PDA

View Full Version : Does the Israeil Army Target Children? Guardian Article


nicky g
07-28-2003, 06:31 AM
Israeli Army and Palestinian Children (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1007051,00.html)

On Friday a four-year-old Palestinian boy was shot dead by a soldier - the most recent child victim of the Israeli army. Chris McGreal investigates a shocking series of deaths

Monday July 28, 2003
The Guardian

Nine-year-old Abdul Rahman Jadallah's promise to the corpse of the shy little girl who lived up the street was, in all probability, kept for him by an Israeli bullet. The boy - Rahman to his family - barely knew Haneen Suliaman in life. But whenever there was a killing in the dense Palestinian towns of southern Gaza he would race to the morgue to join the throng around the mutilated victim. Then he would tag along with the surging, angry funerals of those felled by rarely seen soldiers hovering far above in helicopters or cocooned behind the thick concrete of their pillboxes. Haneen, who was eight years old, had been shot twice in the head by an Israeli soldier as she walked down the street in Khan Yunis refugee camp with her mother, Lila Abu Selmi.
"Almost every day here the Israelis shoot at random, so when you hear it you get inside as quickly as possible," says Mrs Selmi. "Haneen went to the grocery store to buy some crisps. When the shooting started, I came out to find her. She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying, 'Mother, mother'. Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other. She was still in my arms and she died."

Later that day, the crowds pushed into the morgue at the local hospital to see the young girl on the slab, partly in homage, partly to vent their anger. Rahman pressed his way to the front so he could touch Haneen. Then he went home and told his mother, Haniya Abed Atallah, that he too wanted to die. "Rahman went to the morgue and kissed Haneen. He came home and told us he had promised the dead girl he would die too. I made him apologise to his father," Mrs Atallah says.

Weeks passed and another Israeli bullet shattered the life of another young Palestinian girl. Huda Darwish was sitting at her school desk when a cluster of shots ripped through the top of a tree outside her classroom and buried themselves in the wall. But one ricocheted off the window frame, smashed through the glass and lodged in the 12-year-old girl's brain. Huda's teacher, Said Sinwar, was standing in front of the blackboard. "It was a normal lesson when suddenly there was this shooting without any warning. The children were terrified and trying to run. I was shouting at them to get under their desks. Suddenly the bullet hit the little girl and she slumped to the floor with a sigh, not even screaming," he says.

Sinwar dragged Huda from under her desk and ran with her across the road to the hospital, itself scarred by Israeli bullets. After weeks in hospital, she has started breathing for herself again, through a windpipe cut into her throat. She has regained use of her arms and legs, but will be blind for the rest of her life.

Rahman was in another class at the same school. The next day, lessons were cancelled and the boy defied his mother to tag along at the funeral of a slain Palestinian fighter. The burial evolved into the ritual protest of children marching to the security fence that separates Gaza's dense and beggared Khan Yunis refugee camp from the spacious religious exclusivity of the neighbouring Jewish settlement. As Rahman hung a Palestinian flag on the fence, a bullet caught him under his left eye. He died on the spot. "It looks as if the soldiers saw him put the flag on the fence and they shot him," says Rahman's brother, 19-year-old Ijaram. "There were many kids next to him, next to the fence. But he was the only one carrying the flag. Why else would they have shot him?"

Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, recently praised the Israeli military as the most humanitarian in the world because it claims to risk its soldiers' lives to avoid killing innocent Palestinians. It is a belief echoed by most Israelis, who revere the army as an institution of national salvation. Yet among the most shocking aspects of the past three years of intifada that has no shortage of horrors - not least the teenage suicide bombers revelling in mass murder - has been the killing of children by the Israeli army.

The numbers are staggering; one in five Palestinian dead is a child. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) says at least 408 Palestinian children have been killed since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000. Nearly half were killed in the Gaza strip, and most of those died in two refugee camps in the south, Khan Yunis and Rafah. The PCHR says they were victims of "indiscriminate shooting, excessive force, a shoot-to-kill policy and the deliberate targeting of children".

And children continue to die, even after the ceasefire declared by Hamas and other groups at the end of June. On Friday, a soldier at a West Bank checkpoint shot dead a four-year-old boy, Ghassan Kabaha, and wounded his two young sisters after "accidentally" letting loose at a car with a burst of machinegun fire from his armoured vehicle. The rate of killing since the beginning of the ceasefire has dropped sharply, but almost every day the army has continued to fire heavy machineguns into Khan Yunis or Rafah. Among the latest victims of apparently indiscriminate shooting were three teenagers and an eight-year-old, Yousef Abu Jaza, hit in the knee when soldiers shot at a group of children playing football in Khan Yunis.

The military says it is difficult to distinguish between youths and men who might be Palestinian fighters, but the statistics show that nearly a quarter of the children killed were under 12. Last year alone, 50 children under the age of eight were shot dead or blown up by the Israeli army in Gaza: eight, one of whom was two months old, were slaughtered when a one-tonne bomb was dropped on a block of flats to kill a lone Hamas leader, Sheikh Salah Mustafa Shehada. But Rahman, Huda and Haneen were not "collateral damage" in the assassination of Hamas "terrorists", or caught in crossfire. There was no combat when they were shot. There was nothing more than a single burst of fire, sometimes a single bullet, from an Israeli soldier's gun.

It was the same when seven-year-old Ali Ghureiz was shot in the head on the street outside his house in Rafah. And when Haneen Abu Sitta, 12, was killed while walking home after school near the fence with a Jewish settlement in southern Gaza. And when Nada Madhi, also 12, was shot in the stomach and died as she leaned out of her bedroom window in Rafah to watch the funeral procession for another child killed earlier.

