Top Hamas bombmaker killed?

[DonR]

Originally posted by Miriam



DonR, does thisimply that the IDF is in a rather sorry state?

(...)

And is this poor English or subtle irony?

1) The IDF Spokesman's Office, IMO, is in a seemingly permanently "sorry" state. ("Sorry" isn't the word that comes to my mind, but I don't want to get censored! <g>)

The IDF in general has problems, as all militaries do. I'd say that the IDF usually does a better and more ethical job than most militaries would do in the same circumstances; but OTOH Israel's leaders have put the IDF into situations that are really not very suitable for a conventional military. I would like to see a solution - either a negoitiated one or a unilateral one - that would reduce the points of friction between the IDF and the Palestinian population, precisely because militaries confronting restive and hostile populations almost inevitably do commit abuses.


2) In reading anything that emanates from the IDF Spokesman's Office, you should always put your money on poor English rather than subtle irony.


-Don Radlauer

[DonR]

Originally posted by freethepeeps


One of the first things one needs to know is that an individual cannot be a democratic state. Sometimes however, it appears as if an individual has broken the law of a democratic state. In such cases, democracy guarantees that person a"fair hearing", where an "impartial tribune" hears the facts of the case, and allows that person to present a defence of their actions. Once they have heard the full case, the tribunal must then decide if the case against the individual is proven. In the case that it is, they then consider an appropriate sentence for the wrongdoing individual. However, sometimes even "impartial tribunals" make mistakes, or new evidence comes to light. In such cases, the convicted person has the right to appeal, to another more senior "independent tribunal".

Now that you have a brief outline of a democratic judicial process to refer to, can you see which stages are missed out, when the alleged perpertrator is shot at the scene of the "crime"?

Yes, but -

Democracies create and operate such legal institutions for the use and protection of their own citizens and residents . The fact that such institutions exist and function has little, if any, relevance A) on the battlefield; or B) when security forces are confronted with situations they legitimately consider life-threatening.

Israel has an admirable record of providing legal protection and recourse to its Arab citizens and residents. In this sense Israel is a success as a working democracy. (I have problems with other aspects of Israel's political system - especially a stupid system of proportional representation - but that's irrelevent to this discussion.)

The real question is whether Israeli security forces have used excessive force in dealing with legitimately dangerous situations, or whether they have used deadly force in situations that they should not have perceived as dangerous. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make these judgements reliably - especially when there have been many terrorist and guerilla attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers.

For example: Once car-bombs have been used as an effective weapon against roadblocks and other military installations, it is perfectly legitimate for soldiers to feel threatened by a car that refuses to come to a stop when requested to do so. The fact that in many cases when shots have been fired at cars refusing to stop it turned out that the cars contained noncombatants (perhaps people trying to smuggle unlicensed workers into Israel) is sad; but the soldiers who are out there at risk of being blown up cannot be castigated for being nervous. They are not responsible for making the judgement that any given car is probably not carrying a bomb; in defense of their lives, they do not have to figure the odds in this way.

Similarly, once Palestinian ambulances have been used to transport terrorists and explosives, Israeli soldiers manning checkpoints have every reason to be suspicious of them. Even the presence of a legitimate patient inside the ambulance is no guarantee; there has been at least one documented case where explosives were hidden underneath the stretcher of a real patient. (We have to assume that if once case was documented, many other attempts to smuggle explosives and arms in this way were successful.) Those who suffer due to delays in letting ambulances through roadblocks should blame the terrorists who abused (and thus legally voided) the protection accorded to marked ambulances, rather than the IDF soldiers who are trying to protect Israelis from being blown to bits.


In my opinion, much of the terrorism and guerilla activity directed against Israel is intended to influence Israeli behavior in precisely this way. If Palestinian "militants" can keep IDF soldiers nervous, hostile, and quick on the trigger, more Palestinian noncombatants will be killed by Israeli soldiers. This is a most desirable goal for the leaders of these organizations, and for the leadership of the Palestinian Authority itself.


As I've said before, none of this excuses those cases where IDF soldiers reacted with live fire in situations that were not life-threatening, and which they should not have perceived as life-threatening . But lacking videotape records of every situation that comes up every day, not to mention a thorough understanding of the overall conflict as it appears to soldiers in the field, it's extremely difficult to say that a given soldier was acting unreasonably at a given time and place. There are no unbiased witnesses available - and FreeThePeeps, I'm sure you're a wonderful person, but you're hardly a neutral observer! - and the relevant situations tend to develop very rapidly.

This is perhaps the worst distortion in the Amnesty International report: It makes no distinction between the deliberate, premeditated, cold-blooded decisions made by terrorist leaders to attack civilians who are only trying to go about their lives, and the occasional f_ckups of soldiers who have only seconds to identify and react to situations that may be deadly to themselves or others. Yes, abuses should be uncovered and prosecuted; but that doesn't mean that the moral onus on the two sides is equal.



