aided and protected while committing these crimes........those who personally give assistance are legally criminal and complicit in acts of murder. They share the guilt whether they pull the trigger or not.

                      • 3 votes
                      #11 - Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:27 PM EST
                      Killfile

                      Right, but Israel gets to make the laws too -- which does deflate somewhat the "criminals" angle. As Moore says in Utopia - what can be said but that you first create criminals and then punish them?

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.1 - Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:32 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      Wait. Murder and blackmail law validity is dependent on the country who writes them?

                      That's a new one.

                      In most places on the planet, murder is against the law and unacceptable as a means of social interaction and negotiation.

                      It doesn't really matter where you are or WHO is writing the laws.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.2 - Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:36 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      Yeah, Michael Moore has a real point.

                      Too bad about all of these pesky laws against murder. It's a real shame civilized society is turning killers into criminals with their unjust laws.

                      How unfair!

                      Congrats, Killfile. That's the closest I've ever seen anyone come to stupidly indicating premeditated murder should be legal because the laws against it make people into criminals.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.3 - Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:04 PM EST
                      Babar Ali

                      Israel is the one fighting criminals? By what standard? If you mean generally accepted international standards, then according to the UN, Israel is accused of more war crimes than I can count. So really, you have it backwards. The Palestinians are the ones fighting the criminals.

                      In fact, I have NO idea what u based your argument on.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.4 - Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:58 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      Of course you have no idea. That's what makes the total lack of logic to what you're trying to imply so easy.

                      In this particular thread, we're talking about civilians and what to call them when they kill other civilians or aid those who do.

                      You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to tell us all that unarmed Israeli civilians cannot be illegally murdered because of their government's actions.

                      Or.....killing unarmed Israeli civilains isn't illegal because Israel can't have legitimate laws against murder because they make the rules.

                      Then again, you might be trying to tell us the murder of any or all unarmed Israeli civilians is the right thing to do because of their government's actions.

                      Perhaps you mean to say Palestinians couldn't possibly ever be murderers or criminals because they're your bestest, all time favorite side in this conflict.

                      At this point it's a toss up what you mean.

                      I'm not even certain you have an idea what you're arguments actually relate in regard to anything I've said.

                      It appears to be knee jerking without much thought to me.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.5 - Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:55 PM EST
                      Oluseye

                      What about the question of jurisdiction. If it is a question of crime, how does Israel have jurisdiction over Palestine?

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.6 - Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:11 AM EST
                      Koozebane

                      Jurisdiction has absolutely nothing to do with determining an act as murder. Yet, jurisdiction is the key to Palestine's position.

                      Palestine will not aggressively arrest its criminals or strive to hinder them from murdering unarmed Israeli civilians.

                      Why? Because murdering Israelis isn't against the law in Palestine?

                      Obviously, that's far too ugly to come right out and state by pro Palestine activists on the internet......no matter how distiinctly their arguments point in that direction.

                      Palestine fails to arrest criminals who purposely murder unarmed civilians for the simple reason of gaining power from the righteous outrage over any form of retaliation Israel takes. It is the key to their campaign and the issue that resulted in the election of Hamas.

                      And because of this rather notable failure to aggressively arrest its criminals elements, I personally consider Hamas to be a criminal organization who has no business being part of any government system.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.7 - Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:09 PM EST
                      Oluseye

                      Childish talk. You're wishing away the constraint because it debilitates your argument. Jurisdiction is one of the first principles of law. No law enforcement agency can act without it, nor can it go beyond it. In most cases in courts jurisdiction is the primary thing decided. America can not just arrest Canadian murderers. That particular crime could for example simply be manslaughter in Canada. There are a gazillion issues related to jurisdiction that most thinking people (which I suppose includes you) can see immediately.

                      Whatever Palestine fails to do does not give Israel the right to assume jurisdiction. Because US failed to convict OJ does that give Russia the right to come and shoot OJ?

                      You consider Hamas a criminal organisation. Good. But you are not a nation or a government.

                      • 3 votes
                      #11.8 - Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:55 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      Nothing is wished away.

                      I'm not resorting to using terms such as 'childish" to mask the fact that Palestine does little to curb its murderers..........nor am I using worthless analogies.

