Weekly Report: On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the OPT

[Resistance]

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

No. 09 /2004

04 - 10 March 2004


* 27 Palestinians, including 8 children and one woman, killed by Israeli forces
* 14 were killed during an Israeli military incursion into Nusseirat refugee camp
* 5 were killed in an extra-judicial assassination
* Israeli forces conducted a series of incursions into Palestinian areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

* 20 houses demolished and 22 donums<1> of agricultural land razed in Rafah
* Houses were raided and a number of Palestinians were arrested
* Construction of the “Separation Wall” in the West Bank continued and more areas of Palestinian land seized
* Indiscriminate shelling of Palestinian residential areas continued; 3 Palestinian civilians, including a child and a woman, killed and a number of others injured

* Israeli occupying forces continued to impose a total siege on the OPTs

(full report at the link)

[Herschel]

1. Well done

The report serves as a reminder of Irael's never ending struggle in defending her people.

[lefty_mcduff]

2. If that ain't spin

I have no idea what is. This is a 'reminder of *Israel's* never ending struggle? That's hilarious.

You may wish to re-read the article. It was, ahm (don't know how to point out the obvious here) more likely referring to the Palestinian's never ending struggle. And, ahm. a catalog of the usual monstrosities carried out by the big, tough, macho goons of the IDF...

Glad I could help.

[Herschel]

3. Of course I realize

it is Palestinian propaganda. However, the actions taken by Israel are to be admired even when presented in a biased manner.

[lefty_mcduff]

4. Yep. Truly admired.

How many civilians they kill, what, by accident, "collateral damage", murder, etc? How many Herschel? The numbers are there. Forget the spin. Forget the bias. How many civilians did the brave IDF kill this week. How many houses did they destroy? How many women and children did they kill by accident, "collateral damage", murder, etc?.

Course, if that's the case, we should also 'admire' Hamas et al, but to a lesser degree, A lesser degree because they're just not as efficient at killing civilians as the IDF. But then again, they're not backed, with arms and $$, by right-wing fundies in the world's only superpower. But I digress.

Is killing civilians the reason you admire Israel's actions?
Or is it an inability to differentiate between 'defense' and offense'? And why don't you see that actions like these drive even moderate Palestinians into the arms of extremists, and only results in further bloodshed at a future time.

Geebus - sometimes I need a shower after posting down here.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lefty_mcduff]

6. Dog-chases-tail argument.

See also - chicken and egg.

Moral equivalency is a propagandist's term used to excuse the murder of civilians on *one side* while tacitly approving the *very same thing* on the *other side*. It will go into the dustbin of history with other such Right-Wing terms as collateral damage, moral clarity, etc.

Since your definition of 'combatants' cuts such a wide swath, including stone-throwing children to people defending their homes and children from 'assaulting' IDF forces, I'll stick by my original points.

And if Israel's 'desire' is to 'eliminate killers' then I go back to my position regarding the IDF - they are completely inept and should not be in such close proximity to civilians. The IDF kill way too many civilians, when you claim their only 'desire' is to eliminate killers.

[Herschel]

7. When one stops to consider

the number of those that would harm Israel, then it is seen how effective the IDF is. Better to inflict collateral damage than see more of Israel's children murdered.

Are you suggesting we not concern ourselves with right and wrong? Deliberate murder of innocents is no different than bringing justice on those that kill? Oh, my.

[lefty_mcduff]

8. Inflict collateral damage.

"Deliberate murder of innocents is no different than bringing justice on those that kill? Oh, my."

That's not what I said, and you know it. That's not what I implied and you know it. That's a moebius strip argument that I am not going to have. I will, however, clarify, since you're (at least) answering like you didn't understand me.

Deliberate retaliatory murder of innocents on *either side* is unacceptable. Extremists on both sides will argue that the other sides "collateral damage" is an acceptable price in the 'war'. I disagree with both sides. Extremists on both sides will argue that their assassinations and executions are more valid (even attacks on IDF personel are referred to as 'terrorist attacks' which they're not). More honorable. I disagree with both sides. Extremists on both sides will claim that the people they kill are part of some 'military operation' whether the people killed are civilians or not. Both sides are equally full of shit.