FreeThePeeps, if the "occupation" is so repugnant to you, why do you think the Palestinian leadership has gone to such lengths to ensure that the "occupation" continues, and is as unpleasant as possible?


-Don Radlauer
Associate, The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT)
http://www.ict.org.il
Lead Researcher, ICT "Intifada" Database Project

[Miriam]

Originally posted by DonR
FreeThePeeps, if the "occupation" is so repugnant to you, why do you think the Palestinian leadership has gone to such lengths to ensure that the "occupation" continues, and is as unpleasant as possible?

How else do you secure a dictatorial power position and the loving attention of all freethepeeps of the world? The trouble is IMO that the current Palestinian leadership(s) has/have a lot to gain from continued conflict.

[DonR]

Originally posted by Miriam
How else do you secure a dictatorial power position and the loving attention of all freethepeeps of the world? The trouble is IMO that the current Palestinian leadership(s) has/have a lot to gain from continued conflict.

I agree - although honesty compels me to add that something analogous could be said for Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu, and many other right-wing Israeli politicians: They need Palestinians to be "the enemy", so that they have something to talk tough about.

I find this idea - that Sharon and Arafat need each other - fairly convincing, and very depressing.


-Don Radlauer

[Miriam]

Originally posted by DonR
I agree - although honesty compels me to add that something analogous could be said for Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu, and many other right-wing Israeli politicians: They need Palestinians to be "the enemy", so that they have something to talk tough about.

I find this idea - that Sharon and Arafat need each other - fairly convincing, and very depressing.


-Don Radlauer

Is the reliance of these politicians on Arafat something that in your opinion goes beyond the standard Western "wag the dog" scheme?

Since we are talking about Israel - we were treated to a similar political show during the French elections last winter/spring, with the then-governing Socialists focusing the attention of their electorate on Israel and thus conveniently away from urgent domestic problems. (In Germany, some politicians tried the same but failed even worse than in France, maybe due to the timing or a different ethnic/religious makeup of the electorate)

Come to think of it, the main difference between the Israeli and the Palestinian leadership is that the former can gain from continued conflict only on the domestic front, while for the latter this is the main (or even only?) guarantee for political survival on international level. I know, this is what "we don't want to talk about"...

[DonR]

Originally posted by Miriam
Is the reliance of these politicians on Arafat something that in your opinion goes beyond the standard Western "wag the dog" scheme? Since we are talking about Israel - we were treated to a similar political show during the French elections last winter/spring, with the then-governing Socialists focusing the attention of their electorate on Israel and thus conveniently away from urgent domestic problems. (In Germany, some politicians tried the same but failed even worse than in France, maybe due to the timing or a different ethnic/religious makeup of the electorate)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "wag the dog". In any case, I'm not saying that there is some kind of secret agreement between Sharon/Netanyahu/whoever and Arafat; all I'm saying is that certain politicians need to have a threat available, so that they can be resolute in opposing it.

Sharon, in particular, has built his whole political career on his image as a tough fighter in Israel's wars, and a tough defender of Israel's interests against hostile neighbors. He's not considered a great administrator or a gifted manager of the economy; this means that without threatening neighbors, it's hard to imagine the voters' choosing Sharon to run the country. (I can't figure out why anyone would choose Netanyahu to run anything!)

Arafat is also a leader who has defined himself entirely in terms of the struggle against opposition. He's an even worse administrator then Sharon, and doesn't appear to have any real interest or expertise in nation-building as it's normally understood. I've often thought that the worst thing any Israeli leader could do to Arafat is to announce that Israel is withdrawing from a substantial chunk of territory, and that from next Tuesday, Israel would consider Arafat to be President of Palestine. In other words, Israel should unilaterally declare a Palestinian state. I'd love to see Arafat's face when he gets the news!


-Don Radlauer

[danholo]

There's a movie called "Wag the Dog" with Dustin Hoffman. It's a black comedy where the US president's PR people make up a "phony war" against Albania just to get more support for the President in the coming elections. The whole public believes there is a war going on. The power of the media, if you will.

But still the expression "wag the dog" means that a small bunch of people are moving the whole public in a matter of speaking. The tail wags the dog.

I hope I got it right.

[Miriam]

Yes, thanks, Danholo, I was referring to the movie

DonR, I have a poor habit of clicking "Submit" rather than "Preview", and then finish my posts over the "Edit" function - some people are simply too quick with their replies. You must have missed the last paragraph this way: on the differences between the degrees to which Israeli and Palestinian politicians (and, with the latter, many induviduals as well...) rely on external enemies. The benefit is much larger for many Palestinians. Even worse, same goes for most of the external powers meddling in the conflict.

I've often thought that the worst thing any Israeli leader could do to Arafat is to announce that Israel is withdrawing from a substantial chunk of territory, and that from next Tuesday, Israel would consider Arafat to be President of Palestine. In other words, Israel should unilaterally declare a Palestinian state. I'd love to see Arafat's face when he gets the news!

