Israeli-Palastine Death Count

RATM · 01-06-2010 11:51am #1

Heard from a friend that since the troubles began there has been 9 Palastinians killed for every Israeli killed in the conflict so far.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a reliable death count on this conflict ?

And if it is the case that the death toll is 9-1 then surely it is obvious Israel are consistently using excessive force, no?

Laminations · 01-06-2010 12:54pm

If Israel didn't kill the 9, would Hamas not kill the 1 and if Hamas didn't kill the 1 would Israel not kill the 9? Who knows. And how at this stage can you tell who is doing the retaliating? Also the death imbalance is due to a firepower imbalance in part. What would the ratio look like if Hamas had the superior firepower? Would israel still exist? It's far more complex than presenting statistics.

Macha · 01-06-2010 1:08pm

Perhaps not the most reliable of sources but Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Casualties

Oh wait, the source is UN figures. Reasonably reliable.

The figures simply serve to emphasis and underline the disproportionate response by Israel. It seems 1 Israeli life is worth 9 Palestinian lives. As a Guardian reader wrote:

I threw my socks at the TV when the Netanyahu press conference was broadcast. I fully expect and deserve the ensuing helicopter gunship assault for my act of aggression.

RATM · 01-06-2010 1:09pm

No not really. Because if there are some stats about on the death tolls for both sides then at least it paints a picture. Of course there are other variables at play such as weapons, etc. But if we assume that both sides will shoot to kill (which is a fair assumption) then we have a relatively level playing field.

Plus the fact that any such stats would be longitudinal going back as far as 1967 and beyond. It's hard to argue with stats taken from such a long period of time- anomalies tend to iron themselves out over decades but may still be present when only years are looked at.

Israel claims that Palastine wants it 'wiped off the face of the map'. Now if its the case that there are 9 Palastinians dead for every Israeli then that really shows us who is killing who.

What I'm trying to get at is weather or not Israel is using excessive force and a death toll of 9/1 would indicate that they are indeed guilty of this. But can anyone link to a relaible source on this?

Macha · 01-06-2010 1:12pm

RATM wrote: »

Israel claims that Palastine wants it 'wiped off the face of the map'. Now if its the case that there are 9 Palastinians dead for every Israeli then that really shows us who is killing who.

As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

Laminations · 01-06-2010 1:15pm

RATM you are confounding capability and desire with the 9:1 stat. I have little doubt that both sides have the desire to kill each other or as you say shoot to kill but they have different capabilities. Without the need for stats it is obvious to anyone with eyes that Israel use excessive force

cavedave · 01-06-2010 1:43pm

Did anyone else see this argument on frontline last night? Where the Israeli and Palestinian representatives kept citing figures on how many of their children the other had killed.

We live in a country where our minister for children thinks it would be a 'mammoth task' to figure out how many of the children in its care have been killed. At least the Israeli/Palestinian fight has some good statistics. Attributed to Stalin "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic" except in Ireland where we would not have the figures.

RATM · 01-06-2010 1:46pm

Laminations wrote: »

RATM you are confounding capability and desire with the 9:1 stat. I have little doubt that both sides have the desire to kill each other or as you say shoot to kill but they have different capabilities. Without the need for stats it is obvious to anyone with eyes that Israel use excessive force

For sure yesterdays actions show they use excessive force but Im just trying to place it in context of the conflict as a whole. After all the Palastinians are not innocent in this conflict either.

Anyway that link to the UN's stats on the death toll are varied.

(numbers in parentheses represent casualties under age 18)
Year Deaths
Palestinians Israelis
2004 828 (179) 108 (8)
2003 588 (119) 185 (21)
2002 1032 (157) 421 (37)
2001 467 (82) 191 (36)
2000 279 (83) 41 (0)

Total 3194 (620) 946 (112)

So the ratios of Palistinians to Israels dead are:-

2000- 7.6/1
2001- 2.44/1
2002- 2.45/1
2003- 3.17/1
2004- 7.66/1

Over those 5 years the total is 3.37/1.

But perhaps more interesting is the death toll of children

2000 83/0
2001 2.27/1
2002 4.24/1
2003 5.66/1
2004 22.3/1

The total over 5 years is that there have been 5.5 Palastinian children killed for every Israeli child killed.