I think *both* sides are guilty of terrorism. One is gussied up as 'defense' but that's because they have better uniforms and more advanced toys.

[Herschel]

9. Begging your pardon

Your post begins in a promising fashion, as you seem to be distraught at the implication you do not distinguish murder from operations against murderers. However, you quickly revert back to moral equivalency.

There is deliberate murder of innocents by one side only. Homocide bombers are not inflicting collateral damage. To merely state you oppose both sides offers no moral clarity.

[calkooni]

10. ... both sides are murdering innocents....

.... it's shocking how anyone can overlook that fact...!

How does a play of words make it better..?

The actions of both Israel and the Palestinians needs to be seen relative to the offensive military capability they possess.

I believe its fair to say that a Palestinian suicide bomber targeting a bus with soldiers and civilians is the equivalent of an Israeli F-16 firing into a building with one Palestinian fighter and dozens of women and children.

Either you consider the civilians on both sides collateral damage OR in both cases its cold blooded murder..!!

You can't have it both ways Herschel...

[calkooni]

11. You do how ever make a valid point...

when you say:

"you do not distinguish murder from operations against murderers"

Yes, Israel murders when it carries out operations against murderers because it is capable. The Palestinians are merely capable of murdering...... That's as far as their capability extends.


When David and Goliath came face to face, David didn't wield a weapon similar to Goliath.... He used a sling and a stone.

[Herschel]

12. The homicide bombers

that target buses seek to kill civilians. Military targets are plentiful and closer to those in the disputed territories. There are no IDF missions that seek to kill innocents. They bring justice. Collateral damage may occur.

[Resistance]

13. LOL

"There are no IDF missions that seek to kill innocents"

That's a laugh. Thanks, Hersch.

:party:

[calkooni]

14. Suicide Bombers.........

.....are used by the Palestinians as a military weapon with a political objective.... a very potent one at that, even if it does backfire in the political arena.

The Palestinians do not have F-16's, tanks, nor nukes for that matter. They are using everything in their mean to fight back. A cornered dog.....

Call it survival in the face of annihilation.


Yes, they are plentiful military targets, but you conveniently fail to mention the Palestinians are incapable of penetrating the fortified Israeli military targets.

Look at it from the Palestinians perspective, nearly every Israeli citizen serves in the military and so bombing a bus is very likely going to get you several people serving in the military. The rest are collateral damage.

When the IDF uses an F-16 to completely destroy a building with tens of families, clearly they must be conscious that many innocent children and women will be killed.... That to me is a deliberate intent to kill civilians (just like the suicide bombings), because absolutely no regard what so ever was taken to avoid killing those innocent children.....

Both methods are unacceptable, but comparable when you take into consideration the means each side possesses. That is generally the problem in these discussions, you compare Cheneys bunker to Saddams hole in the ground and start talking about them in the same context.......

Lastly, to me "Homicide Bombers" is a term that reminds me of the simplistic and limited Bush mentality, which sees things from only one perspective. I never use it, as I believe it also reflects an extreme right wing mentality.

[Herschel]

15. Do you believe

homicide bombings are justified resistance?

[Resistance]

16. both

Israeli and Palestinian homicide bombings are unjustified.

Agreed?

[Herschel]

18. There are no

Israeli homicide bombings.

[calkooni]

20. Yes there are homicide bombings by Israel .....

... imagine the consequences of the Feds dropping a bomb on an apartment block with kids in the middle of NY city to kill a drug dealer.

I'd agree that they aren't any Israeli suicide bombing, but there are plentiful homicide bombings regularly ....... you need to be blind not to notice.

[Herschel]

21. Homicide implies murder

which is not the case.

[calkooni]

23. Yes it is the case

.... Refusing to acknowledge the murderous spree of IDF troops doesn't lessen the crime....

Children are murdered regularly by IDF troops. Merely target practice these days, i'm sure.

Murder is not determined by the color or race of the person killed.

[Herschel]

30. How dare you

Cite an example of the IDF using children for target practice.