                      Deny these plain facts or find another conversation.

                      Purposely targeting and killing unarmed civilians is undeniably murder.....this one should stick, since no one has had the balls to state otherwise.
                      Refusal to arrest murderers who purposely target and kill unarmed civilians is criminal activity in itself.

                      Arguing jurisdiction is nothing but an attempted deflection away from these rather glaring facts. Labeling these obvious statements as 'childish' tends to indicate there are no valid arguments left to make.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.9 - Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:06 PM EST
                      Oluseye

                      And the answer is mass state murder? Israel has the right to kill innocent Palestinians in return?

                      • 4 votes
                      #11.10 - Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:35 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      The answer, my friend, is upholding the LAW and putting murderers in jail.

                      This applies equally to everyone who claims to be part of a civilized society.

                      Failure to do so leads to ugly, unending blood feuds fed by hatred.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.11 - Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:17 PM EST
                      Oluseye

                      Why do you condemn only one side?

                      • 3 votes
                      #11.12 - Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:18 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      I'm not certain how you can read my last post and tell me I'm condemning one side.

                      Responding to ill thought out indications Palestinian civilians who murder are somehow without blame because of the actions of the Israeli government isn't a total statement of my entire belief system.

                      Perhaps you should reread all of my statements.

                      In most places on the planet, murder is against the law and unacceptable as a means of social interaction and negotiation.

                      It doesn't really matter where you are or WHO is writing the laws.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.13 - Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:40 PM EST
                      Oluseye

                      I'm not certain how you can read my last post and tell me I'm condemning one side.

                      You're dancing in circles. Did you not make this statement:

                      Israel is fighting criminals. They may be politically or religiously motivated, but it all boils down to unlawfulness through murder and blackmail.

                      Show me the part of it that has you acknowledging that taking people's land and killing their people is a problem?

                      Tell me how without the question of jurisdiction, lawfulness is relevant in a situation where people have to fight for their land? Like the US revolutionaries were traitors for resisting the British Crown? Canada had the right to invade the US then because the revolutionaries were breaking British law?

                      I agree that terrorism and acts aimed at civilians are bad. I want every party that aims at or gets civilians to be judged the same way especially protagonists in the same conflict. What is baffling is your pretence that it is a simple law-and-order issue with Israeli troops riding in on white horses to mete out justice and maintain order.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.14 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:50 AM EST
                      Koozebane

                      Once again......

                      Deny these plain facts or find another conversation.

                      Purposely targeting and killing unarmed civilians is undeniably murder.....this one should stick, since no one has had the balls to state otherwise.

                      Refusal to arrest murderers who purposely target and kill unarmed civilians is criminal activity in itself.

                      Arguing jurisdiction motive is nothing but an attempted deflection away from these rather glaring facts. Labeling these obvious statements as 'childish' 'condemning one side' or 'dancing' tends to indicate there are no valid arguments left to make.

                      If you cannot deny the two facts above, you are dong nothing but trying to rationalize criminal activity and murder.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.15 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:39 AM EST
                      Killfile

                      Killfile: As Moore [sic, my error] says in Utopia - what can be said but that you first create criminals and then punish them?

                      Koozbane: Yeah, Michael Moore has a real point. Too bad about all of these pesky laws against murder. It's a real shame civilized society is turning killers into criminals with their unjust laws.

                      Such incomprehensible pigheadedness defies words. Sir Thomas More wrote Utopia. It's a cornerstone work of political theory and something that, if you're going to be ass to people who invoke it, you probably should have read.

                      More's commentary discusses more then issue of setting in place social structures that create criminals, something Israel is equally guilty of doing, than the power to define laws -- but given the nature of terrorism and the monopoly of nation-state on the use of force, this applies to Israel as well.

                      Your stunning incomprehension of the topic at hand allowed you to make a simultaneously pithy and remarkably ignorant remark. How charming.

                      • 3 votes
                      #11.16 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:09 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      My sincerest apologies for the confusion.

                      Unfortunately, insults via the internet do not deflect the invalidity of your reference, regardless if I'm familiar with it or not.

                      Quoting authors only works if their words are relevant to my statements. Laws against murder still stand in civilized societies no matter how many authors you manage to quote or how many insults you manage to fling.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.17 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:19 PM EST
                      Oluseye

                      Oh so you tell me what to say. I wasn't aware there was a referendum on this page today.