Are you suggesting that Israel appoints the guy to that position? ROFL.

Btw.,

In my opinion, much of the terrorism and guerilla activity directed against Israel is intended to influence Israeli behavior in precisely this way. If Palestinian "militants" can keep IDF soldiers nervous, hostile, and quick on the trigger, more Palestinian noncombatants will be killed by Israeli soldiers. This is a most desirable goal for the leaders of these organizations, and for the leadership of the Palestinian Authority itself.

Thank you for confirming the guesses I have made in earlier posts. This has been evident to me for some time, given the obvious comparisons with armed conlicts in the fmr. USSR and Yugoslavia, both rather close to me. I'm glad to know that there is someone besides myself who believes the same

[Miriam]

P.S.: I wonder what Sharon's facial expression would be should nature or violence remove Arafat from his current position - provided your theory is correct...



This

Arafat urged to take children off front line
By Tom Gross in Jerusalem
(Filed: 17/12/2000)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../17/wmid17.xml

PALESTINIAN parents, tired of seeing their sons
and daughters killed and injured in clashes with Israeli troops, are becoming ever more vocal in denouncing their leadership for putting children in the line of fire.

In a bold move, a branch of the Palestinian Women's Union in the West Bank town of Tulkarm wrote to Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, saying: "Our children are being sent into the streets to face heavily armed Israeli soldiers. We urge you to issue instructions to your police force to stop sending innocent children to their death."

Israeli officials have repeatedly accused the Palestinian leadership of using children cynically to gain propaganda points in Western and Arab media. They have alleged that Fatah militiamen collect children from their homes and outside schools and take them by bus to isolated Israeli guard posts, where they are provided with stones and petrol bombs to throw at Israeli troops.

They say Palestinian militiamen then stand behind the children and fire live ammunition on the Israelis, who sometimes hit the children when they return fire.

About 40 Palestinian children have died since the present round of violence began in late September. A number of Israeli children have been severely maimed, while the Israeli army has come in for sharp criticism from their country's human rights groups and the international community for failing to develop non-lethal methods of crowd control.

The "Tulkarm letter" would seem to confirm Israeli accusations of cynicism. In those parts of Gaza and the West Bank under Palestinian control few dare criticise this apparent exploitation of children; those who do have been threatened by Mr Arafat's security forces.

A nurse from Gaza who spoke out on television against sending children to the flashpoints was condemned in Palestinian media as a traitor. Other parents in the West Bank say that they have been threatened by Fatah officials for discouraging their children from participating in clashes.

A recent leader in the Palestinian Authority's official newspaper, Al Hayat al-Jadida, branded parents who refused to send their children to participate in the "armed struggle" a "fifth column in Palestinian society".

comes straight from the horse's mouth. Note the date.

[ibrodsky]

from Ha'artez:

Palestinians: Mohammed Def still in serious condition, having trouble recovering

The only problem with this report is that Ha'aretz is almost as unreliable as the Arab press.

However, if it's true that Palestinian officials said this, it probably means he's dead.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by DonR



I agree - although honesty compels me to add that something analogous could be said for Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu, and many other right-wing Israeli politicians: They need Palestinians to be "the enemy", so that they have something to talk tough about.

I find this idea - that Sharon and Arafat need each other - fairly convincing, and very depressing.


-Don Radlauer

Don, you brought up some good points about nervous soldiers and ambulances and cars that don't stop when/where directed.

But when you make comments like the above, it casts doubt on your ability to evaluate all such incidents objectively.

[freethepeeps]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


Don, you brought up some good points about nervous soldiers and ambulances and cars that don't stop when/where directed.

But when you make comments like the above, it casts doubt on your ability to evaluate all such incidents objectively.

Objectively in this instance meaning:

"In a way that I find acceptable", eh ibrodsky?

[NewsGuy]

Palestinians: Mohammed Def still in serious condition, having trouble recovering

Hopefully, the "condition" that Mohammed Def is having trouble recovering from is rigor mortis.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by freethepeeps


Objectively in this instance meaning:

"In a way that I find acceptable", eh ibrodsky?

No, objectivity always means the same thing: sticking to the facts. Comments about how Arafat and Sharon "need each other" is pure speculation -- based on what the commentator imagines they are thinking.

Now do you understand the concept of objectivity?

[freethepeeps]

Originally posted by ibrodsky



No, objectivity always means the same thing: sticking to the facts. Comments about how Arafat and Sharon "need each other" is pure speculation -- based on what the commentator imagines they are thinking.

Now do you understand the concept of objectivity?

Not in the same way as you, clearly. What was objective about "nervous soldiers and cars failing to stop?" It was pure conjecture, but fitted what you like to think. Many people think that Arafat and Sharon need each other. The siege of Ramallah seems to demonstrate it.

If we stuck to established facts, there could be no discussion at all, could there? There are very few "facts" that everyone shares in common.

I prefer this definition:

objectivity

n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices [syn: objectiveness]

and think we all fall short of it.