[BowlingForPalestine]

65. Israel has no bombs, Herschel?

[Herschel]

68. Indeed she has bombs

However, these are not used by outlaws for homicide.

[Evil_Dewers]

69. Tell that to the Belgium court

and UN.

Hey, I have a serious question. Is Israel a member in good standing of the United Nations?

[Herschel]

70. I will be concerned with the Belgium court

when it has power to enforce it's rulings. Indeed, Israel is a member of the United Nations. However, her first duty is to her people, not some misguided notion of international law.

[Evil_Dewers]

71. Is Israel currently in violation of international law?

Is the US blocking enforcement of certain UN resolutions passed condemning Israel's bad acts?

The US's duty is to her people first, and all others (Iraqis, Israelis) second.

Will I be devasted if Iran gets nukes? Hell no, that's just one less country Israel can threaten.

[Herschel]

72. Israel is in violation

of so called international law. America does protect her from the anti-semitic notions of the U.N. It is in America's interest to stand beside Israel. Be assured the American-Israeli alliance is watching Iran closely. Be glad.

[Evil_Dewers]

73. Be assured the American-Israeli alliance

What alliance? Pollard was an Israeli spy convicted of spying against the US (treason).

[_Jumper_]

94. What US interests does being a staunch supporter of Israel servE?

What has Israel done for the US? The cost the US has incurred for that "alliance" has been and still is very high. Do the gains (assuming there are some) outweigh the losses?

[_Jumper_]

93. What did the court rule and what is the UN's view on this issue?

n/t

[calkooni]

17. Do you believe........

......bombing an apartment block full of children to kill 1 man is justice?

[Herschel]

19. You seek moral equivalency

Israel's mission is always to bring justice to criminals. Danger to civilians is considered. Which particular incident are you referring to?

Please answer my question.

[calkooni]

22. Danger to civilians is never considered

and it never deters Israel from attacking. why should it, when they are not accountable for their crimes..?!

Please note that over the past week scores of children have been killed by Israel.. although I'm referring to a particular case in Gaza last year, where an F-16 killed a Palestinian fighter and nearly 8 children, a few women and men.

The killing of those children can also be considered criminal, therefore the Palestinians also have a right to bring justice to Israelis, but since they do not have the ability, they resort to suicide bombings.

[calkooni]

24. Herschel kindly prove to us

That the killing of 8 children, last week by Israeli troop was justified....?

There's a task for you to justify your stance......

Prove to us that those 8 children, mentioned int he first post of this thread, deserved to die........... also show us the care taken by the IDF troops to avoid killing children?

[Herschel]

26. If it were the intention of the brave IDF

to kill Palestinian children, it would not be eight. The carnage would be remarkable.

[lefty_mcduff]

27. The carnage *is* remarkable.

Because the death toll is 8, not 80 or 800 does not lessen the 'carnage'.

Imagine when it comes to the next suicide attack, the carnage was brushed off as "only eight Israelis" and if "Hamas was really trying it would be 80".

I find it highly unlikely you would stand for that. I know I wouldn't.

Nor do I dismiss the eight Palestinian children (or absolve the IDF) as you do, with regularity, when it comes to the *other side*

[Herschel]

31. Eight is preferable to eight hundred

The IDF is merciful. Be glad.

[Darranar]

32. So, is the Chinese government merciful, too?

They haven't nuked the world yet, after all...

[Herschel]

33. My point

is the notion that the IDF seeks to kill children is unwarranted. If this was their desire, we would see remarkable carnage.

[lefty_mcduff]

34. And one more time - the carnage *is* remarkable.

And I suggest that it wouldn't matter how high the death count went. People would still claim that the IDF were 'humane" because there would still be room for increasing their body count.

[Herschel]

35. Surely you realize

eight is a small number in relation to the nature of the operations.

[lefty_mcduff]

37. Bet you're glad the eight children

aren't part of your family. No?

[Herschel]

41. If they were my children

I would not have allowed terrorists to shelter their selves with them, nor allow them to be combatants.

[Darranar]

39. That is true...

For the most part, the IDF doesn't seek to kill children, but nevertheless it does less than it should to prevent the deaths of children and other innocents.