                      Look dude, you're still dancing. You have not made a good case for Israel's right to go into Gaza and bomb and shoot, on the grounds of murder or mass murder. Make a decent case and you might convince someone...in the meantime, nice moves.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.18 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:39 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      I haven't attempted to make a case for going into Gaza. That is a complete figment of your imagination.

                      Go ahead and talk about anything you like.......as long as you refrain from making assumptions, assigning motives or injecting fantasy messages into my statements.

                      You refuse to acknowledge the validity of those two simple facts and you also refuse to deny them.

                      It's beginning to look as as though you don't actually know what 'dancing around a topic' actually means.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.19 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:18 PM EST
                      Oluseye

                      What are you making a case for then? I am taking you up on your claim that "Israel is fighting criminals", an attempt to turn a complex issue of self-determination, international law and humanitarian issues, into a simple law-and-order case. When confronted with a simple issue relating to Israel's jurisdiction- limits to Israel's law-and-order authority, you create a referendum, up or down vote.

                      That's not my issue with you. I don't support mass killings of civilians by any of the parties in the Israel-Palestine issue or in any conflict whatsoever. In fact I deplore it. But that has not been the issue.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.20 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:18 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      "Self determination" does not allow spraying rockets randomly across a border.

                      This is criminal activity. This is what Israel is trying to stop in any number of ways....some good.....some bad.

                      Jurisdiction has nothing to do with defining murder as criminal activity and allowing it to continue.
                      Highlighting humanitarian issues has nothing to do with defining murder as criminal activity and allowing it to continue.
                      Self determination has nothing to do with defining murder as criminal activity and allowing it to continue.
                      My personal motives have nothing to do with defining murder as criminal activity and allowing it to continue.
                      The actions of any government on the face of the planet has nothing to do with defining murder as criminal activity and allowing it to continue.

                      The root of the whole problem is rationalizing murder and a failure to punish crime.

                      By recognizing the basic principles of defining murder and by bringing those who murder and their accomplices to justice, most of the problems with jurisdiction, self determination, and pressing humanitarian issues would be avoided.

                      ALL sides must punish those who break the most basic of all human laws.

                      I'm done with this thread.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.21 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:49 PM EST
                      Oluseye

                      Dude...I hate murder and terrorists.

                      I also hate oppression. In a situation where both are occurring I would condemn both. You would condemn one because you've taken sides.. Therein lies the difference.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.22 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:30 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      The only difference here is you assign "sides" to discussions on fundamental issues.

                      Criticizing Hamas or assigning criminal status to cinilians who murder and blackmail shouldn't raise issues with people who hate terrorism.

                      And yet, here you are, telling what I've done, what I think and what 'side' I'm on.

                      My statements prove you wrong.

                      "In most places on the planet, murder is against the law and unacceptable as a means of social interaction and negotiation. It doesn't really matter where you are or WHO is writing the laws.

                      "The answer, my friend, is upholding the LAW and putting murderers in jail. This applies equally to everyone who claims to be part of a civilized society."

                      "By recognizing the basic principles of defining murder and by bringing those who murder and their accomplices to justice, most of the problems with jurisdiction, self determination, and pressing humanitarian issues would be avoided. ALL sides must punish those who break the most basic of all human laws."

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.23 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:18 PM EST
                      Oluseye

                      What I am opposed to is you casting the Israeli-Palestinian issue as one of Law enforcement. It is not accurate to do so.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.24 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:35 PM EST
                      Koozebane

                      You can make all the vague declarations you want against things to which you are opposed or toward people who disagree with you. It changes nothing.

                      Either give valid arguments WHY people who purposely target and kill unarmed civilians are NOT criminals, WHY murderers should NOT be brought to justice according to law or piss the hell off.

                      I'm very tired of your assumptions, personal assessments, accusations and blatant deflection away from very fundamental points that get right to the very core of the problem.

                      I'm here to talk about civilians who shoot rockets and those who protect them, not fend off baseless accusations or be told what I'm thinking.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.25 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:14 PM EST
                      Oluseye

                      I believe you typed this statement;

                      Israel is fighting criminals.