The army offered a senior officer of its southern command to discuss the shooting of these six children over a period of just 10 weeks earlier this year. The military told me I could not name him, even though his identity is no secret to the Israeli public or his enemies; it was this officer who explained to the nation how an army bulldozer came to crush to death the young American peace activist, Rachel Corrie.

"I want you to know we are not a bunch of crazies down here," he says. At his headquarters in the Gush Khatif Jewish settlement in Gaza, the commander rattles through the army's version of the shootings: either the military knew nothing of them, or the children had been caught in crossfire - a justification used so frequently, and so often disproved, that it is rarely believed. But three hours later, after poring over maps and military logs, timings and regulations, he concedes that his soldiers were responsible - even culpable - in several of the killings.

The Israeli army's instinctive response is to muddy the waters when confronted with a controversial killing. At first, it questioned whether Huda was even shot. I described for the soldiers the scene in the classroom with blood rippling up the wall behind the child's desk.

"I don't know how this happened," says the commander. "I take responsibility for this. It could have been one of ours. I think it probably was."

The killing of Haneen is clearer in the commander's mind. "We checked it and we know that on the same day there was shooting of a mortar," he says. "The troops from the post shot back at the area where the mortar was launched, the area where the girl was killed. We didn't see if we hit someone. I assume that a stray bullet hit Haneen. Unfortunately." Doesn't he think that simply shooting back in the general direction of a mortar attack is irresponsible at best? He says not. "You cannot have soldiers sitting and doing nothing when they are shot at," he says.

Haneen's mother, Mrs Selmi, believes her daughter was shot from "the container". The metal box dangling from a crane evokes more constant fear in Khan Yunis than the helicopter rocket attacks and tank incursions. Nestled inside is an Israeli sniper shielded by camouflage netting and hoisted high enough to see deep into the refugee camp. From inside, it is striking how much the box moves around in the wind, leaving little hope of an accurate shot. Peering from behind the camouflage, the view is mostly of Palestinian houses riddled with bullet holes, a testament to the scale of incoming Israeli fire. Haneen's home sits a few metres from the security fence separating Khan Yunis from the Jewish settlement. But, because the house is inhabited, the damage is mostly limited to the upper floor, with 27 bulletholes around the windows. "In this area, we shoot at the houses," says the Israeli commander. "We don't want people on the second floor. I gave the order: shoot at the windows."

He may concede his soldiers are responsible for shooting Huda and Haneen, but he denies their responsibility for the slaying of Rahman, the nine-year-old shot while hanging the flag at the security fence. "We saw the children, we saw them for sure. They always demonstrate in this area after funerals. But I don't have any report from the troops on our shooting on this occasion," he says. "We have rules of engagement that we don't shoot children."

Seven-year-old Ali Ghureiz's father scoffs at the claim. "They meant to kill him, for sure," says Talab Ghureiz. "I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this."

The killing of Ali and wounding of his five-year-old brother is particularly disturbing because the commander admits there was no combat and the boys were the focus of the soldier's attention. The Ghureiz house lies on the very edge of Rafah. At the bottom of the street, an Israeli armoured vehicle and guard posts sit in the midst of a "no-go" area of tangled wire, broken buildings and mud. On the other side is the Egyptian border. "There were three kids. They were playing 50m from the house," says Ghureiz. "The Israelis fired two or three bullets, maybe more. No one could have made a mistake. They were only 100m from the children. I don't know why they did it. Ali was shot in the face immediately below his left eye. It was a big bullet. It did a lot of damage," he whispers.

"This is the first I've heard of this," says the commander. "According to the log, in the afternoon there were children trying to cross the border. The tower fired five bullets and didn't report any children hurt. Usually with children this age, we don't shoot. There is a very strict rule of engagement about shooting at children. You don't do it." But Ali is dead. "They [Palestinian fighters] send children to the fence. An older guy, usually 25 or so, gives them the order to go to the fence, or dig next to it. They know we don't shoot at children. If one of my soldiers goes out to chase them away, a sniper will be waiting for him."

Fences usually mark defined limits but, as with so much in the occupied territories, the rules are deliberately vague. There is an ill-defined ban on "approaching" the security fences separating Gaza from Israel or the Jewish settlements. "We have a danger zone 100 to 200m from the fence around Gush Katif [settlement]. They [the Palestinians] know where the danger zone is," the commander says. But many houses in Rafah and Khan Yunis are within the "danger zone". Children play in its shadow, and many adults fear walking to their own front doors.

"We have in our rules of engagement how to handle this," the commander says. "During the day, if someone is inside the zone without a weapon and not attempting to harm or with hostile intent, then we do not shoot. If he has a weapon or hostile intent, you can shoot to kill. If he doesn't have a weapon, you shoot 50m from him into something solid that will stop the bullet, like a wall. You shoot twice in the air, and if he continues to move then you are allowed to shoot him in the leg."

The regulations are drummed into every soldier, but there is ample evidence that the army barely enforces them. The military's critics say the vast majority of soldiers do not commit such crimes but those that do are rarely called to account. The result is an atmosphere of impunity. Israel's army chief-of-staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, claims that every shooting of a civilian is investigated. "Harming innocent civilians is firstly a matter of morals and values, and we cannot permit ourselves to let this happen. I deal with it personally," he told the Israeli press. But Yaalon has not dealt personally with any of the killings of the six children reported on here.

The army's indifferent handling of the shootings of civilians has even drawn stinging criticism from a member of Ariel Sharon's Likud party in the Israeli parliament, Michael Eitan. "I am not certain that the responsible officials are aware of the fact that there are gross violations of human rights in the field, despite army regulations," he said.

