Murderers: Israel blows up a crowd of protestors, killing and wounding dozens

The BBQ Pit
221

Sevastopol, I think your quote from HRW:

actually strengthens the point that I have been making - namely, that while it is true that some individuals within the IDF violate regulations and sometimes cause unnecessary, innocent deaths, this is not IDF nor Israeli policy. I am not defending the specific events in Rafiah. I am defending Israel against blanket accusations of wanton, across-the-board, intent to kill Palestinian non-combatants.

Oh, and despite whatever may or mat not still be written in the PLO charter - the Palestinian terrorists are out to kill Israelis, as many as possible, and preferably civilians, just because they are Israelis. You got a different definition of “genocide” than I do?

Kezami, I don’t think I am being defensive. But I am rather less than completely at ease with each and every action taken by the IDF. “My country, right or wrong” implies realizing when my country is wrong. Not necessarily wrong in the sense of “Evilly, murderously immoral”; but wrong in the same sense that the architect who designed the Paris Air Terminal, who most likely just wanted to stay within the letter of the law, in time and on budget, was horribly and tragically wrong; wrong in the same sense that a sleep-deprived father, finally taking his child to ER after a really bad night and accidentally running over a pedestrian he should have seen is not evil, not even a “murderer”, but still very, very wrong - and an unwitting homocide.

I see what happened in Rafiah in much the same way - I suspect that the tank commander who fired that shell into the crowd was probably a very scared individual (remember, this came a fairly short time after we lost two APC’s + crew, 11 soldiers all told, in that very same area). I don’t believe he was thinking “Good! I’ll kill some Arabs now” as he shot. Probably more like “Shit! the only way I’m getting my crew and myself outta here alive is by firing right at them. Damn the regulations; damn them - If it means killing them to stay alive I’m doing it!” He was wrong (probably); he has certainly caused unnecessary, and most likely innocent, deaths - but I don’t think he was evil.

Dani

222

Noone Special I take your point about regulations and it is well made. However, the following cannot go without criticism:

  • The innocent deaths were of protestors. The men responsible were inside tanks.
  • Several tanks shells were discharged into the crowd
  • Missiles from helicopter gunships were discharged.

So to deny that evil has taken place errs on the side of generosity.

Assuming this is all true for the moment, which involves assumptions that are far from safe. The answer to your question is “Yes.” The killings are in aid of a strategy and political goal. It is like most other terrorism in this regard. The death of Israelis is not the ultimate end or aim. If it were, then I would see genocide.

223

As I said, I at least am not accusing Israel of intent to kill Palestinian non-combatants; I am accusing them of making choices that they know will likely result in the deaths of Palestinian non-combatants. Because I know they will make those choices, then I must choose whether to advocate funding them; if I advocate funding them, then I share in the responsibility for the forseeable consequences of my own actions.

This sounds entirely plausible to me; at the same time, it’s not relevant. A person killed by a very scared commander is no less dead than a person killed by a murderous thug. The dead are not comforted by the harmless motives of their killers, and the paving on the road to hell is famously known.

I did read the part of your post where you say that the IDF cancels missions if they’re afraid of killing civilians. I believe you. At the same time, they aren’t careful enough, from this outsider’s point of view. I hear you that as an Israeli you’re going to value the life of an Israeli civilian or soldier over the life of a Palestinian civilian. And I can respect that. At the same time, I’m not an Israeli, and I value the lives of everyone involved equally, and as long as I see that Israeli soldiers are using that calculus in deciding whether to shoot at crowds of Palestinians, I’m uncomfortable having my tax dollars going to pay for this calculus.

On a tangent, in today’s New York Times, Kristof refers to the “unofficial Geneva accord of last October, reached between courageous Israelis and Palestinians.” Have y’all heard of this, and what do y’all think of it?

Daniel

224

I agree Finn. Bombing civilians is wrong, whether from a car or from a helicopter.
And you are also right in my analogy being irrational. Unfortunately, in regard to Israeli activities, the analogy is very accurate.