[Herschel]

44. Always unfortunate

when killing children is necessary.

[Evil_Dewers]

52. Always unfortunate when killing children is necessary

Please remember that the next time an Israeli bus full of children blows up.

If you cannot see the other side as people or realize that the killing of children is unnecessary, then your side doesn't deserve peace.

I sent 100 bucks in your name to the ISM, Herschel.

[Herschel]

62. How dare you

contribute in my good name to such an organization. Withdraw it immediately.

[Darranar]

56. When is killing children necessary? n/t

[drdon326]

57. Good question...

ask hamas,al-aqsa and IJ that question,ok??

[Darranar]

58. I don't support terrorist strikes on children...

or other innocents.

I don't see why it is necessary to kill children, which is one reason I don't support such strikes. That is why I asked Herschel when he thinks it is necessary.

[Herschel]

59. Children are at times combatants

throwing objects at Israeli forces, perhaps even armed and firing. There is no choice but to take them down.

[Darranar]

60. Throwing stones...

is not a justification for retaliatory fire.

[Herschel]

61. When an object is thrown

by a child toward Israeli forces, they become fair game. It cannot always be distinguished what is being thrown. If it appears to possibly be dangerous, retaliatory fire is in order.

[Resistance]

64. "fair game"

These aren't hunting expeditions the IDF is going on ... wait ... or are they?

[BowlingForPalestine]

66. Too funny.

I can't believe I'm reading this.

[lefty_mcduff]

25. Ahm. No.

Israel's mission is to perform supposedly 'targeted killings' on people *suspected* of being *involved* in terrorism. (Even the IDF are a little squishy on using the term 'assassination').

These missions take place in civilian areas and civilians who are not involved also get blown to bits, run over by tanks, crushed by bulldozers and shot with rounds of ammunition that are also illegal under international law. As I have pointed out, it means that the IDF are either painfuly bad at what they do, or they get a little carried a way in their work from time-to-time.

Some attacks are also made by the IDF in *retaliation* for suicide bombers (the non-PNAC phrase) and other attacks which means that in essence, the IDF attack civilian areas because *THEY ARE PISSED OFF*.

You can gussie *that* up with all the PNAC, Likud, RW phrases you can muster, but it's still a firetruck....

[Herschel]

29. The IDF must take the fight against terror

to the terrorists. Sadly, the terrorists endanger civilians. Efforts are made to evacuate ares to be removed by bulldozing. "Retaliation" attacks are designed to send a message to the killers.

[lefty_mcduff]

36. So you will admit that

"retaliation" attacks are because the IDF are *PISSED OFF*?
And that these 'messages' are exacted in the midst of civilian areas for maximum 'understanding' of the message intended?
And in these attacks innocent children and civilians get gunned down, by accident, or as you like to put it, 'collateral damage'?

Hardly sounds like pin-prick accuracy, now does it? Almost guaranteed to cause civilian casualties. I'll bet the IDF has numbers of 'acceptable losses' and go into civilian areas *knowing* they are going to kill some civilians. End of story.

I would also suggest that making cursory efforts to evacuate areas in order to bulldoze civilian houses (11,000 homeless so far) is *not* exactly the height of honor for a 'professional' army.

[lefty_mcduff]

38. You can't fight a war against terror.

Or terrorism. You might as well have a war against 'behaving rudely'. Terrorism is something people do. The fight against 'terrah' is another RW talking point destined to booga-booga the sheeple and excuse what would be otherwise inexcusable actions.

[number6]

43. Terrorism is a tactic, like carpet bombing

since war is basically terrorism by the state, bombing
civilian cities ect...

what were having is a terrorism on terrorism ...

3000 more or less dead in 911, so we bomb Afghanistan and
Iraq and kill 8,000 to 10,000 Innocent civilians..

100 yrs from now will still be having a war on terr-ah

its a hoax like the "war on drugs" its a booga-booga
talking point

now you could have a war on groups that use terrorism
as a tactic, but that would make sense and we can't
have that ...