Now we all know Hamas deals in randomly fired rockets. But Israel on the other hand is supposed to be a nation state and therefore liable to the rules of engagement and UN Declaration on Human Rights/Children.

But these figures indicate that children are either targeted or that the IDF just fire indiscriminantly with no consideration whatsoever for children being about. Guerilla warfare or not those stats are sickening.

Laminations · 01-06-2010 2:18pm

RATM wrote: »

But these figures indicate that children are either targeted or that the IDF just fire indiscriminantly with no consideration whatsoever for children being about. Guerilla warfare or not those stats are sickening.

I think you'll agree the bit in bold is the sickening part and unfortunately this is being displayed on both sides whether by israels retaliation or by Hamas's freedom fighters/terrorists use of children as human shields firing from schools and hospitals. Do Hamas place more Palestinian children in danger? Hence the distorted ratio?

I just cannot take sides in this conflict

Eliot Rosewater · 01-06-2010 2:52pm

Laminations wrote: »

I just cannot take sides in this conflict

Agreed. As you said in another thread (that was subsequently deleted), it would be great if a protest march advocating neither side, but just peace, was held. While the protest marches against Israel at the moment provide a justified means of portraying the anger people feel over the flotilla incident, those protesting run the risk of alienating Israeli people from themselves. I think that history has demonstrated that peoples' communal values and cultural sensibilities are only intensified when they are put under pressure. This can be seen in places such as Northern Ireland, where the sense of Irishness amongst the nationalist population is arguably greater than that in the Republic, where the Irish culture is not under threat.

A solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict will require concessions from both sides, and jumping to one side is only to overly simplify a very complex international situation. The Palestine death toll being higher does not go anywhere near to making it a black and white scenario, whatsoever.

Nodin · 01-06-2010 3:52pm

Laminations wrote: »

I think you'll agree the bit in bold is the sickening part and unfortunately this is being displayed on both sides whether by israels retaliation or by Hamas's freedom fighters/terrorists use of children as human shields firing from schools and hospitals. Do Hamas place more Palestinian children in danger? Hence the distorted ratio?

I just cannot take sides in this conflict

...yet you cite the cliche of Hamas using human shields, and ignore the fact it was official documnented IDF policy to use human shields for 35 or so years.....your neutrality would appear to be a bit 'Irish' in nature.

Selkies · 01-06-2010 4:07pm

Nodin wrote: »

...yet you cite the cliche of Hamas using human shields, and ignore the fact it was official documnented IDF policy to use human shields for 35 or so years.....your neutrality would appear to be a bit 'Irish' in nature.

What's interesting about what hamas do is they use their own schools as human shields, where as Israel used Palestinian adults as human shields, (harder to rest a gun on the shoulder of a child and walk at the same time).

I think it's fairly well established that if Israel truly gave a **** about the Palestinians Hamas would blow up Palestinians rather than the far less effective in terms of headcount rockets.
Thankfully for the Palestinians they don't, so they just tend to hide military targets in densely populated areas, while Israel still with the not really caring about Palestinian lives, blows the **** out of the bomb factory or whatever killing many innocent civilians along the way.

conorhal · 01-06-2010 4:09pm

Nodin wrote: »

...yet you cite the cliché of Hamas using human shields, and ignore the fact it was official documented IDF policy to use human shields for 35 or so years.....your neutrality would appear to be a bit 'Irish' in nature.

The deliberate use of human shields argument aside.
Hamas may fire a wildly inaccurate rocket into Israel and possibly kill somebody. The IDF may fire a missile back at a Hamas rocket team's firing position from a helicopter, which will typically be located in a built up area (but then where in Gaza isn't?) and kill several people. And thus you have an endless cycle of provocation and response.
Israel will argue that they have every right to strike back, and their history is one that applies a zero tolerence policy to any agression, whill Hamas lwill beat their chests and and point to the dammage done (ignoring the fact that they invited it) because they like to capitalize on such figures which are useful to their cause.
At the end of the day neither side wins and some redundant 'kill ratio' is helpful only to ideologues that enjoy keeping such scores.

Nodin · 01-06-2010 4:16pm

Selkies wrote: »

What's interesting about what hamas do is they use their own schools as human shields, where as Israel used Palestinian adults as human shields, (harder to rest a gun on the shoulder of a child and walk at the same time).