I wasn’t mixing pronouns in my last analogy; I was referring to the IDF rushing into Bethlehem and other places, and shooting at Palestinian cops, toallty demoralizing them in the process. But you, like the other 'Israel can do no wrong"ers, tend to ignore tose little details. palestinians don’t however.

BTW, great post, Noone.

225

Do you have any documented (ie., not “Some Palestinian said so”) cite for the above? Because the way I’ve read it, there were warning shots from both tanks and helicopters, intentionally and successfully shot wide of the crowd, followed by a single tank round shot into it, which did the damage.
I am not being sarcastic or facetious here (although, with my IAF experience I find it beyond the pale of believability that our pilots, at least, deliberately shot into a civilian crowd) - if there is in fact evidence to the contrary I will retract my previous statements and condemn all the officers involved as thugs and murderers.

All of which changes nothing in my main argument - that whatever happened in Rafiah, whether an unavoidable tragedy or unforgiveable murder or something in between, happened locally, and is not indicative of some general, centralized Israeli policy.

Oh, come on. Yes it is, and you know it is. The stated mission of Hamas and Jihad is to “return” all of “Palestine” into Arab hands, removing all the Israeli Jews in the process. By what twist of semantics do you call this anything other than genocidal intent?

LHoD - serious question: Are you a “hard” pacifist? Because the “calculus” I have admitted has been used by every fighting force on the face of this earth from time immemorial. You don’t have to look back at Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki to realize this - I’m sure that you will agree with me that some American GI’s on German soil most likely found themselves killing innocent German civilians just to be “extra sure” they wouldn’t be killed themselves. Does this make you uncomfortable about WWII as a whole? About any war ever fought on the face of this earth?
If your answer is “Yes, I am a pacifist and I think none of my tax dollars should ever go toward anything connected with war or weaponry, ever” - I respect that and we’ll have to agree to disagree. If not, then while I understand your POV, I’m afraid I have to see it as incorporating an unwitting double standard (what is normal and unavoidable - if unfortunate and tragic - for every army, anywhere, is not acceptable when done by the IDF)

Dani

226

How does this compare with American forces blowing up a wedding in Iraq?
If anything, I would think it was more understandable, because Israel, unlike the US, is actually under attack.

The thing people forget is that Palestine is waging war on Israel in the most effective way it can.

No, Palestine isn’t using planes and missles… because they don’t have them. So they are going with the war plan that works the best, and that is suicide bombers and using children as part of the war effort to gain sympathy.

However, Israel is not defending itself in the most effective way it could. It is sacrificing the lives of its children in order to lessen the damage to Palestinians.

Sometimes I think the situation would be improved if the world called Palestine on its “is it war or not?” tactics, and flat out said “You are waging war. As such, Israel has the right to fight back.”

Right now it’s some kind of gray zone, in which Palestine uses its most effective war plans, and Israel is expected to stop them without killing anyone. Like it’s some kind of game.

I know for a fact that were a country waging war on the US, and celebrating as they killed our children, the US would not consider it a game, nor would we feel that there ought to be similar numbers of causualties on both sides.

227

Noone Special

The article in the OP and the HRW report I link above are both closer to the view I’ve put than the one you have put. At a minimum on the agreed facts, there were 2 tanks shells and 1 Missile, that’s 2 more than any “warning” shot requires.

All the reports are from eyewitnesses, I don’t believe even the IDF is maintaining the forgiving set of facts you advance. However I’ve no interest in extracting any concessions from you individually.

[quote]
All of which changes nothing in my main argument - that whatever happened in Rafiah, whether an unavoidable tragedy or unforgiveable murder or something in between, happened locally, and is not indicative of some general, centralized Israeli policy.

[quote]

I agree and continue to do so, with the rider that I agree with your view that the policy appears to be close to indifferent to the loss of Palestinian life.

There are extremists that have that view, I agree, Hamas yes, Jihand I don’t know. However the democratically elected leadership of Palestine does not, the majority, does not.