The case of Khalil al-Mughrabi is telling. The 11-year-old was shot dead in Rafah by the Israeli army two years ago as he played football with a group of friends near the security fence. One of Israel's most respected human rights organisations, B'Tselem, wrote to the judge advocate general's office, responsible for prosecuting soldiers, demanding an inquiry. Months later, the office wrote back saying that Khalil was shot by soldiers who acted with "restraint and control" to disperse a riot in the area. However, the judge advocate general's office made the mistake of attaching a copy of its own, supposedly secret, investigation which came to a quite different conclusion - that the riot had been much earlier in the day and the soldiers who shot the child should not have opened fire. The report says a "serious deviation from obligatory norms of behaviour" took place.

In the report, the chief military prosecutor, Colonel Einat Ron, then spelled out alternative false scenarios that should be offered to B'Tselem. B'Tselem said the internal report confirmed that the army has a policy of covering up its crimes. "The message that the judge advocate general's office transmits to soldiers is clear: soldiers who violate the 'Open Fire Regulations', even if their breach results in death, will not be investigated and will not be prosecuted."

Towards the end of the interview, the commander in Gaza finally concedes that his soldiers were at fault to some degree or other in the killing of most - but not all - of the children we discussed. They include a 12-year-old girl, Haneen Abu Sitta, shot dead in Rafah as she walked home from school near a security fence around one of the fortified Jewish settlements. The army moved swiftly to cover it up. It leaked a false story to more compliant parts of the Israeli media, claiming Haneen was shot during a gun battle between troops and "terrorists" in an area known for weapons smuggling across the border from Egypt. But the army commander concedes that there was no battle. "Every name of a child here, it makes me feel bad because it's the fault of my soldiers. I need to learn and see the mistakes of my troops," he says. But by the end of the interview, he is combative again. "I remember the Holocaust. We have a choice, to fight the terrorists or to face being consumed by the flames again," he says.

The Israeli army insists that interviews with its commanders about controversial issues are off the record. Depending on what the officer says, that bar is sometimes lifted. I ask to be able to name the commander in Gaza. The army refuses. "He has admitted his soldiers were responsible for at least some of those killings," says an army spokesman who sat in on the interview. "In this day and age that raises the prospect of war crimes, not here but if he travels abroad he could be arrested some time in the future. Some people might think there is something wrong here."

MMMMMM
07-28-2003, 10:35 AM
It's all very tragic.

There probably are a handful of Israeli soldiers deliberately doing bad things in an organization as large as the IDF.

The Palestinian terrorist groups, in training children and women to be suicide bombers, make the situation much worse because that makes it harder to distinguish between threatening persons and non-threating persons.

brad
07-28-2003, 10:52 AM
did u see US college girl in israel who was run over by bulldozer? (then backed up and run over again /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

Ray Zee
07-28-2003, 01:24 PM
exactly m,

israel soldiers are risking their lives every minute. and cannot be asked to stand idlely by and take bullets and bombs. its up to the palistenians to help clean their own house and stop the terrorists from within. if they chose not to then they have to expect casulties from those trying to defend themselves. even if in the course of defending them selves they act irresponsibly. as soldiers themselves in the heat of a situation are not capable of making split second decisions that are correct.

Cyrus
07-28-2003, 03:35 PM
I beg to differ - and under clear skies too. Not a cloud in sight.

Although a great many cases of child-killing (what a subject!) can be attributed to battle-caused weariness, fatigue, paranoia, etc, the figures tell a more complex story : 1 outta 5 Palestinians killed is a child.

So, this goes beyond mere accidents or a soldier going overboard. It's clearly a tactic that intends to demoralize the resisting populace. Shooting with impunity at innocents bystanders has a net terrorising effect, that has been used time and again in History. Morality has nothing to do with it. (Recall, in context, the execution squads shooting 1 outta 10 soldiers at random for retreating "without being ordered to" in WWII).

But whence the birth of the elusive mind of the suicide bomber? Read about it in the Guardian article : "[Nine-year old] Rahman went to the morgue and kissed [four-year old dead] Haneen. He came home and told us he had promised the dead girl he would die too."

Ray Zee
07-28-2003, 03:52 PM
cyrus the reason i cant be a planned move to kill children is that the soldiers just wouldnt do it. most likely they just fire into whatever the situation that is confronting them. like a mob, or where shells are coming from. whoever is in the way gets hit sometimes. its wrong of course but that is the way it is.
alot of time we all try to put a meaning on random things or things that cant be quantified.

Glenn
07-28-2003, 04:45 PM
"the figures tell a more complex story : 1 outta 5 Palestinians killed is a child."

How many of these "children" are actually 14-18 year old male combatants? This could have a major effect on the meaning of this data.

Glenn
07-28-2003, 04:48 PM
I think that people who stand in front of bulldozers should not be surprised when they are run over by a bulldozer.

B-Man
07-28-2003, 06:07 PM
Hey Nicky,

Don't you have anything better to do than repeatedly post anti-Israel propoganda on this site?

Maybe you should check out the upcoming Mel Gibson movie about Jesus, I bet you would like it.

B-Man
07-28-2003, 06:11 PM
1 outta 5 Palestinians killed is a child.

Two questions:

1. What proportion of suicide-bombing victims are children?

2. Is the life of an innocent child worth more than the life of an innocent adult? If so, then please express equivalent shock/anger/sympathy for the innocent victims of Palestinian suicide bombings (which of course specifically and intentionally target innocent civilians). If not, what is your point?

MMMMMM
07-28-2003, 06:43 PM
How much of this figure is attributable to collateral damage (in addition to the things other mentioned such as possibly counting 14-18 year-old combatants as children--maybe 11-year olds are sometimes combatants too...)

I do suspect there are a few really bad apple soldiers in the IDF...as in any army...who just might do such a thing deliberately. But that is a few, not enough to be likely to skew major data significantly.

And by the way let's contrast all this for a moment with those Palestinian suicide bombers who deliberately suicide-bombed a girl's bas mitzvah birthday party.