                      I am here to explain that this view is inaccurate and a distorting on that conflict.

                        #11.26 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:38 PM EST
                        Koozebane

                        I am here to explain that this view is inaccurate and a distorting on that conflict.

                        And unsurprisingly, you have yet to do so.

                        • 1 vote
                        #11.27 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:43 PM EST
                        Oluseye

                        Jurisdiction.

                          #11.28 - Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:38 PM EST
                          Koozebane

                          Quite an explanation.

                          Care to link it all together for us?

                            #11.29 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:03 AM EST
                            Oluseye

                            Read above.

                              #11.30 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:48 AM EST
                              Koozebane

                              You're still insisting murder isn't a criminal act that demands justice.........depending on where a person happened to be standing when they kill.

                              Your explanation would be fine if it made any sense.

                                #11.31 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:05 PM EST
                                Oluseye

                                Dude show where I said that or admit the tag liar.

                                  #11.32 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:13 PM EST
                                  Koozebane

                                  You're still insisting murder isn't a criminal act that demands justice.........depending on where a person happened to be standing when they kill jurisdiction.

                                  From Wiki:
                                  "In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin jus, juris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility."

                                  If a person is standing in a place outside of this defined area of authority, justice should not be administered?

                                  Explaining WHY Palestine should not bring its murderers to justice by pointing out they're outside of Israeli jurisdiction makes zero sense.

                                    #11.33 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:31 PM EST
                                    Oluseye

                                    You're still insisting murder isn't a criminal act that demands justice.........depending on where a person happened to be standing when they kill jurisdiction.

                                    Show where I said that or accept the tag liar.

                                      #11.34 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:56 PM EST
                                      Koozebane

                                      OK, we've hit the unbridled character assassination portion of the thread. Added to the obvious deflections, personal assessments, wild accusations, along with the ever popular motive placement and outright thought reading, I think it's quite clear we're all seeing the basest of debating techniques that have become popular on the Internet over the last few years.

                                      I'm thinking you're either a teenager and don't know what the hell you're talking about.....or you're woefully inept at presenting a valid case for your declarations that makes any logical sense.

                                      "Nuh - UH!" is not accepted in the academic world as a rebuttal during a debate.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.35 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:02 PM EST
                                      Babar Ali

                                      this is getting out of hand. nothing progressive to be said it seems.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.36 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:45 PM EST
                                      Koozebane

                                      Well, since we can't get you to admit either...

                                      A) Purposely targeting unarmed civilians is a crime.
                                      B) Purposely targeting unarmed civilians is perfectly legal.

                                      .....without starting in on me personally, I guess it's way past time to move on.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.37 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:52 PM EST
                                      Oluseye

                                      Least you can do is admit that I never said what you claim, and then we can face the issue.

                                      The issue is that any acts of murder in Palestine, by Palestinians are not under Israel's jurisdiction to abjudicate. I don't even condemn them for kidnapping the culprits or assasinating them but I do want it to be acknowledged that they are not right if they destroy communities and kill innocents while at it.

                                      When you take people's land and they are crazed enough to kill your civilians it is not a simple law enforcement issue like you are trying to make it seem like. The Palestinians obviously believe that being much weaker than Israel it is the only way they can fight what they consider oppression. So your little referendum;

                                      A) Purposely targeting unarmed civilians is a crime.
                                      B) Purposely targeting unarmed civilians is perfectly legal.

                                      is a red herring.

                                      The substantive issue is how to resolve the conflict taking cognisance of all legitimate grouses, even while deploring methods. I don't support terrorism in any way.

                                      While I am sympathetic to the Palestinian cause I detest violence from both sides being fundamentally opposed to violence. I think it is cowardly to attack civilians. At the same time I think it is oppressive to deny people their land, their self-determination and several rights as Israel does. I think if you do that you are calling for violence. I mean, you surely expect people to react.

                                      So my point to you is that your referendum is a red herring, an attempt to strait-jacket the issue that doesn't match with the complexity of the issue.

                                      regards.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.38 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:48 PM EST
                                      Lucid

                                      You're still insisting murder isn't a criminal act that demands justice.........depending on where a person happened to be standing when they kill jurisdiction.

