Palestinians Mislead UN on Youth's Death -Israel

[Gyre]

This is legalistic bullship. And in fact Israel's position is dead wrong. There is well-known legal doctrine incorporated into American criminal law, at least, that a gunbattle between a victim and an agressor that results in the death of one of the victims despite being shot by one of the other victims accidentally, is still the fault of the agressor. (Logically because the gunbattle wouldn't have occurred but for the agressor's behavior in the first place.)

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=G1CQL2XKNYD54CRBAEKSFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=5962183

Gyre

[Jim Sagle]

1. Your link didn't work for me. This one did:

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5962183

The Israelis are telling the truth, the Palestinians are lying, and that's the end of it.

[lynx rufus]

2. Simple Democratic solution:

STOP all aid to israel.
NOW

[Gimel]

4. Democratic

It may sound good to some, but where's the voting?

[Gimel]

3. That is saying

that all deaths in the PA territories are now Israel's fault. All "honor killings" all killings of so-called collaborators without trial, all attackers on Israel. Nice Roman justice.

the child was killed by Palestinian militants. There was no gun battle taking place. The only aggressors were the militants who wanted to shoot rockets at Israeli civilians.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Gimel]

6. Ain't it the truth?

It's a mighty hook, that tries to nab us all.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. It's not saying anything of the sort...

In fact the article was very specific about the deaths it was talking about, and it's clear to anyone reading that the article wasn't talking about all deaths, so dragging up collaborators and honour killings is just one big red herring...

btw, if you have a problem with collaborators being killed without a trial, then you should also have a problem with Israel's extrajudicial killings, which are also carried out without trials. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression you support extrajudicial killings, so I'm not understanding how you can have problems when one side kills without a trial but it's okay when the other side does it...

Violet...

[Gimel]

8. Commenting to Gyre

The poster Gyre made a comment about jurisprudence. It does not apply unless you are thinking this was a battle in which an innocent bystander was killed and there was an aggressor (Israel is the assumed aggressor).

BTW, the murder of assumed collaborators, who are in custody or could easily be taken into custody is not par with assassinations of known self-avowed terrorist leaders who publicly promote murder of civilians.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. And I'm commenting to you...

I read what Gyre said and they were clear what they were talking about, which was the contents of the article, and not some idiotic crap about blaming Israel for every death in the Occupied Territories...

And that justification of it being okay to murder people without trial only if they're being killed by the IDF is total bullshit. How do you know who can and can't be easily taken into custody, be it a militant or a collaborator? You don't...

Violet...

[Gimel]

10. It depends on

who "you" is.

I think you've missed my point in the post to Gyre.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. That should be pretty obvious...

"You" is the *you* who said this: "BTW, the murder of assumed collaborators, who are in custody or could easily be taken into custody is not par with assassinations of known self-avowed terrorist leaders who publicly promote murder of civilians." That would make it *you*. Did you think I was talking to someone else? I wasn't...

I missed yr point? Okay, feel free to explain what it was. I'm all eyes...

Violet...

[Gimel]

17. But I never claimed to know

I am not the one making those decisions. I do not decide who will be struck by assassination and who will be arrested. I only read the reports.

Any interested parties or observers, can justify by rational any alternative.

You might understand if you look at this report:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=76634&mesg_id=76634

[Violet_Crumble]

19. You didn't?

That's strange. You said: "BTW, the murder of assumed collaborators, who are in custody or could easily be taken into custody is not par with assassinations of known self-avowed terrorist leaders who publicly promote murder of civilians."

What you didn't claim, and what I haven't said you did, is that you are the one deciding who lives and who dies....

Violet...

[Gimel]

20. The same goes for you

How do you know who can and can't be easily taken into custody, be it a militant or a collaborator? You don't...

Violet...



and for any other poster on this board. Glad you agree.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. I think it would have been pretty easy to take that paralyzed Hamas

sheik into custody rather than killing him and several children. It had been done twice before.

[Gimel]

12. Your view

is not that of the security establishment. You claim it is easy. It could have been done, I'm sure, but it would have required a much larger operation, and more lives would have been lost on both sides.

That "old man" was not sitting in a convalescent home minding his own business.

Although he had been in custody 10 years prior, it doesn't mean his security has not changed or has weakened. He gained more power. Four men were killed with him, including two of his sons, who were not children.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. We're making moral judgements, and I have a right to judge Israel

hypocritical on the matter over such issues. The Israeli security establishment shoots protesters. That adds to terrorism most certainly, for the most obvious reason that it sends a signal that passive resistence to occupation won't be tolerated either. So all the act more like Ghandhi preaching Israelis do to Palestinians is complete bs.

[Gimel]

14. One protester

was seriously injured. That was an Israeli.

It is not a moral judgment, but a tactical military judgment. No one has the right to act as moral judge. Assuming the role of all-knowing moral authority is itself hypocritical.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. If you can make moral judgements about Palestinians on a certain criteria

the rest of us can apply those same criteria to israel to make the same judgements.

Also there have been several instances of attacks on protesters inculding a rocket attack in Rafah.

[Gimel]

18. So it's me

...opposed to "the rest of us"? Interesting that you should see it that way.