The Israelis may on occasion overstep the bounds of decency--of regard for innocent human life--but the Palestinians do it as a rule rather than as the exception. In fact they delight in it, and teach it to their children in schools as a way to enter "paradise."

The Palestinians (and the Wahhabis) are in the grip of a death-cult and it is beyond sick. It is utterly reprehensible as well.

nicky g
07-28-2003, 07:52 PM
MMM says: "There probably are a handful of Israeli soldiers deliberately doing bad things in an organization as large as the IDF. "

Fair enough. So why aren't they prosecuted?

Ray: "most likely they just fire into whatever the situation that is confronting them. like a mob, or where shells are coming from. whoever is in the way gets hit sometimes"

No offence Ray, but from this it seems you haven't read the article. THat wasn't the case in the cases mentioned, as acknowledged by the Israeli officer interviewed.

Glenn: "How many of these "children" are actually 14-18 year old male combatants? This could have a major effect on the meaning of this data. "

I believe 16 is the cut-off point for a "child" here. If by combatants you mean stone-throwers, probably a few. Last I checked that wasn't a capital crime. Meanwhile, what about the under-14s catalogued in the article?

B-Man: "Don't you have anything better to do than repeatedly post anti-Israel propoganda on this site?"

Obviously not! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Everyone who said: well suicide bombers kill children too blah... Yes, and I condemn them. Noone here eeds convincing that the suicide bombings are gross atrocities. My point is that the Israeli army daily commits acts that just as easily fit the description of "terrorism". As for a few indiscretions vs a way of life: the Israelis kill unarmed civilians every day in the Occupied Territories. When the suicide bombers strike, you damn well hear about it, and it's not every day.

MMMMMM
07-28-2003, 09:49 PM
How do you know that the Israeli Army "daily" commits acts which could be considered terrorism, or that they "daily" kill unarmed civilians in the occupied territories (not that those two things are synonymous)? And isn't it likely that most killings of Palestinian civilians are either collateral damage and/or self-defense and/or involve a targeted killing of a terrorist leader? I really doubt that most Palestinian civilians who are killed are just shot at random when acting peacefully in peaceful areas away from known terrorist leaders.

Cyrus
07-29-2003, 12:16 AM
There is no Master Plan as such, nor will you find any explicit written orders, of course. And the IDF official position is highly forbidding about soldiers shooting children.

But all it takes is impunity. Then the soldier gets to be more casual with his shooting. The exceptional psychopaths that exist in every army get to have their kicks. This is encouraging the killing (1 outta 5 a random act?!) by official benign neglect. This is also in perfect accord with Sharon's record and stated intentions. No surprises there.

And if you want something from the horse's mouth (I don't know how these metaphors go over in Montana!) check out the reports coming out of the hellholes of Ramallah and such.

Cyrus
07-29-2003, 12:36 AM
1 outta 5 Palestinians killed is a child.

"What proportion of suicide-bombing victims are children?"

More than 1 outta 5 possibly. What's your point?

"Is the life of an innocent child worth more than the life of an innocent adult?"

I always thought so, for some weird reason. Call me wrong.

"If so, then please express equivalent shock/anger/sympathy for the innocent victims of Palestinian suicide bombings (which of course specifically and intentionally target innocent civilians)."

I express in the strongest terms possible my shock and my anger for the terrorist attacks on civilians perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists and my sympathy for the victims of those attacks, especially the children.

There (as if that was necessary among civilised men). Now, can you address the issue of children being targeted by the IDF as made clear by The Guardian article ?

B-Man
07-29-2003, 08:26 AM
Children are not intentionally specifically targetted by the IDF. If you think Israel intentionally targets children, you probably also think Jews are "the children of monkeys and pigs." The fact that 1 out of 5 Palestinians killed is a "child" (however that may be defined) does not prove that Israel targets children (unlike Palestinian suicide bombers, who do specifically target innocent civilians, including children and babies).

If individual Israeli soldiers have intentionally targetted children, they should be punished severely. One or two lunatics is not the same as the IDF having a policy of attacking children. You of all people should know that.

nicky g
07-29-2003, 09:05 AM
"If individual Israeli soldiers have intentionally targetted children, they should be punished severely. One or two lunatics is not the same as the IDF having a policy of attacking children. "

Ok - so again, why aren't the people responsible for the killings in the article prosecuted? Why does it keep happening? Why does the army cover up and dissemble when faced with these deaths?
I don't know whether the Israeli army as a whole has a policy of deliberately targeting children; I doubt it. I do believe it has a total disregard for Palestinian lives and is an out and out racist organisation. I can understand why people have different views on the conflict, but your belief that there needs to be an ulterior racist motive for all the people who strongly object to huge numbers of civilian deaths and a decades-long occupation is absurd.

B-Man
07-29-2003, 09:11 AM
but your belief that there needs to be an ulterior racist motive for people who object to large numbers of civilian deaths and a decades-long occupation betrays how weak your arguments really are.

No, what I was referring to was your proclivity (also referred to in another post) to post anti-Israel propoganda. You repeatedly slam Israel and tell only one side of the story, when you know there is much more to it than what you are saying. Your actions show a strong anti-Israel bias. That is what I was referring to.

You know damn well the IDF doesn't have a policy of targetting children, even though you only admit you "doubt" that it does. So why did you title the thread as you did? Think about it.

ACPlayer
07-29-2003, 09:52 AM
Amnesty Intl's take on this
Killing the future - Amnesty article (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE020052002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\ISRAEL/OCCUPIED+TERRITORIES?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\ISR AEL/OCCUPIED+TERRITORIES)

Call for war crime investigation (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2002/israel11042002.html)

One of many Amnesty statements on terrorist acts in Israel by Palestinians - in case someone thought they were biased:
Bus bombing (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2002/israel11212002.html)

B-Man
07-29-2003, 10:00 AM
One of many Amnesty statements on terrorist acts in Israel by Palestinians - in case someone thought they were biased:

As if one article proves they are not biased. Amnesty has shown a consistent anti-Israel bias for years (just like several of the posters on this site!). They are right up there with NPR (National Palestinian Radio).