                                      From Wiki:
                                      "In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin jus, juris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility."

                                      If a person is standing in a place outside of this defined area of authority, justice should not be administered?

                                      Explaining WHY Palestine should not bring its murderers to justice by pointing out they're outside of Israeli jurisdiction makes zero sense.

                                      This is an excellent point, which deserves a response I think...

                                      It is perfectly true that while what is legal changes from one place to the next, what is moral does not. Unfortunately, one of the many problems going on here is that in addition to legality changing, so does the bias of the policeman.

                                      Without justice, no peace. And Palestinians are very justified in feeling that they are being policed by people who do not represent them. Whether they support hamas directly or not, they are being treated poorly.

                                      It's just as easy for a Palestinian to call a soldier a murderer as it is in the opposite case. And where the soldier feels he is not committing murder, because he is responding to terrible situations, and is under orders, the same is true for the people we call terrorists. While we tend to cut people slack when they have been issued a uniform, it is in my opinion a slim distinction to seperate people between which is in a uniform, and which is not.

                                      This is a situation in which one side or the other may be more moral in the beginning. But as the death toll mounts, and one thing leads to another, in the end, everyone will have descended into the same shade of grey.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.39 - Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:38 AM EST
                                      Koozebane

                                      Soldiers have rules of engagement. Criminals do not. This is precisely why the rule of law must be enforced.

                                      Hamas chooses to arm civilians due to the moral outrage that is automatically caused by soldiers killing civilians. That outrage gives them their power.

                                      While mortars and rockets are being used, civilian deaths at the hands of soldiers will unavoidably continue. I'm sure Hamas is banking on it.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.40 - Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:55 AM EST
                                      Killfile

                                      Soldiers have rules of engagement. Criminals do not.

                                      Not to be a complete ass here, and I really don't want to derail this into another discussion, but that's not always the case.

                                      The Nazi SS, for example, were soldiers and they had rules of engagement, but they were also plainly criminals. Moreover, the soldiers of the South during the civil war had rules of engagement - but because the United States never recognized the South as a separate state it considered the confederate troops to be criminals.

                                      This isn't as black and white as we'd like it to be. Some soldiers are criminals and some criminals are soldiers.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #11.41 - Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:15 AM EST
                                      Reply
                                      Koozebane

                                      Complexity is nothing but a guise for excusing murder by the criminals with which you align yourself.

                                      It is quite plain you'll make any baseless declaration to avoid making a definitive statement on the legality of taking the lives of unarmed civilians.

                                      Killing in this situation either IS or it IS NOT legal. There is no gray area with murder. Killing random unarmed Jews is not "somewhat" legal.

                                      It is quite obvious you are avoiding answering one simple question because it restricts your ability to make vague rationalizations and flimsy excuses for taking human life due to hatred.

                                      • 2 votes
                                      Reply#12 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:17 PM EST
                                      Oluseye

                                      By which laws? I don't know what Palestinian law says about killing unarmed Jews for the sake of the Palestinian struggle. Do I consider it wrong and immoral, yes. Do I know what their law says about it, no. At least I am not typing out of my ass. Do you know if Palestinian law makes it illegal? You droningg on about the legality or otherwise of it is ridiculous because you have not shown us what Palestinian law says about it.

                                      Tell you what, if you show that Palestinian law considers it wrong to kill unarmed Israelis in the name of their struggle, I would agree with you that it is a law enforcement issue. for something to be illegal, ther actually has to be a law against it doesnt there? So since you're Mr Legal tell us about the laws.

                                      It is quite obvious that you want to make reality into what you want it to be.

                                        #12.1 - Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:31 PM EST
                                        Koozebane

                                        So, you DO think the murder of unarmed Jews is legal.

                                        Thanks....that's all we needed to know. It's nice to see exactly what type of society has your sympathy.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #12.2 - Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:49 AM EST
                                        Oluseye

                                        So you think the murder of unarmed Jews and the wholesale pogrom against little children is legal.

                                        Thanks, that is all we needed to know. It's nice to see what type of society has your sympathy.