This is the characterisation I feel is false. Specifically that because the Palestinians as a whole are dedicated to genocide, no negotiated solution is possible and moreover any violence used against them is justified.

You’ll note that this view is adopted by Sharon and other madmen. As the Washington Post article I linked indicates, Sharon is choosing to disrupt the negotiation process and the democratically Palestinian leadership, so only a military solution is possible, believing that the best result for Israel can be achieved that way.

Recall that it is Sharon/Likud that have derailed the Roadmap with cavailing and qualifications, whereas the Palestinian leadership accepted it from day 1.

For example there are extremist Likud members who hold that Israel should control all of biblical Judea. Is this genocidal? Probably, but it doesn’t make it fair to say military action by Israel is aiming at genocide of the Palestinian peoples.

Likewise, it is wrong to attribute all aggression and yes terrorism, by Palestinians ultimately to genocidal intent. Aside from strategic ambitions, as with Israel, the Palestinians engage in reprisal killings and other misguided purposes falling short of genocide.

228

I’m not sure why I bother posting.

You know the difference between shooting civilians by accident and shooting them on purpose.
You know the difference between the attitude of the Palestinian people and the Israeli, when a civilian gets killed.
You know the difference between an apology from the Israeli government and the joyous war cries of the Palestinian leaders.

Originally posted by sevastopol

From http://www.aish.com/Israel/articles/Palestinian_Public_Opinion_Poll.asp :

  1. Do you support or oppose military attacks against American targets in the region?

Support 72.9
Oppose 21.7
Not sure 5.4

  1. In the case of establishing an independent Palestinian State, would you view a friendship between a Palestinian and an Israeli positively?

Yes 30.7
No 64.8
Not sure 4.5

  1. Do you support or oppose military attacks against Israeli targets at the present time?

Support 80.0
Oppose 15.1
Not sure 4.9

  1. If you support military attacks, what should be the target of these attacks?

11.7 Support only against military targets
03.0 support only against settlers
33.1 against both military & settlers
00.4 against civilians in the 1948 proper
62.3 against all Israelis regardless

[underlining mine]

You can talk nonsense until you’re green. I’ll see you on Mars.

229

I’m not a hard pacifist, but I’m pretty damn close. At any rate, I think you missed what I was saying: while the IDF may be willing to sacrifice a few innocent Palestinians in order to save the life of a single Israeli soldier, I’m not willing to be party to that.

It seems to me to be doublespeak to call this a double standard, to suggest that because I don’t assign one value to the life of an Israeli soldier and a different value to the life of a Palestinian civilian, I’m therefore using a double standard. Yes, I know that all wars have had similar calculations in them; I don’t support them.

Quite the opposite, in fact: in the case of a volunteer army, I’d rather the army value their own lives less than the lives of the civilians in the area. The civilians, after all, didn’t choose to be there.

Unrealistic? Maybe. But I do not want my money supporting the contrary position.

Daniel

230

Yes, I know - which is why I asked if you had anything else. It’s just that following the blatant lies that “eyewitnesses” spread in Jenin, I’m afraid I take these reports with a shaker or two of salt - more salt than I apply even to my own governments Official Pronouncements… :smack: Not that it matters. Even if the Rafiah incident could be proven to be legitimate self-defence on the part of IDF troops, there have been far too many other cases where IDF personnel have been guilty of attrocities - which is one of the reasons I think we need to get the hell out. And, in all these cases, these soldiers ARE representing Israel. Still doesn’t mean that Israel is following a policy or a strategy of wanton murder.

In other words, I think we basicly agree on this point…

See Gum’s numbers above. These results are reproduced time and time again in every poll, including polls conducted during relative lulls in violence (so it’s not just a heated reaction to current events). And while the PA may officially not call for the destruction of Israel, the Fatah and the Tanzim - both associated with Arafat - carry out as many terrorist attacks as Hamas or Jihad. And the Palestinian educational system (controlled by the PA) is still dedicated to the demonization of Israel and Israelis.

