Israeli elections: with left-of-center Zionist Union pulling ahead in polls, is a new chance at Palestinian peace coming?

[Togo]

... I'm saying that no army in the world seeks to minimize civilian casualties like Israel does, even to the point of placing their own soldiers in harms way by doing so.

Cite please?

This is an oft-repeated propaganda point from the Israeli government, but I've not seen anything in the way of substantiation that would allow us, as you seem to be doing, to treat this as a fact.

Putting your own soldiers in harm's way to minimise civilian casualties is a common practice in a great many countries. That's why some soldiers, for example in Iraq, are trained to storm crowded rooms and shoot particular targets, rather than just blowing up the whole building and claiming it was justified because someone in there was probably a terrorist.

Certainly my impression of the IDF is that, despite it's tenacity and discipline in some areas, that it has relatively low standards of civilian care. Hence it's habit of using white phosphorous and dumb bombs in urban areas, it's habit of setting up free fire exclusion zones where people live, and it's use of missiles and guided bombs as weapons of assassination. The British army managed to avoid all of these in Northern Ireland, despite having suffered rather more casualties than the Israelis.

However, I'm happy to read anything you might have on the subject, assuming you weren't just uncritically repeating Israeli propaganda?

 

[laughing dog]

You mean the assertion that you have argued in the past the male Palestinian children are potential terrorists and are therefore legitimate targets?

I have argued that when they are engaging in an act that would be treated as a threat by an adult then unfortunately they must likewise be considered a threat despite being young.

You have argued that as well. But you have justified the deaths of juvenile male non-combatants on the basis that they were potentially terrorists.

What you are saying is at best taking this seriously out of context.

Nope.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel is doomed to for ever war.

I used to think that about Northern Ireland - that the conflict could never end, because both sides were too heavily invested in their hatred for each other.

But that no longer seems to be the case.

It will take some better statesmen on all sides than the current sorry lot though.

Perhaps Mo Mowlam could have sorted them out if she was still with us.

When the outside money was cut off we saw peace in Northern Ireland.

It's the same problem in the Middle East.

- - - Updated - - -

... I'm saying that no army in the world seeks to minimize civilian casualties like Israel does, even to the point of placing their own soldiers in harms way by doing so.

Cite please?

This is an oft-repeated propaganda point from the Israeli government, but I've not seen anything in the way of substantiation that would allow us, as you seem to be doing, to treat this as a fact.

Putting your own soldiers in harm's way to minimise civilian casualties is a common practice in a great many countries. That's why some soldiers, for example in Iraq, are trained to storm crowded rooms and shoot particular targets, rather than just blowing up the whole building and claiming it was justified because someone in there was probably a terrorist.

Certainly my impression of the IDF is that, despite it's tenacity and discipline in some areas, that it has relatively low standards of civilian care. Hence it's habit of using white phosphorous and dumb bombs in urban areas, it's habit of setting up free fire exclusion zones where people live, and it's use of missiles and guided bombs as weapons of assassination. The British army managed to avoid all of these in Northern Ireland, despite having suffered rather more casualties than the Israelis.

However, I'm happy to read anything you might have on the subject, assuming you weren't just uncritically repeating Israeli propaganda?

Simple test: The Hamas tactic of putting civilians on the roof works reasonably well. Geneva imposes no requirement to not drop in such a situation.

 

[angelo]

... I'm saying that no army in the world seeks to minimize civilian casualties like Israel does, even to the point of placing their own soldiers in harms way by doing so.

Cite please?

This is an oft-repeated propaganda point from the Israeli government, but I've not seen anything in the way of substantiation that would allow us, as you seem to be doing, to treat this as a fact.

Putting your own soldiers in harm's way to minimise civilian casualties is a common practice in a great many countries. That's why some soldiers, for example in Iraq, are trained to storm crowded rooms and shoot particular targets, rather than just blowing up the whole building and claiming it was justified because someone in there was probably a terrorist.

Certainly my impression of the IDF is that, despite it's tenacity and discipline in some areas, that it has relatively low standards of civilian care. Hence it's habit of using white phosphorous and dumb bombs in urban areas, it's habit of setting up free fire exclusion zones where people live, and it's use of missiles and guided bombs as weapons of assassination. The British army managed to avoid all of these in Northern Ireland, despite having suffered rather more casualties than the Israelis.

However, I'm happy to read anything you might have on the subject, assuming you weren't just uncritically repeating Israeli propaganda?

http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2015...to-minimize-civilian-casualties#.VRug3_mUey0=

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/07/gaza_civilian_casualties_while_hamas_targets_innocent_people_israel_tries.html

 

[arkirk]

Are you aware that this line of argument doesn't really address the issue? The bad behavior of Hamas does not make it okay to ignore the deaths of those kids, or to brush aside concerns that they were needlessly killed in yet another violation of human rights in the Middle East.