                                        I can make ridiculous childish statements too.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #12.3 - Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:37 AM EST
                                        Koozebane

                                        There really are only two sides to some arguments. If you're asking me to show murdering Jews is illegal in Palestine, you obviously think it isn't. By continually stating murderers in Palestine are not criminals all throughout this thread, you obviously think it isn't.

                                        And again, labeling a statement as 'childish' does not refute it.

                                        You've pledged your support for Palestine through your arguments and your professed sympathies. I support neither country's illegal actions simply because of who they are. Criminal acts require justice across the board.

                                        I leave you to your insults and rationalizations.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #12.4 - Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:37 PM EST
                                        Oluseye

                                        If you'll engage in these debates, at least learn logic as well as honesty to face truth.

                                        I said:

                                        I don't know what Palestinian law says about killing unarmed Jews for the sake of the Palestinian struggle. Do I consider it wrong and immoral, yes. Do I know what their law says about it, no. At least I am not typing out of my ass. Do you know if Palestinian law makes it illegal?

                                        Only the most utterly stupid can interprete this to mean that I think it is not illegal in Palestine to kill unarmed Jews. Or the utterly dishonest. Which is you?

                                        Any person reading this thread with some grey matter knows this statement was pointing out that while you go around screaming LEGALITY, LEGALITY, you know zero about what you're talking about. If you did you would simply point me to the laws that are being flouted by the Palestinians who kill unarmed Jews, and as I had written many comments back, I will agree that they should be tried by the Palestinians and condemn the Palestinian authority for not meting out justice.

                                        Mean time, do take a logic course, there are many free on the internet.

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #12.5 - Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:10 PM EST
                                        Koozebane

                                        More insults and personal attacks. Go figure.

                                        We all know what you said. We can read the thread.

                                        You sympathize with Palestine, refuse to admit killing Jews is murder and use flimsy excuses such as jurisdiction to explain it all away.

                                        The logical conclusions are quite obvious.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #12.6 - Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 PM EST
                                        Oluseye

                                        No insults or personal attacks. If anything it is coming from you.

                                        I am unabashedly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, not in any way expressed anywhere to the cause of terrorists. You want to make me take your frame on the issue and without having the sound arguments or logical base for your frame, you're not only failing miserably, you are resorting to shameful distortions and extreme illogicality. It's the problem I see with the American right wingers. You guys see framing the argument as the extent of the argument. As if even if you successfully framed it, you still don't have to make a logical and factual argument.

                                        Here we go again; If you assert as you did that Israel is simply meting out justice against murderers, I want you to at least establish that Israel has the legal authority (jurisdiction to do that). Without that legal and moral authority, the killings they are meting out in return are not exactly justified.

                                        I can't bomb my neighbour's house and say he is a murderer so I am fighting murderers.

                                        If you want to be legalistic you should establish your case, and at least remotely help us get smarter here.

                                        • 2 votes
                                        #12.7 - Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:15 AM EST
                                        Killfile

                                        Koozebane, Oluseye: Your argument has inspired a piece on this topic which I think you'd both be interested in. It might also serve as a more apropos forum for the continuance of this discussion.

                                          #12.8 - Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:12 AM EST
                                          Reply
                                          Shawn Gordon

                                          I think that any person who willingly puts themselves in the line of fire during a known conflict, isn't blameless and innocent.

                                          US Marines gunned down Iraqi "civilians" in Hidatha because they were supposedly hiding insurgents. In that case, the moment you hide the enemy you become part of that enemy. If the shoe was on the other foot and say, I was harboring a murder in my house from Federal Police, Id expect some kind of repercussion for this; possibly being shot by police in the midst of apprehension regardless of how I tried to avoid it after the fact.

                                          If, Israel puts a call out to a civilian population that they will be blowing up a weapons depot, and those civilians form a shield around it, I do not think they are civilians any longer. I'd classify them as non-combatant military. They don't actively fight you but they are getting in the way of their own free will. Their statement of "Martyrdom" makes no sense. They'd blow up with the house, usually a martyr dies to STOP something... nothing would have been stopped but their lives.

                                          The only reason I see they did this is because they either wanted to make the IDF look bad on an international level had they gone through, or knew they'd walk away. The claim to victory was militarily cheap. In the future, I'd hope that the IDF would see those "human shields" a minor obstruction, because one of two things will happen. Either the nest group of shields will be non-existent or, they'll have more numbers; trying to push the envelope and make the IDF look more and more like monsters.

