Because they’re the good guys.
You have illustrated my point precisely. Thank you.
See graphs 2.16 and 2.17, 2.18 and 2.19 on the analysis you posted above. I don’t see what they’re trying to get at.
However, let me get this quite clear: I am talking about non-combatant fatalities. If you look at who has been killed by the other side (graph 1.2), you will find that the “collateral damage” incurred by the “democratic” country has racked up more civilian deaths in the last two years than the group of people who are setting out deliberately to murder innocent civilians. What does that say about Sharon’s policies and tactics? To me it indicates a disregard for civilian life. YMMV.
There is no moral highground. But there is considerable hypocrisy amongst some of the pro-Sharon posters on this board.
jjimm,
I think that what we have here are two people looking at the same data, and drawing different conclusions.
Graph 1.2: comparison of non-combatant deaths.
Israelis killed:449
Palestinians killed: 603
your contention: Israel has killed 34% more non-combatants
my contention: The ratio is roughly equal: 57:43
I don’t quite understand how you consider that ratio “roughly equal”, but anyway, our differing views of the numbers are beside the point.
Alessan - you completely miss the point. The IDF aren’t terrorists. Why are non-combatant Palestinians dying in such numbers?
The point is that one side is deliberately setting out to murder civilians. The other claims to kill civilians only by accident. Yet the numbers of non-combatants killed on both sides are (if you will) “roughly equal”.
Well, although, the report does note
The other thing about looking at raw numbers like that is that it doesn’t take into account that more Palestinians have been killed in total than Israelis. If you look at percentages, you find, as the study shows
The study suggests
jjimm, I think you’re making a decent point here, but I also think you may be bringing some assumptions to the argument which don’t necessarily wash.
Palestinian non-combatants are being killed in large numbers because they are finding themselves in the midst of combat, rather than simply being steamrolled by a marauding enemy. Jenin may well have been the IDF fighting terrorists, but in that battle the terrorists were fighting as conventional soldiers.
In other conversations we’ve had, the discussion has occasionally drifted to the situation in Northern Ireland. I think we need to point out some of the differences between this case and that one.
In Northern Ireland, the U.K. was afforded the luxury of being able to put into place highly trained soldiers who were specifically drilled in ways of minimizing civilian casualties. The Brits are one of the very last of the “shooter” armies, prizing accuracy and fire discipline over the generation of firepower.
They could afford to do this because a) the number of combatants the British faced was relatively small; b) both sides appear to have agreed in part that the innocent should be avoided if possible; and c) the United Kingdom was not under the simultaneous threat of invasion from three sides by powerful professional armies.
That’s just not the case in the West Bank. Redirecting Israel’s defensive efforts in this direction would weaken their defense against the large mechanized forces which are massed near their borders.
When the Israelis are shot at, they respond to the immediate danger in the way that best minimizes their own casualties, by bringing massive firepower to bear on the points where the Palestinian defenders are suspected to be. There are too many defenders with automatic weapons among a dense and supportive population to make the insertion of small, elite forces practicable.
In other words, I doubt it’s possible to send an SAS-style counterterrorist squad into a place like Jenin and expect them to survive.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to question whether such tactics as those seen in Jenin are of benefit to either side. But the Israelis chose to move into areas where they suspected terrorist organizations were nesting, and the Palestinians chose to fight in those areas, rather than move out. One possible explanation may be that the Israelis found what they were looking for, and the Palestinians worked hard to delay the Israeli advance long enough to move their bases of operations elsewhere.
Whatever the case, both sides agreed upon the time and place in which to do battle, and civilians were caught in the middle of it. Therefore I think you have to assign culpability for civilian combat deaths to both sides, perhaps not equally, but definitely to both.
Suicide bombing against civilians, as a combat tactic, does not compare well. Terrorism deliberately targets the innocent and deliberately avoids the enemy’s armed forces. Culpability for civilian deaths rests entirely with the attacker. The attacker may have all the political reasons in the world to do such a thing, but to attempt to compare the deliberate targeting of the innocent to the unfortunate results of a pitched battle is, I think, incorrect.