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

78. It's all good

for the Prison Industrial Complex (in the case of the drug war)

and the Military Industrial Complex (in the case of the war on terra)

[Djinn]

48. a question

From my point of view when the IDF sends a rocket into a residential building - regardless of whether they are "aiming" for a particular person who they believe is a terrorist THAT is murdering innocent people. But how about we turn it around....If Hamas targets a specific bus because it is known to transport a particular soldier (for example) are they suddenly absolved of killing ALL the other people on the bus?

[number6]

49. damn good question, and I'll bet you don't get an answer.

."If Hamas targets a specific bus because it is known to transport a particular soldier (for example) are they suddenly absolved of killing ALL the other people on the bus?"

[lumpy]

53. Very good analogy, number 6

And now I'm leaving this hellish forum. The IDF apologists are sickening. I prefer to hear from fair minded Jews who are willing to admit Israeli leadership is leading the people down the wrong road.

[drdon326]

54. "Hellish forum"??

Listen pal , its no picnic over here either. lol

[Herschel]

51. You lack moral clarity

because you equate Hamas to the IDF. Hamas is a terrorist organization determined to murder as many innocents as possible. The IDF seeks to prevent these murders and stands on a higher moral plane.

To restate your question, is it acceptable for a member of a terrorist organization to kill innocents in the commission of killing one that defends those innocents? I think you know the answer.

[Djinn]

55. OK say the Palestinians

actually HAD a fully funded and equipped army - would it be OK for them to blow up an Israeli apartment building to get at one MP resideing within...I think you know the answer

Edit: and my moral "clarity" is fine - the IDF's I'm not so sure about. I do not and never have accepted the line "we don't target civilians" when you send a missile into a crowded street or an apartment block it is highly disengenous to state you're not targetting civilians.

[Herschel]

63. Indeed

the civilians are not the target. Yet, they may become collateral damage.

[BowlingForPalestine]

67. Excellent question!

[Gimel]

74. It has never happened that way

Hamas has never claimed targeting anyone on the buses it has blown up, and there have been several dozen buses blown up. Therefore, your hypothetical question is indeed only hypothetical.

[Evil_Dewers]

75. But IDF soldiers, and IDF vets (since all non-Arab adults are required...

...by Israeli law to serve in their military), have been the majority of those killed on buses. The vast minority of those killed were minors. So buses are legitimate military targets.

[Gimel]

76. Not the majority

not by any means. Look at the figures posted. Many more civilians have been killed than soldiers in the Intifada.

[Evil_Dewers]

79. Veterans of military service are not civilians.

In Palestine, many more children and other civilians have been killed than terrorists.

I don't believe the terrorists only target children and old ladies wearing babushkas.

However, Israel's overwhelming miltary might may be why soft targets are preferred to hard targets like the Knesset.

Israel has utterly failed to protect its civilian population. Blame the IDF and the Israeli gov't for that failure.

[redqueen]

80. No kidding

Wasn't Sharon first elected promising to protect Israel? To make them safer?

Then he sets about increasing the number and size of settlements? Further inflaming the groups most likely to commit terrorist acts?

Does this all seem very familiar to anyone else?

And neither country is any safer for it. Imagine.

[Evil_Dewers]

82. If Israel poured half its military budget into rebuilding the

infrastructure of Palestine, the violence would decreased by at least half.

Sadly, unlike Rabin, Sharon could not leave his terrorist ways in the past.

Rabin tried to make peace and was murdered by an Israeli.

Like Bush, Sharon has his public fearful.

[redqueen]

83. Is decreasing the violence really the goal?

It just doesn't make any sense, when with nearly every single action Sharon has INCREASED the violence.

[Evil_Dewers]

84. I'll agree with you on Sharon.

He's done more to destroy peace than anyone since 1967.

I'm really surprised the Sharon fellators aren't Bushbots as well.

[Gimel]

85. Kool

Your views are way out there.

1. Israel should worry and spend on building Palestinian economy (don't look at Israel's economy right now)

2. Unlike the Palestinians (who are peaceful) Israel harbors terrorists

3. Rabin would have achieved peace except he was murdered (let's count the acts of terror since Oslo)

4. The Israeli public is more fearful of Sharon than the terrorists.

[Evil_Dewers]

90. Answers

1. Yes, Israel should build up Palestine. This war has much more to do with economics than religion. If the Palestinians had good jobs (or any jobs), good roads, money, and weren't subjected to daily humiliating searches, perhaps they wouldn't be fearful/dislike Israelis. When some people have no hope, why do you expect them to act civil?