                                          We live under this idea that we can't kill someone if they don't brandish a weapon.... sometimes stopping the actions of one group is weapon enough. I feel this true in any situation under circumstances of war or peacetime hostility. If the roles were reversed towards Jews being a shield on a home, then I don't see a reason for the Palestinians to NOT blow up that weapons depot as well.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#13 - Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:39 AM EST
                                          Brian White

                                          Awesome, finally someone else who supports blowing up hundreds of unarmed people.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #13.1 - Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:56 PM EST
                                          Yaakov

                                          Brian - the point is that sometimes people can be taking an active part in a war, and pose a direct threat to the lives and civilians on one side, despite the fact that they are not holding weapons in their hands.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #13.2 - Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:58 PM EST
                                          Shawn Gordon

                                          I don't believe that a war is waged with iron weapons alone. In this case, the human shields were nothing more than acting like a militia...just with no military weapons. I figure if someone block the police they get charged with obstructing justice and suffer possible jail time. If you obstruct military action in a zone that is known to be used, then you risk getting killed. End of story.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #13.3 - Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:09 PM EST
                                          Brian White

                                          Shawn - when you block police you are interfering with the lawful authorities. Please explain how Israel is the lawful authorities in this situation, and how they have the legal right to blow up a specific house in Palestine. Please also explain how they have the legal right to do the other things they're doing, like arresting members of Palestine's elected government and hold them without bringing charges.

                                          By the way I'm not disagreeing with you. These people are acting like a spontaneous militia fighting off a conquering power, and the terms of the Geneva convention are pretty clear that they can be treated as combatants and blown up. Of course, they're also quite clear that the sorts of collective punishment Israel employs against Palestine are forbidden. So, kind of a wash there.

                                            #13.4 - Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:15 AM EST
                                            Shawn Gordon

                                            I understand you aren't disagreeing, I didn't think you were. You're question is justified... you're just asking me to qualify my statement. However, in a way I think you qualified it for me.

                                            As you said:

                                            the terms of the Geneva convention are pretty clear that they can be treated as combatants and blown up.

                                            The Geneva Convention states that people who willingly obstruct a military force, are subject to being, as you say, blown up. In this case, the military is a sort of police force. They have an agenda, and it is being blocked. With Israel, their goal was to prohibit distribution of more weapons that would be used to kill more Israelis. Civilian non-combatants obstructed the destruction of the target; a weapons depot. By doing so, they removed their civilian status and became a non-lethal combatant or accessory to hostile intent from Palestine. Either way - they made a choice irrespective of the warning.

                                            I guess to better explain it, the way I understand it - In a war, when two forces fight, there is a set of rules that are recognized internationally. In the case of Israel, are a police force in that they are acting to protect their people. They were not going in to kick ass and take names. If they were, they'd have probably selected a different target, the weapons depot was clearly a defensive action.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #13.5 - Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:47 PM EST
                                            Brian White

                                            The issue of course is that if the Geneva conventions apply in this situation, it would completely legitimize the Palestinians' capture of an enemy Israeli troop, which is what caused this most recent flare up in fighting. Because that is a completely allowable military action.

                                              #13.6 - Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:27 PM EST
                                              Shawn Gordon

                                              True, but only as a defensive measure, right? I mean if Palestine kidnapped Israeli troops, then it makes Palestine the aggressor, no? So, according to Geneva, both sides have as much right to do what they are doing - kidnapping and blowing people up. I think the conundrum lies within justifying the reason... Is that what you're sort of getting at?

                                                #13.7 - Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:11 PM EST
                                                Reply
                                                Leave a Comment:
                                                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                FUN STUFF:
                                                • Leaderboard |
                                                • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                • Top of the Vine |
                                                • Newsvine Live |
                                                • Newsvine Archives |
                                                • The Greenhouse |
                                                COMPANY STUFF:
                                                • Code of Honor |
                                                • Company Info |
                                                • Contact Us |
                                                • Jobs |
                                                • User Agreement |
                                                • Privacy Policy |
                                                • About our ads
                                                LEGAL STUFF:
                                                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com