Even during a truce, you anti-Israel zealots can't give it a rest. This is why there will never be peace in the region.

ACPlayer
07-29-2003, 10:16 AM
Hmmmmm.


I guess the only people who are not biased are those who agree with you. This seems to be a pattern among many of the posters on this forum.

nicky g
07-29-2003, 10:25 AM
"So why did you title the thread as you did?"

because that was the title of the link to the article when it was on the guardian's front page. i said i doubt that they have an actual policy of shooting children. but they clearly have an unofficial policy of covering up and ignoring such incidents, whether they relate to children, women, old men, journalists, and UN officials, all of whom have been recently caught in the "crossfire" (funny how they're never hit by Palestinian bullets) which is almost as bad.

the reason i post articles on one side of the story is because everyone, especially you, is clearly aware of the other side of the story. a good deal of people here seem to think there is only the israeli side of the story, and the palestinian side does not get much airtime or mainstream support. there is no point posting an article about suicide bombers targetting civilians , because we all know they do, and we're all agreed it's wrong. the reason the conflict won't stop isn't because people like us highlight what the israeli army does (and is continuing to do, despite the "truce" you refer to; several civilians including a 5 year-old chid have been killed in the last couple of days); it's because people such as you give succour to the israel's belief that it can do no wrong.

byt the way i decided what i originally wrote in my previous post was a bit too strong and edited it immediately after posting. i'm sorry you saw it before it was changed; my feelings are more in line with what is there now.

John Cole
07-29-2003, 11:11 AM
M,

A few years ago, three or four, an Iraeli soldier beat to death a rock throwing Palestinian adult. The soldier was tried, convicted, and sentenced to jail. Length of sentence: three months. Certainly, this slap on the wrist must foster a climate in which soldiers act with a degree of impunity, if such a thing as a "degree of impunity" is possible. And I don't care whether the soldier is in the US Army or the Army of God, the message is clear.

John

Ray Zee
07-29-2003, 11:13 AM
very true b-man and that is worthy of the discussion. why there may be no way to ever have peace. start a thread on that.

MMMMMM
07-29-2003, 11:52 AM
I started a thread a while back, I believe, which included a link to a Daniel Pipes article. The article made the point that until Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist, and forswear attacks with the aim of reclaiming all of Palestine "from the River to the Sea," there could be no peace. In other words, the Hamas Charter and like mindsets are an immense obstacle to peace. If Hamas were merely a tiny fringe group it would be one thing. But Hamas is fairly large, and a large slice of the Palestinian population outside of Hamas agrees with their view.

The only way there can be peace, IMO, is for the two groups to live side by side, each respecting the other's right to exist. But that is precisely what Hamas is chartered and sworn to never allow.

ACPlayer
07-29-2003, 12:01 PM
Defending Hamas is defending the undefendable.

Perhaps both sides should become atheists, or atleast agnostics, and that WOULD solve the problem.

I refer you to the book: Battle for God by Karen Armstrong on a historical perspective of the religious battles and how they intertwine with politics between Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- all of which ironically come from the same source.

MMMMMM
07-29-2003, 12:02 PM
From that description I would say you have a point.

As an aside, how irrational must one be to throw rocks at someone holding a rifle?

I would say the soldier's punishment sends two messages, one being the message you alluded to. The second is the message to the Palestinians: don't throw rocks at soldiers.

Dr Wogga
07-29-2003, 12:11 PM
....1 in 5 Palestinians killed are children.

What is the statistic for: a) Israeli children killed by terrorists scum Palestinians? I betcha its close to 1 in 5. And if you throw Israeli elderly into the mix its probably a lot higher. Further, because some scum Palestinian suicide bombers ARE CHILDREN, you can't use their deaths as part of a stat King Pompous ABF (arrogant bottom feeder).

Better yet, how about answering this question honestly - are there more children in the: (this is an A or B choice BTW) A. Israeli army
B. Palestinian terror squads

Hmmmmmmmm, that nucler family structure is sure alive and well in good ole Palestine, ehh?

Dr Wogga
07-29-2003, 12:17 PM

JayKon
07-30-2003, 12:24 AM
Oh my God, how could I be dumb enough to join this thread!?!

Lets not forget the joint arab statement of 1967 where the
arab "community" declared that they would "Drive the Israel's to the sea, killing them all".

Well, that failed, and now they are the poor downtrodden underdog begging for sympathay.

The bottom line is that Islam has been at war with us since about 400 AD to 600 AD and this is just the current battle. The war won't be over until either they are all dead, or we are all dead. Its not that we aren't willing to have peace, its them. Why? Because God demands that they obey and anyone who doesn't obey God (Isalm God ONLY!) is an enemy and should be punished (read killed).

Cyrus
07-30-2003, 01:37 AM
"The second is the message to the Palestinians: don't throw rocks at soldiers."

OK. I see that the rule about the punishment fitting tghe crime is outta the window. It's just death for eveything. That's OK. Let's see. Then if the bit about "not throwing stones" is enforced, we would take it up a notch and demand that they "don't insult soldiers". The definition of insult would be as exact as the definition of stone. Should take, ohhh, about a thousand chlidren to enforce but it would, eventually, right?

And when we have accomplished that, we would take it further up a notch to "don't give looks to soldiers". Which would get lots of those uppity Ayrab children whacked (and rightly so) cause they're are just wild, ya know?

But they would soon learn! And we would get even further ahead in our War Against Terrorism (don't forget that most stone-throwing children are characterized as "terrorists" in the IDF press communiques). We would demand that they "stop saying No to soldiers" altogether.