How do you know those kids weren't killed by Hamas themselves, by a misfiring rocket which is quite often. Or a misfired canon or whatever killed them. I'm saying that no army in the world seeks to minimize civilian casualties like Israel does, even to the point of placing their own soldiers in harms way by doing so.

You truly can say a lot of ridiculous things. Why do you think they were caring for humans when they bombed U.N. schools and hospitals. Did they first ascertain that there were no humans there. The death toll in their last Gaza incursion around 2,000 and hundreds were women and children. Some were European U.N employees. You truly are talking through your hat. You don't accept Hamas. Why do you accept a force that kills hundreds more innocent people. Get your head out of the sand. IDF is actually just a U.S. surrogate. That makes it even worse!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Cite please?

This is an oft-repeated propaganda point from the Israeli government, but I've not seen anything in the way of substantiation that would allow us, as you seem to be doing, to treat this as a fact.

Putting your own soldiers in harm's way to minimise civilian casualties is a common practice in a great many countries. That's why some soldiers, for example in Iraq, are trained to storm crowded rooms and shoot particular targets, rather than just blowing up the whole building and claiming it was justified because someone in there was probably a terrorist.

Certainly my impression of the IDF is that, despite it's tenacity and discipline in some areas, that it has relatively low standards of civilian care. Hence it's habit of using white phosphorous and dumb bombs in urban areas, it's habit of setting up free fire exclusion zones where people live, and it's use of missiles and guided bombs as weapons of assassination. The British army managed to avoid all of these in Northern Ireland, despite having suffered rather more casualties than the Israelis.

However, I'm happy to read anything you might have on the subject, assuming you weren't just uncritically repeating Israeli propaganda?

http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2015...to-minimize-civilian-casualties#.VRug3_mUey0=

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...mas_targets_innocent_people_israel_tries.html

Asked to substantiate claim.

Responds with Dick Cheney's Pro-Israel thinktank and an op-ed that quotes Israeli government sources almost exclusively.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you know those kids weren't killed by Hamas themselves, by a misfiring rocket which is quite often. Or a misfired canon or whatever killed them. I'm saying that no army in the world seeks to minimize civilian casualties like Israel does, even to the point of placing their own soldiers in harms way by doing so.

You truly can say a lot of ridiculous things. Why do you think they were caring for humans when they bombed U.N. schools and hospitals. Did they first ascertain that there were no humans there. The death toll in their last Gaza incursion around 2,000 and hundreds were women and children. Some were European U.N employees. You truly are talking through your hat. You don't accept Hamas. Why do you accept a force that kills hundreds more innocent people. Get your head out of the sand. IDF is actually just a U.S. surrogate. That makes it even worse!

They bombed Hamas bases. The mere fact they were sited in other facilities means nothing.

As for that 2,000 dead--you realize half of those were terrorists and a good portion of the remainder were human shields? And an unknown but probably considerable number died at Hamas' hand, either directly or from shortfalling rockets?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2015...to-minimize-civilian-casualties#.VRug3_mUey0=

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...mas_targets_innocent_people_israel_tries.html

Asked to substantiate claim.

Responds with Dick Cheney's Pro-Israel thinktank and an op-ed that quotes Israeli government sources almost exclusively.

Because almost nobody else is interested in reporting the truth.

 

[laughing dog]

Because almost nobody else is interested in reporting the truth.

I can get you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

[Arctish]

http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2015...to-minimize-civilian-casualties#.VRug3_mUey0=

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...mas_targets_innocent_people_israel_tries.html

Asked to substantiate claim.

Responds with Dick Cheney's Pro-Israel thinktank and an op-ed that quotes Israeli government sources almost exclusively.

I agree that the JINSA report is garbage. With the likes of Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Mr. I-Make-My-Own-Intelligence-Reports himself, Douglas Feith, on it's advisory board, JINSA is nothing more nor less than a neo-con propaganda production site. But the Slate article is different. Slate is a reputable outlet, and the article's author William Saletan has a good reputation. So I think angelo has provided the requested evidence in support of his position.

However, what angelo posted didn't actually address what I had posted. I was writing about the needless killing of children. The crux of my argument was about whether an action that kills children is necessary, not how long it was debated or what rules of engagement were followed.

Is it necessary for Israel to fire artillery shells at Gazans on the beach? If so, please explain why. Because from what I see, it's not necessary. It might be convenient. The IDF might prefer it to having to sort out normal beach going activities from Resistance-related activities. But it's still not necessary. And if it's not necessary, how can anyone defend firing artillery shells at those boys playing soccer?

 

[Sarpedon]

Do you read Slate? I do. It is an opinion paper, and that's how I like it. However, I agree that opinion pieces shouldn't count as evidence, unless they cite adequate outside sources.