Atrocities That Pass in Silence

[nicky g]

"Also the results of both techniques are markedly different. One tactic is intended to save lives; the other to cost lives."

Are you serious? The intent is to save IDF lives at the expense of Palestinian civilian lives. That is completely immoral and illegal. You also betray an obvious truth about the IDF. Your argument supposes that Palestinian "terrorists" would hold their fire if a Palestinian civilian were being used as a shield (oh but I thought these terrible terrorists didn't care about harming civilians) - but that the IDF would not do the same. Too right. They also can't both be true. If the Palestinian "terrorists" cared so little about ther fellow civilians that they would deliberately hide amongst them in order to get as many as possible of them killed, the why would they hesitate to fire on a compatriot if it mean bagging a few soldiers too?

[Gamblor]

They're part of the same team - Fatah - and share the same ideology.

[nicky g]

That may or may not make some or all the fighters resisting Israeli incursions racist, but it does not make the obvious preference to fire on an enemy soldier rather than the bloke next door a racist impulse.

[MMMMMM]

Well, how often do the terrorists fire on the doorbell-ringer when he is a Palestinian?

[nicky g]

Presumably not very often or the IDF wouldn't bother with the practice.

[MMMMMM]

Nor do I see why it would make it a racst impulse. Exploitation of the "us vs. them" mentality for safety purposes is what I think it is.

Also, the terrorists are happy to see Palestinians die when killed by Israelis because that gives them political/propaganda material--so they hide in densely populated areas (it also gives them better cover). When compared to killing a doorbell-ringer, though, the propaganda value goes out the window if the terrorists themselves shoot him.

[nicky g]

And that would outweigh the impulse to kill the soldiers coming to arrest or kill them? These hatefilled antisemitic lunactics, as you would no doubt characterise them, would pass up the chance to kill Israelis merely because it would involve doing something that has no proaganda value? I see.

Meanwhile, all of this discussion ignres the fact that such acts are blatant war crimes, regardless of motivation.

[daryn]

whoa, how are they racist? didn't we conclude that it's not a race, but a religion? here we go again!

[Gamblor]

Wave-particle duality man

de-Broglie was not Jewish.

[Gamblor]

to demand change in Israeli foreign/army/diplomatic policy because you do not bear the consequences of that policy.

Only the citizens of the state are entitled to such demands.

It is quite the opposite from what you suggest. They kill Israelis because they believe the Jews are weak animals and if they keep pressing, the Jews finally roll over and die, allowing a full Islamic/Arab takeover of the area.

The killing is quite-anti-propagandic in its purpose - the terrorists themselves prefer to kill Jews. But the leaders of the society, specifically the PA, have a different agenda: convince as many Palestinian baby-faces to get killed by Israelis as possible to ensure Arafat's grip on power does not wane.