Why, the road to peaceful co-existence is much smoother than I previously thought. Thanks, folks, for shining the path.

Cyrus
07-30-2003, 07:13 AM
"Islam has been at war with us since about 400 AD to 600 AD and this is just the current battle. The war won't be over until either they are all dead, or we are all dead."

It's precisely this un-Historic and apocalyptic point of view that is responsible for the impasse in the Middle East. A point of view shared by both sides of the conflict.

Only by getting away from such views can we hope to have a lasting peace in the area. (The problem is that the mainstream, middle-of-the-road, moderate parts of the two sides have become radicalized. A development that facilitates the work of those that do not see peace as being conducive to their objectives.)

--Cyrus

JayKon
07-30-2003, 09:41 AM
Are you actually saying the Islam and Christian worlds hav not been at war for almost 2000 years? I have histoey behind my statement, what do you have behind yours, besides wishfull thinking?

Lucifer
07-30-2003, 10:22 AM
What history, exactly, is behind your statement? Almost 2000 years? History tells me that Islam didn't exist 2000 years ago and that for the first few hundred years of that 2000 years Christians were too busy being persecuted by the Roman Empire (and later too busy persecuting one another) to make war on anybody. History also tells me of many wars (the Napoleonic Wars, the American Revolution, WWI, WWII, etc.), but I don't remember there being any mention of the Islam-Christian war.

Dr Wogga
07-30-2003, 10:29 AM
.............Cyrus, king of pomposity and the like, knows all, even despite 2,000 years of history. HE, above all, knows the solution. HE, above all, knows what's best for you, for I, for our families, and all countries of the world. Usually, it is an anti-US, anti-Israel rant. Cyrus, naturally, is on the wrong side of just about every issue.

Sorry you felt compelled to jump into this cesspool. The good Dr is taking life guard and CPR training for just these occasions.......... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

ACPlayer
07-30-2003, 10:56 AM
I am not sure who the "us" is in your statement about Islam being at war with us. If "us" is Jews then I should remind you of the history where over the centuries Jews have been prosecuted far more so by Christians than by Muslims.

American Christians have only recently (as in the last 20 years or so) taken up the cause of Israel, the reasons for this change of heart I dont fully understand. And of course the European Christians do have a fairly strong Anti-Semite streak.

Jews who have lived in Muslim states have, generally, been less interfered with than Jews living in Christian states - historically speaking.

If "us" is something else then I cant comment on your 2000 year war.

MMMMMM
07-30-2003, 11:32 AM
Please read my post again, Cyrus. Did I in ANY way imply that I agreed with the message? I was merely observing what the messages seem to be. That's ALL I did.

Those DO seem to be the messages sent by the Israelis to the Palestinians...don't they?

I also did observe that throwing rocks at an armed man appears a somewhat irrational act.

I really wish people would take things more literally (except in those rare instances involving an obvious tongue-in-cheek joke).

Now: I don't condone beating a man to death for throwing rocks. But I also think the rock-thrower was acting stupidly. I also don't think they should be able to throw rocks with relative impunity. However I am also strongly opposed to severe over-use of force whether overseas or regarding police brutality here in the USA. However, the more hostile and more deadly the environment, the harder it is for responses to be perfectly measured. Not that I'm saying he had to beat the guy to death in order to be safe. Now why did I add that last sentence? Because I now have less faith that people will read what I write without reading into it.

adios
07-30-2003, 12:03 PM
"Cyrus, naturally, is on the wrong side of just about every issue."

It's not what side of the issue but the way he puts himself there as Mason and Bruce Z pointed out. I agree that he's often on the wrong side btw.

adios
07-30-2003, 12:05 PM
xx

Dr Wogga
07-30-2003, 12:24 PM

MMMMMM
07-30-2003, 12:34 PM
I think Cyrus is often wrong and some of his stuff may be ill-reasoned, but I think he's generally sincere and I like him. Maybe it's because he really sometimes does make good original points. I guess this could be a case for 'diversity of ideas';-)

Dr Wogga
07-30-2003, 12:42 PM
....for example, an idiot is on an overpass and tosses down a brick or cinder block onto a passing motorcade or marching unit trying to hit one of the soldiers in the head and kill them. Naturally, the 2-faced arabic press would report this as a "rock-throwing incident" Can anyone deny this act can cause a fatal injury? Why should a soldier's response to this be any different to this than if a gun was fired at them? This is more of the same P.C. moral outrage. Like inflating the numbers of Palestinian children killed by including the number of Palestinian children being used by Cyrus's heroes as suicide bombers. Not all rocks being thrown are bricks, but most rocks thrown have a chance to maim or even kill. If a full-grown man throws a rock at you with all his power, it CAN kill you. Of course, the liberal rags and news agencies around the world would lead you to believe that mere 5 year olds were playfully tossing a handfull of tiny pebbles up in the air and the demonic, bastard, power-hungry Israeli soldiers took out their vengeance by beating a poor Palestinian man to death.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you don't like it, there IS an easy solution. All you have to do is just put down your sword, or, as in this ridiculous thread, your pet rock collection.

Lucifer
07-30-2003, 01:04 PM
Okay, true. I didn't mean to imply that there were never any conflicts. Maybe I should have said that I've never read of an ongoing, 2000-year long war between Islam and Christianity.

MMMMMM
07-30-2003, 01:23 PM
Rock-throwers who get shot must share the blame.

There's something about continuing a beating beyond a certain point, however--if that is what indeed happened here--that is just wrong and turns my stomach.

A person can die of an unlucky blow or a blow to a sensitive area that wasn't intended to kill--that's one thing. Even a boxer in the ring occasionally gets killed by a punch. We don't know if that happened in this case or not. But if the guy was beaten beyond the point of senselessness, or pummeled severely while hand-cuffed for instance, I'd say that's just wrong and it would make me sick.