I’d also like to thank efrem for his reasonable responses, and I apologize for the extreme tone of my earlier posts in this and other threads. If I can figure out a way to respond in a polite and considerate fashion I will, but until then I’ll just have to state that our views do not coincide and I feel that most of my statements do not require modification.
I am not comparing the motivation, nor am I comparing the proportion of innocent deaths. Clearly, and as I stated in earlier posts, the goals of the suicide terrorists is nothing but to kill innocent civilians - therefore the proportion of innocent civilians killed is likely to be very high.
But the absolute number of innocent people killed is higher for the Israeli forces. To me that indicates expedience in the face of risk to Palestinian civilians, whatever the goal of the action (and I think Sofa King’s post above admits this).
FWIW, the (‘alleged’) British “Shoot to Kill” policy was a) never official, and b) created an enormous shitstorm that it made such action unrepeatable.
What the!!!
I think I hit the submit button prematurely, which is just as well, as I have had a bit of an epiphany.
This is turning into “the seven blind men and the elephant.”
I posted the link in the hope that it might provide some insight instead of providing fodder for further hair-splitting. Please, let’s not lose sight of the fact that every number, every point on a graph, represents someone’s mother, father, son, or daughter.
People say that it’s wrong for Israel to kill civilians. They’re right.
Others say that that Israel has the obligation to protect it’s own populace from indiscrimate attacks. They’re right, too.
Still others say that war is bad and sometimes innocent people get killed. Turns out that they’re also right.
I don’t want to argue any more. I regret my armchair quarterbacking, reducing a terrible and pointless situation into a parlor game of who can score the most debating points. I clearly don’t know shit, and have little if anything to add. I have read all your comments with admiration and respect, but must respectfully ask your leave from this debate.
Since the question of BBC bias came up on this thread, it seems appropriate to quote thisarticle from BBC News
It was certainly bad reporting to repeat this slander as if it were a real incident, which actually occurred in 1840.
(This was pointed out by www.opinionjournal.com )
Jojo, I appreciate your responses to many of my points. However, you only repeated what you had said earlier in regard to my request for your definition of responsible. I would still like that definition…
I was looking at the report and the Pie charts caught my eye. I’ve weighted these numbers as heavily as possible against Israel.
Percent of deaths who were non-combatants:
Israeli deaths: 69.6%
Palestinian deaths: 57.3%
Of course, the status (combatant/non-combatant) of 25% of the dead Palestinians was unknown. So, which side is targetting civilians?
“But the absolute number of innocent people killed is higher for the Israeli forces” - jjimm
Congradulations. You have managed to securely place the blame for their deaths in the hands of the IDF. Tell me, did you even consider attributing responsibility to the terrorists who purposefully hide in residential areas and the gunmen who use civilians as human sheilds? Why should Israel risk her own civilians to preserve Palestinian life when the Palestinians are purposefully endangering non-combatants?
I’d just like to echo a common sentiment of this thread: What should Israel do?
-Stu
bizzwire, I’m sorry you feel that the very interesting and informative link you posted led to ‘scoring debating points’. That was never my intention: the reason I have persisted in posting is that I was trying to make my POV clear. But your elephant analogy is apt. Let’s drop it.
Read my posts: as I have already said, the Palestinian terrorists are targeting civilians. Your point?
bohoboy17 - your point is beside the point. I presume you will concede that these civilians were in fact killed by the IDF (and in the minority, armed settlers)?
Clearly ‘human shield’ tactics are not justified. But is the response of the security forces in the light of these tactic justified? Furthermore, I could say the following: “Israel could build a wall around itself and exclude all residents of the Occupied Territories. But she won’t. Because she needs Palestinian workers to keep the economy going. In other words, the economy is more important than Israeli civilian lives.” But this would also be bullshit and beside the point.