2. The vast majority of Palestinians are peaceful. The vast majority of Israelis are peaceful. The terrorists and rogue IDF members are the shit disturbers. Both Arafat and Sharon are pond scum.

3. I don't know what Rabin could have done--since a right wing nutball Israeli murdered him.

4. Sharon keeps his people in fear--just like Bush. They can't run on their records of keeping their people safe, so they both play the fear card.

[Gimel]

91. The PA has received donations

many countries from the EU, Japan the US, Canada and the Moslem nations in the ME have given the PA billions to build an infrastructure. Do you think Israelis should go into the PA areas and show them how to run businesses and set up factories and industrial plants? Israelis with business contacts with Palestinians are murdered. The terrorists target them. Israelis financed the casino in Jericho. It was thriving. Today it sits abandoned.

Many ways have been tried to help the Palestinian economy. Nothing has been successful in the long run. There was incredible cooperation in the high-tech field between Israelis and Palestinians. that was cut of by Arafat's Intifada.

There is left no alternative other than the separation fence.

[Cassandra]

92. Here's a company that's put its money...

where your mouth is.
http://www.peaceworks.com/
Their products are very good, too.

[Gimel]

86. Veterans are civilians

You sill find no human rights organizations claiming the opposite (except maybe for the EI, which is not a HRO).

Terrorists target everyone. The goal is to spread terror. They have not succeeded.

The "failure" to wipe out terrorist organizations, is as much with Arafat and the PA as with Israel. They agreed to stop terror from their area with the Road Map. They have done nothing toward that goal.

[Evil_Dewers]

87. What does building a wall through the West Bank

and building settlements there have to do with the roadmap to peace?

[Evil_Dewers]

89. The goal is to spread terror. They have not succeeded.

Is tourism (Israel's former #1 industry) way up or way down in Israel?

You won't see too many Americans spending their vacations in Spain, Iraq and Israel in the near future.

Admit it, Sharon has failed to protect Israeli civilians. He is a failure.

His war-like ways have only increased the violence on both sides.

[_Jumper_]

95. Sadly, they have

CNN actually reported a study that found that 30% of Israeli children suffer from Post-traumatic Stress Syndrome while a whopping 70% of Palestinian children suffer from the same malady.

[Gimel]

50. numbers are not there

There is no mention in this report of armed terrorists. They do not distinguish, except in the last bulleted line:

"Indiscriminate shelling of Palestinian residential areas continued; 3 Palestinian civilians, including a child and a woman, killed and a number of others injured"

What is called "indiscriminate shelling" is rather a loose characterization for "returning fire". Of course, none of the Palestinians have done anything to harm innocent Israelis, from the look of this report. This will certainly anger people who look at only one side of the story.

[Evil_Dewers]

88. Firing artilllery shells into a neighborhood does not = returning fire

[LibInternationalist]

47. this is absolutely not a propaganda source

[anti-NAFTA]

28. Thank you for the informative post.

This side of the story is too often unreported in our media.

[edzontar]

40. Thanks for the info. This story seldom gets told in the US.

Palestinian deaths are either ignored or dismissed as "their own fault."

To paraphrase the great line from GLADIATOR:

"Don't these people KNOW that they have been conquered?"

[number6]

42. Thanks for the info.

:thumbsup: ;)

pretty crazy that anybody would say well done :shrug: :eyes:

[redqueen]

77. We can't continue to avert our eyes

as civilians are killed like dogs.

This has to stop.

It's one thing for terrorists to act like animals, it's expected - desperate, or ignorant... but they're terrorists.

The IDF, though... WHOLE other story.

It's almost as if they WANT to PROVOKE more violence.

[methinks2]

81. thanks

that's a link I didn't have.

Now that it's apparently open season on both journalists and americans, maybe the tax-paying american public who pays for all of this through taxes will start to pay attention.