Support for suicide bombings makes me even sicker. Take a look at this:

(excerpt)"Whether it be the imam at the local mosque, the principal of the Islamic school, the Muslim chaplain in a prison or the armed forces, the editor of an Islamic publishing house or the spokesman for a national group, the American Muslim scene presents an almost uniform picture of apologetics for terrorism, conspiracy theories about Jews and demands for Muslim privilege.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, with 17 offices across North America, has emerged as the powerhouse of Muslim groups and best exemplifies this problem. Consider the sentiments of its leadership:

Omar M. Ahmad (chairman) says suicide bombers "kill themselves for Islam" and so are not terrorists.

Nihad Awad (executive director) proclaims his "support" for Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group.

Ibrahim Hooper (spokesman) declares, "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

Nor does CAIR just excuse violence. Two of its former employees, Bassem Khafagi and Ismail Royer, have recently been arrested on charges related to terrorism. And a member of CAIR's advisory board, Siraj Wahhaj, was named by the U.S. attorney as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in an attempted terrorist assault. (end excerpt) http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1179

Of course there are more moderate Islamic groups too, a point Pipes stresses in the article. But IMO the average Islamic group isn't exactly moderate.

Dr Wogga
07-30-2003, 02:10 PM
...and these are exactly the groups who put pressure on the al jazeeras, al-arabiya publications to slant the news to an anti-Israeli perspective. Brick throwers become rock throwers, terrorists, Uday, Usay and suicide bombers become matryrs for Islam, and on and on it goes

brad
07-30-2003, 10:52 PM
it was totally analogous to tianemen square except the communist chinese soldier in a tank wouldnt run over a civilian

but

an israeli soldier running a bulldozer would.

also chinese wouldnt run over a man, israeli ran over a young girl (~20).

MMMMMM
07-30-2003, 11:10 PM
well it wasn't totally analogous to tiananmen square.

Chris Alger
07-31-2003, 08:00 AM
When Palestinians kill children they're "terrorists," but when the IDF kills children "deliberately" its merely "tragic," and partly the Palestinians' fault anyway.

More of the same myopic, racist double standard.

Chris Alger
07-31-2003, 08:13 AM
It's weird that if the police anywhere in the U.S. blew up an apartment building, house or car knowing that innocents were inside, on the grounds that a suspected murderer was also inside or nearby, it would be considered murder. At least someone on the news would call it that. When Israel does the same, even without evidence or the pretext of evidence that their target was guilty (as in Dr. al-Rantisi's recent case) it's either called "measured" or "restrained" retalliation (usually) or "excessive force" (rarely). Nobody wants to call a spade a spade.

Anyway, you might want to peruse the AI report cited by ACPlayer above to see if the facts fit the pattern you're describing. "Snipers" aren't known for their tendency to shoot at random.

B-Man
07-31-2003, 08:23 AM
The U.S. isn't suffering from nonstop suicide bombing attacks in markets, discos, buses, etc. If we were, you would see people's attitudes change in a hurry.

Targetted assasinations are moral and just if the person that is being targetted has committed terrorism or is preparing to commit terrorism. The life of an innocent person is worth a lot more than the life of a terrorist. Terrorists are scum and they deserve a lot worse than what they get.

nicky g
07-31-2003, 08:39 AM
You're ignoring the point that the bystanders who are killed are also innocent victims.

MMMMMM
07-31-2003, 08:46 AM
Nice misleading oversimplification.

B-Man
07-31-2003, 08:50 AM
Suppose a man is building a bomb that will kill 1,000 innocent people. Authorities have the opportunity to kill the man, and in the process might unintentionally also kill a few innocent bystanders, but will save the 1,000 who would have been killed by the bomb.

Do you think it is moral to kill the man, and possibly a few bystanders, in order to save 1,000?

How about to save 20?

Cyrus
07-31-2003, 08:52 AM
I hereby define a "child" to be any person 12-years old or younger. Can we all agree on that? (Or should we debate Jerry Lee Lewis?)

I also submit that no child, as defined above, has ever been employed as a Palestinian suicide-bomber. Not a single one!

Therefore, the statistics that show that 1 outta 5 Palestinians killed is a child, cannot be excused by claiming that thosee kids were suicide bombers! Which is a typical excuse offered by fanatical persons -- who are calling those kids "terrorists" anyway.

But it befits the type of thinking I'm used to see in this page by the likes of Wogga and (unfortunately) persons of proven superior inttelct.

MMMMMM
07-31-2003, 08:53 AM
CHRIS ALGER: [ QUOTE ]
...When Israel does the same, even without evidence or the pretext of evidence that their target was guilty (as in Dr. al-Rantisi's recent case)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ri-i-i-i-ig-h-ht...the leader of an organization dedicated to suicide bombing isn't guilty of planning and supporting terror attacks.


CHRIS ALGER: [ QUOTE ]
Nobody wants to call a spade a spade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Least of all Chris Alger.

MMMMMM
07-31-2003, 08:58 AM
nicky, those who repeatedly plan, organize and facilitate suicide bombing attacks must be targeted for assassination.

nicky g
07-31-2003, 10:11 AM
If there were no further implications or causes, probably. But the assassinations didn't stem the flow of suicide mbombers at all, and every time innocent bystanders were killed the support for Hamas skyrocketed. Furthermore, a reasonable negotiated settelment and te end of the occupation would drastically reduce palestinian support for the bombers, without which they could not keep going. So un isolation, yes, but when you consider both the consequences and the fact that there are other, peaceful ways to defuse the conflict and remove the underlying resentments, no.