Err…, no. Even this fringe element does not engage in nor call for the wholesale slaughter of Arabs living in these areas. Doesn’t mean they aren’t nutjobs - they just aren’t genocidal nutjobs (or Public Opinion in Israel means that they can’t afford to be seen as such - which amounts to the same thing)

Except that the professed goal of Hamas and Jihad is the murder of all Israeli Jews. The IRA never called for the murder of all non-irish British. The Tamil Tigers never called for the murder of all non-Tamil Sri-lankans - these and similar terrorist organizations had specific political goals that they used terrorism to achieve. Guess what - the “Specific Political Goal” of Hamas, Jihad and (wink-wink) Fatah is the total destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas and Jihad don’t even make any bones about it (nor about their wish to eliminate Israel by eliminating the Israelis).

I really think you are missing the forest for the trees. Yes, the IDF is far from perfect (although I venture that it is far less immoral than almost any other occupation force you may choose to examine, past or present). Yes, the Palestinian popular wish for a country will, ultimately, have to happen, and Israel will have to relinquish the Occupied Territories. But taking this and extending it to a comparison of Israeli and Terrorist tactics is, IMHO, way far-fetched. Terrorists who come with the explicit intent of killing as many civilians as possible, and a political system that encourages these terrorists are just not comparable to an army that, to my shame, is guilty of terrible deeds here and there but maintains a relatively high moral standard overall; and to a government that may not care for the enemy civilians as much as it does for its own, but does not send troops with the explicit intent of killing as many civilians as possible.

YMMV
Dani

231

As others have pointed out, you are full of shit.

Your claim is laughable.

It’d be like claiming that the Constitution of the United States was an ‘obsolete’ document with no ‘practical effect.’

This is their charter and it calls for genocide.

Apologists of terror like yourself can claim whatever you want, but the truth is that the Palestinians, the majority of them, want genocide. And the Israelis must be allowed to defend themselves, they’re the ‘underdogs’ the ‘victims’ the ones who just want to survive.

Arafat recognized the State of Israel in English, and condemned it in Arabic. I’ve already provided cites for this double-talk and you still, willfully, ignore it.

Such recognition is definitely repudiated by Arafat’s signatures on the orders for explosive belts and explosives.

Again, you’re full of shit.

Go back to whatever magical land of fairies and elves you come from.

232

I fear I may have been unclear before - I wasn’t calling your upholding of all life equally a double standard. I would look at a situation not involving “my own” in much the same way.
What I said was that supporting U.S. participation in WWII, despite the fact that U.S. personnel must have perpertrated attrocities on the German and Japanese civilian populations (and in fact, the US as a nation wiped the three cities I mentioned - all full of civilians - off the map) but then going on to withold support from Israel in its own war, even if the IDF, too, is not as morally lily-white as we both would like it to be - this is a double standard.
So if you think that, had you been a tax-payer at the time, you would have objected to funding the US military during WWII, then I agree you are completely consistent in witholding support for Israel as well. Otherwise, I think you are the victim of an unwitting (as I already said) double standard - turning a blind eye from war attrocities committed by Americans (because they are your very own people) while focusing on those committed by others - in this case Israelis.

Doesn’t make you a bad person; I think it is completely natural to give those closer to you a pass where you would condemn those further. I am sure I am guilty of this myself in some cases. But I think this should be pointed out.

Sorry if the ambiguity of my previous analogy led you to being offended in any way - that was not my intention

Dani

233

Okay, I see what you’re saying. As an answer: no, I don’t support US participation in WWII, since that participation inevitably resulted in atrocities like Hiroshima and Dresden.

I say I’m not a hardline pacifist because I’ll support nonmilitary violence in certain situations, and there are even some times when I’m not actively opposed to military violence (e.g., the US liberation of Afghanistan). But there are extremely few situations in which I want to be supporting military violence.