In answer to your question “Why should Israel risk her own civilians to preserve Palestinian life when the Palestinians are purposefully endangering non-combatants?” The answer is: Because. They. Are. Civilians. You are making the classic mistake of confusing “the Palestinians” with “Palestinian terrorists”. :rolleyes: If a Palestinian terrorist somehow managed to create a human shield with Israeli civilians, would the IDF react in the same manner?
Look, I only want for the Israeli people for there to be less murder on their streets, and the same for the Palestinians, and for the Palestinians to achieve independence.
What should Israel do? As Sofa King said, this discussion often comes back to Northern Ireland; in my observation of that similar, though considerably less horrifying, situation, I have observed that military action from security forces leads to wholesale terrorist recruitment, whereas negotiation leads down the painful path to ceasefires and peace settlements. I have also learned from this that the stated aims of terror groups (e.g. “a United Ireland or war”) can be compromised.
In the long term, how about securing assurance from the US and NATO that active protection be offered in the event of an invasion (though despite others’ claims, I don’t see that the threat to Israel from sovereign neighbours extends beyond Syria, and even that is unlikely; we already know that Jordan is a friend of the West and that if Iraq tried anything, the US and NATO would step in). To shore this up, how about talking to the Arab League to negotiate recognition of Israel’s sovereignty, as was offered. Compensating settlers for their trouble (with EU and US money) and resettling them within Israeli borders. Then fulfilling the UN charters that have been laid at her feet.
Is Sharon pursuing short-term tactics or long-term strategy? To me it looks like he is being simply being reactive (e.g. a ‘revenge attack’ for the Hebrew University atrocity; punishing the families of suicide bombers; and pursuing policies that are just going to make the situation worse and worse).
Ask yourself: would Rabin be doing what Sharon is?
Does anyone else find it intensly ironic that such a debate, where both sides are intractable and don’t seem that willing to compromise is happening on this particular subject?
Not really.
Though I’d have to query what you mean by “sides”. I don’t want to “push the Jews into the sea”. I just want Sharon to stop making things worse for everyone.
Big difference.
OK, but this POV presumes that one knows how to evaluate the long-term results of one’s preferred strategy. IN other words, how does one know that the approach s/he prefers to Sharon’s will not lead to Israel’s ultimate destruction?
E.g., what’s your preferred strategy to deal with this problem reported here?
The lack of effort against Iran’s support of terrorists does not inspire confidence that the world will deal with Iraq’s alleged support for biological warfare.
OK, bear with me here. There are two factors to civilian casualties - how aggressive the enemy is, and how hard their own forces are trying to protect them.
This may sound strange, but the Israeli security forces have been very successful in stopping terrorists. Looking in from the outside, the only news you get is of terrorists succeeding; you never get the news of them foiled. I read the Israeli papers, I speak constantly to those in the know: Israel is stopping suicide bombers on a daily - sometimes hourly - basis. They’re finding labs, capturing leaders, pushing the terrorists to the mattresses. If the IDF and Israeli Police had not been fighting, the Israeli noncombatant casualty rate would be ten times as high as it is now. It would make the Palestinian’s look incidental.
The Palestina Authority, OTOH, is doing very little to protect their own people. First of all, there’s not really much they can do - guerillan tactics are a lousy defense. Second, I’m not really sure they care to. Martyrs are worth more than mouths to feed.
Of course, it’s needless for me to say that suicide bombings never saved a single life.
That’s what i mean by “winning”. The IDF is not interested in a equal rate of casualties - their goal is to keep the Israeli side as close to zero as possible. Of course, if they could they’d keep both sides of the equation at zero… but that’s not really in the cards. If, in order to protect their own citizens, the Israeli government has to risk the lives of Palestinian civilians, then it will do so - it fact, failure to do so would be a betrayal of their mandate.
If you want to win a fight, you have to take it to the enemy. If you take it to the enemy, you’ll risk hurting some of their civilians. There may be a way to avoid this, but if so no army in the history of the world has ever managed to find it out.