B-Man
07-31-2003, 10:20 AM
But the assassinations didn't stem the flow of suicide mbombers at all

Not true. Every dead terrorist is progress and means that potentially dozens or hundreds of innocent lives have been saved. Sure it pisses off the Palestinians, just like the suicide bombings infuriate the Israelis. So what is your point? Again, you are basically saying that Israel has no right to take actions to prevent terrorism, which is morally bankrupt. Every state has the right to protect its people, even Israel.

but when you consider both the consequences and the fact that there are other, peaceful ways to defuse the conflict and remove the underlying resentments

Nothing has worked until the recent truce. The only way to defend terrorism is to prevent it. You can't negotiate with people whose only goal is to destroy you. This has been said hundreds of times on this forum, but you guys just don't get it--until Hamas and the other terror groups accept Israel's right to exist, and give up on their dream of destroying Israel, there will NEVER be peace.

The recent reports that Hamas has been using the truce as an opportunity to build hundreds of missiles is very troubling. If Hamas starts firing missiles into Israel when the 3-month truce is over, there is going to be hell to pay.

nicky g
07-31-2003, 10:24 AM
"Every dead terrorist is progress and means that potentially dozens or hundreds of innocent lives have been saved. Sure it pisses off the Palestinians, just like the suicide bombings infuriate the Israelis. So what is your point? "

My point isa that every dead innocent Palestinian bolsters the cause Hamas and creates mroe potential recruits for the suicide bombing brigades.

"Nothing has worked until the recent truce. "

There you go. A negotiated truce has worked far better than targeted assassinations.

B-Man
07-31-2003, 11:11 AM
There you go. A negotiated truce has worked far better than targeted assassinations.

I never disputed that. I've always been in favor of peace, and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. But it takes two to tango, Nicky. Until the recent truce, the Palestinian militants have never, during the recent intifidah, been willing to lay down their arms.

We will see what happens as a result of this truce. I hope it leads to a lasting peace, but I am not optimistic.

Chris Alger
08-01-2003, 01:45 AM
Your version of "histoey" would bring giggles to any attentive high-school sophomore. If you don't have any idea about the subject you're talking about, why don't you stay out of thread?

Cyrus
08-01-2003, 02:38 AM
Only Spain was ever in danger from the Moors and not all of it for that matter. As to the Crusades, it was the biggest armed robbery in History. A band of thieves rampaging Byzantium and Europe mostly, and only on one occasion ever getting truly busy with Jerusalem. But, yes, I guess it's part of our "war against Islam". (You should see the anti-semitic aspect of the Crusades!)

The Ottoman Turks was a more serious problem. However, it began relatively recently, and after Matzikert the Turks were content with their Asian conquests (the Arabs bore the brunt!) and the Balkans.

All in all, Europe vs Islam did not last anything like 2000 years. Islam itself is less than 2000 years old. And there were much bigger threats to Christian Europe than the Muslims the last 2000 years. Mongols, for a start. And those pesky Nords...

--Cyrus

PS : Tom, do you happen to know when was the last time Moor soldiers stepped onto European soil in order to do battle against Spaniards?

Chris Alger
08-01-2003, 02:55 AM
Not one but two ignoramuses claim that Islam is "2,000 years" old and that Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about Islamic oppression of the Jews in the Middle East, and yet you think that Cyrus is in error?

For the record, Mohammed wasn't even born until the late 6th Century and until the 13th Century Jews "flourished" in the Islamic world, figuring "prominently in politics, finance, and the arts and sciences in a number of Islamic kingdoms and empires...." (Benny Morris). More importantly, the oppression Jews suffered under Islam -- considerable but less horrific than what the Christians inflicted (which by the 19th century contributed to Arabic anti-Semitism) -- had nothing to do with the genesis and growth of Zionism. Sephardic Jews (meaning most Jews in Africa and the Middle East before the Zionist settlers arrived) were virtually irrelevant in Israeli politics until the 1950's, marginal until 20 years later. Until well after Isreal was created, Orthodox Jews all over the world ignored or outright opposed the colonialist agenda of Israel's European and Russian founding fathers, who in turn knew little and cared less about the travails of the Sephardim under Islam. Finally, the worse deterioration of the Sephardim occurred as the Arab states retalliated against the Zionists' displacement of the Palestinians, which led to their immigration to Israel and a source of fanatically racist determination to "settle the score," a huge resevoir of exploitable hatred which together with an endless supply of American guns and cash has ossified Isreali politics to the point where Israeli leaders are cannot break out of Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" mindset, even at the risk of continuous war, terrorism and self-destruction.

The notion that this conflict is a millenial war by Arabs against Jews is for dummies.

Chris Alger
08-01-2003, 02:57 AM
How is it misleading? What did I oversimplify?

MMMMMM
08-01-2003, 03:40 AM
I believe you are leaving out the fact (and its implications) that a higher percentage of the Israeli killings of Palestinians are either in immediate self-defense, or are collateral damage associated with high-value military targets, than are the Palestinian killings of Israelis. This goes for the killings of children as well.

If the Palestinians were targeting a high-ranking military official or politician with their suicide bombs, and then when they struck the intended target there was collateral damage, this would be less repugnant than what they have been doing (which is often targeting large groups of Israeli civilians purely at random). The Palestinian terror groups have said they will not differentiate between Israeli military personnel, Israeli civilians, and Israeli children: they are all to be considered the enemy. But this, and randomly targeting large groups of civilians (without the arguably justifying purpose of killing a key enemy leader at that same location) not only changes the moral equation, it also changes the percentage of children on each side killed due to purely irresponsible and reprehensible acts.

rigoletto
08-01-2003, 06:27 AM
nicky, those who repeatedly plan, organize and facilitate suicide bombing attacks must be targeted for assassination.

Well - I am a bit dense - I fail to see why!

rigoletto
08-01-2003, 06:31 AM
And those pesky Nords...

We kinda pride ourselves in that!