If Arafat were to die, I’d accept it as a tragic necessity. If Sharon were to die, I’d probably think the same thing, although not as much. Both of them seem to be dependent on the war for their own political power; both of them seem committed to standing in the way of workable, equitable peace. I don’t see peace coming about until both of them are out of power, one way or the other.

Daniel

234

OK, I suppose that in that case we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I respect your position that military action will inevitably result in ugliness. heck, I agree with that statement :frowning:
And yet, I think that sometimes, a country must go to war to defend itself. That this act will ultimately bring its very own young men to a position where they will end up behaving in ways we both deem horrible is an awful consequence - but sometimes, IMHO, it has to be done.
I can only wish that some day our children will live in a world where this dillemma need not be confronted.

Dani

Am I even allowed - in the Pit! - to be this friendly to someone arguing a different position than mine? :wink:

235

Noone Special, we continue to be in almost complete agreement, however I thought enough people had commended your earlier post and didn’t add my own commendation. A few comments, by way of clarification.

concerning gum’s numbers, they infer that all Palestinians who do not love Israeli Jews with all their hearts do therefore have a lifetime committment to their genocide. Small exaggeration but you take my point, it’s the fallacy of the excluded middle and I’m surprised no-one pointed it out so far.

Noone Special also writes

Which rather makes my point, in the context of Palestinians. Not all terrorism has genocide in mind. They have political goals. This seems to me a fairly obvious fact.

The fact is you don’t make decisions based on the extremist elements. Contrary to this, Sharon however has taken every violent step to disempower the moderate and elected voices in Palestine. So the opportunity for moderate voices to be heard becomes less. It’s a formula for terrorism. Sharon thinks that he can exclude everything except a military solution this way.

Lastly, I have never disagreed with the position that terrorist actions are not the equivalent of those normally taken by the IDF, for the reasons you outline. However it’s a fine line. In the circumstances of this attack for example the distinction is very blurred.

Thankyou for the discussion Noone Special you have been very informative, influenced my opinion and are a credit to voices of reason in your fine nation.

In contrast, FinnAgain, is dishonest and laden with moral flaws, a discredit to any cause. Nothing new in saying this. To be brief then:

Charter: Does not, in fact call for genocide, does it now.

Secondly, the charter has no particular significance. It’s not a constitution or binding document of any description. Nor is it any sort of prayer, statement of aspirations or teaching aid. It’s been overtaken by events.

Repudiated Please provide the quote from the speech where Arafat repudiated his recognition of the state of Israel. Of course you cannot because Finn Again is lying.

FA also wrote

Big claim, no evidence. Falsehood is fast becoming FA’s signature.

Secondly the claim that Israelis, the sole nuclear force in the middle east, largest aid recipient of the US, equipped with unequalled military equipment, aggressive in land seizure, colonisation, displacement, terrorism, acts of war against neighbouring countries and extra-judical assassinations, the claim that this is the expression of victims yearning for bare survival needs no further comment.

Again I’m merely repeating other’s objections to Finn Again’s depravity. I apologise for the redundancy.

236

For anyone interested in the content of the PLO Charter, here is a link to it: Palestinian National Authority: PLO Charter

The last parts after the heading Amendments are especially interesting. Scroll to the end.

237

I wouldn’t go that far - unless you’ve become a zionist in yer old age… :slight_smile: But we have come to an agreement on several key issues, each of us perhaps giving up some of their preconceptions. That is what debate and discourse are about. (:slight_smile: again) and I’m becoming way to sappy for the Pit, but oh well…

Not quite sure I agree with you here - when 80% of the polled population support attacks against the enemy, and 63% (62.3 “all Israelis” + 0.4 “Inside green line”) of these support attacking any and all Israelis, anywhere, that gives you a (albeit slim) majority of the population that is dedicated to attacking all Israelis, everywhere. I don’t see this as an excluded middle.