Yeah, december, it would be appropriate to quote it. Too bad you didn’t.
The actual** quote from the article begins as follows:
It appears that you cut-and-pasted the quote, then deliberately deleted the word “alleged,” just so that you could accuse the BBC of bias.
If you have a rational explanation for your conduct that absolves you from a deliberate attempt to deceive your fellow posters, I’m all ears.
Sua
december
Sua seems to have already dealt with your new “BBC is biased” argument.
Funny how one little word - “alleged” - changes the meaning of the entire article, funnier still how that was the one word you seem to have omitted. Something fishy going on around here, I think.
As regards your next post, all I can say is: don’t believe everything you read.
The article says:
coulda, shoulda woulda. What if Saddam does this, what if Saddam does that. To quote that master of the bon mot, Mr Willy Wonka, “what if my beard were made of green spinach?”
Don’t worry about what ifs, lets just consider things for which there is actually some evidence.
Mandos
What do I mean by responsible? I mean that Israel should deal with the threat posed by the various terror groups in the most effective way possible and by using the least amount of violence possible.
The most effective means are not always the most violent. And the most violent means are not always the most effective.
Palestine is not Afghanistan. The “bad guys” in Palestine live amongst the ordinary people not separated from them in easy-to-hit terrorist training camps.
The “bad guys” in al qaeda are fighting for an idea. The Palestinians are fighting to retain their land.
The al qaeda boys are not rooted to any one country, they were just using Afghanistan as a convienient staging post. Al qaeda terrorists are a different thing entirely to Palestinian terrorists.
I don’t like the way Bush tries to use the “war on terror” as an all-embracing term, encompassing all kinds of terrorists. Sharon has gleefully seized this and used it to further his own ends.
Al Qaeda are different to Hamas. The end result may be similar - the deaths of innocent people, the tactics may be similar - suicide bombings and the anti-american, anti-jewish rhetoric may be similar. But, even so, despite all this, they are different things entirely.
When this is all over, the Israelis and the Palestinians are gonna have to live with each other side by side. Israel needs to defend itself, of course. But it can do this by a variety of means including negotiation and concession where appropriate.
Erecting settlements on Palestinian land is not going to build any bridges (and Sharon is one of the chief proponents of this policy).
Being responsible means using the minimum amount of force to achieve the main aim which is two secure independent countries which are at peace.
Each innocent civilian Israel kills creates ten future potential terrorists. These terrorists will then go on to kill Israelis. The fewer innocent people Israel kills. the less support there will be for Hamas etc.
The more responsible Israel is, the more responsible the Palestinians will be. Palestinians are very cultured people, ask any Israeli. This situation is not unsolvable despite what the extremists may have you believe.
All that’s required is a greater level of responsibility by the Israelis.
Oh and we need to get rid of Sharon (and Arafat). And create a UN buffer zone (in the short term). And also create a Palestinian middle class - the Gaza strip is an awful place, money needs to be poured into the area, a lot of money. Oh, and yes, some of those settlements are going to have to go.
I both quoted the article and provided a cite.
What happened was that BBC’s omission of “alleged” was pointed out on Friday by OpinionJournal.com:
BBC News subsequently became aware of their error. Perhaps they read Opinion Journal, or maybe some reader contacted them about the problem. In any event, they eventually amended their on-line article, so it now reads what you copied, rather than what I copied.
Sua, by ignoring the obvious possibility that BBC News had changed their article, you misled posters like Jojo into thinking that the BBC had done nothing wrong.
If you have a rational explanation for your conduct that absolves you from a deliberate attempt to deceive your fellow posters, I’m all ears. 
There must be “some evidence” in order for the article to be written, but less than a certainty. Unfortunately, when dealing with a threat of this magnitude, one cannot safely wait for certainty.
Huh? Israel has the military might to drive the Palestinians off their land, but Israel has not done so. OTOH many Palestinians have publicly stated that they want to drive Israel out of existance.