But these political goals are, at least in part, the destruction of Israel. Couple that with a majority within the total Palestinian population supporting wonton murder of Israelis just because they are Israelis, and I simply fail to see why you would not consider this a genocidal intent - voiced and acted upon. Contrast this to the absence of such intent in other conflicts in which terrorism was or is involved. Let’s just say that, unlike perhaps a British IRA sympathizer, I do not feel that giving the terrorists what they (say they) want will guarantee my personal safety in the future.

I agree in principle that the Israeli government is, to put it mildly, not doing everything possible to get the road-map pointing North. But it is no longer Sharon who is putting up the hurdles - it is Netanyahu, backed by the Religious (Ephi Eitam’s Mafdal) and Ultra-hawkish (Liberman’s “National Coalition” [Ihud Leumi]) right. Even though Sharon is probably not yet ready to do all that is necessary, I think he has passed the watershed from intransigence to some form of co-operation with the flow of historical events. Like Rabin did in his time. It’s the best Israeli Real-politik can produce at the moment, unless you think Netanyahu will be better :frowning:

Which is the very best I can hope to accomplish within this discussion group. Likewise, seeing cites and evidence that somehow don’t get onto the nightly news here :rolleyes: has certainly made me think twice about the way some events are portrayed… and given me some insight on how Israel, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, are seen by people thousands of miles away. Hasn’t made me pro-Palestinian or any such thing, but has certainly made me examine the mote in my own eye, instead of only focusing on the beam in the other’s (Yes, I know I’ve got it backwards to normal usage. But I do think that in this context, it’s still more apt this way).

Dani

238

Noone Special, I think you’re someone special indeed.

239

I think I understand your position, even if I can’t respect it.

If I understand your pacifist or quasi-pacifist position, you almost never support active participation in or support of military violence, because it might lead to some degree of active support for atrocities. Thus you don’t support US participation in WWII, because it means some degree of supporting Dresden and Hiroshima. The trouble being that this implies choosing inaction even when its consequences are worse than action. The rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the Holocaust, the enslavement of Europe and Asia, are all far worse than Dresden or Hiroshima.

Similarly, you won’t support Israel because that might mean supporting atrocities. Even if the terrorist attacks against Israel are morally far more objectionable than any collateral damage inflicted by her.

:shrugs: As I mentioned earlier, the logically consistent end state of this line of reasoning is to withdraw all support for Israel, and then allowing her to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth. Certainly this is a worse outcome for the Palestinians, but at least our hands will be clean. By your standards.

sevastopol - you keep saying that the PLO charter is a meaningless document. Why then is it meaningful that they amended it? Wouldn’t it make sense to disregard the charter in toto and look instead at the polls? They show 60+% support for Palestinian attacks on civilians. Thus the conclusion is that a majority of Palestinians support terrorism against Israel.

Which makes it a lot harder for people like me to assert that a majority of Palestinians are distinguishable from terrorists.

ISTM that most Israelis want peace. Do the Palestinians? If they don’t, they aren’t likely to get it.

Regards,
Shodan

240

I agree with gum. I also don’t see a necessary contradiction between supporting Zionism and supporting the aspirations of the majority of Palestinian people.

To finish up rather than labour the point, I don’t see support for attacks on Israeli citizens by suicide bombers as equal to support for Genocide. Rather it is approval of an Intifada tactic. However this appears to be in part a matter of judgment on which it is possible to differ. I will say though that if you look at the amendments to the Charter, {see my previous post} it indicates a very clear majority of Palestinian representatives chose to officially recognise the status of Israel.

Shodan, In fact I could be changing my mind on the charter having had a look. Although obsolete in parts, I wouldn’t now say it is meaningless, but rather that it isn’t the final word on Palestinian aspirations and is in the process of formal revision as well. The PA does appear to put some stock in it. But to repeat, it doesn’t call for genocide, that’s just a lie.

That said, I happen to believe that the majority do support violent resistance against Israeli occupation & expansion, which includes terrorism if needs be. It is just a tactic.

Supporting isn’t being. It doesn’t seem to me either cogent or helpful to try and label an entire people with any particular accusation though.