I think it's fairly well established that if Israel truly gave a **** about the Palestinians Hamas would blow up Palestinians rather than the far less effective in terms of headcount rockets.
Thankfully for the Palestinians they don't, so they just tend to hide military targets in densely populated areas, while Israel still with the not really caring about Palestinian lives, blows the **** out of the bomb factory or whatever killing many innocent civilians along the way.

.....you'll find that a suprising number of casualties were caused - particularily during the occupation of Gaza and the Intifada - by rifle fire, often single shots. This is of course almost pre-Hamas, who are this decades 'excuse for everything'.

Of course we on the pro-Palestinian side also have our 'excuse for everything' which is the occupation and settlements. As thats been there since 1967, we at least acheive consistency.

Selkies · 01-06-2010 4:26pm

Nodin wrote: »

.....you'll find that a suprising number of casualties were caused - particularily during the occupation of Gaza and the Intifada - by rifle fire, often single shots. This is of course almost pre-Hamas, who are this decades 'excuse for everything'.

Of course we on the pro-Palestinian side also have our 'excuse for everything' which is the occupation and settlements. As thats been there since 1967, we at least acheive consistency.

When you saying a surprising number of causalities are you comparing it to any other urban combat in particular?

Yes, you have us there. Stupid elections.

Selkies · 01-06-2010 4:31pm

conorhal wrote: »

The deliberate use of human shields argument aside.
Hamas may fire a wildly inaccurate rocket into Israel and possibly kill somebody. The IDF may fire a missile back at a Hamas rocket team's firing position from a helicopter, which will typically be located in a built up area (but then where in Gaza isn't?) and kill several people. And thus you have an endless cycle of provocation and response.
Israel will argue that they have every right to strike back, and their history is one that applies a zero tolerence policy to any agression, whill Hamas lwill beat their chests and and point to the dammage done (ignoring the fact that they invited it) because they like to capitalize on such figures which are useful to their cause.
At the end of the day neither side wins and some redundant 'kill ratio' is helpful only to ideologues that enjoy keeping such scores.

Actually the kill ratio does indicate the effectiveness of rocket attacks.
It also illustrates the effectiveness of gun ships.

It also indicates that having a low kill count of Palestinians doesn't seem to be an election issue in Israel.

Nodin · 01-06-2010 4:37pm

Selkies wrote: »

When you saying a surprising number of causalities are you comparing it to any other urban combat in particular?

"suprising" compared to the idea that loss of life was collateral, caused mainly by rockets and bombs aimed at targets. A great deal of it was caused by aimed sniper and rifle fire.

Selkies wrote: »

Yes, you have us there. Stupid elections.

What?

Laminations · 01-06-2010 4:48pm

Nodin wrote: »

.....you'll find that a suprising number of casualties were caused - particularily during the occupation of Gaza and the Intifada - by rifle fire, often single shots. This is of course almost pre-Hamas, who are this decades 'excuse for everything'.

Of course we on the pro-Palestinian side also have our 'excuse for everything' which is the occupation and settlements. As thats been there since 1967, we at least acheive consistency.

How can you be pro any side in this conflict? each has done atrocious things and indoctrinate the next generation with a mindset of hate for neighbouring culture and religion.

Nodin wrote: »

...yet you cite the cliche of Hamas using human shields, and ignore the fact it was official documnented IDF policy to use human shields for 35 or so years.....your neutrality would appear to be a bit 'Irish' in nature.

And please just listen to my message which is the promotion of and protest for PEACE and not try and undermine my playing devils advocate here. Please refrain from alluding to me being pro-israeli in this raging conflict, I cant list off the atrocities each side has committed in full, and I'm not arguing for Israel here, I agree with you that they also use human shields amongst other reactionary and provocational acts of violence - hence I'm not taking sides. There is no need to doubt my sincerity, in fact I find your aspersions quite insulting. You on the other hand proclaim yourself as pro-palestinian, and although I'm against the continuing occupation and blockade of Palestinian territory I can never bring myself to be pro palestinian when in large parts they teach hatred and shelter terrorists/freedom fighters. Likewise because of Israels actions I could never be pro-israeli, both sides have elements that I abhor.

You tried to question my anti-conflict stance in another thread and this is how I replied, and I'll still stand by it.

Laminations wrote: »

Look here is where I stand. I'm anti the conflict and all countries involved. I'm anti the lack of international involvement - this includes both Americas hampering of sanctions against israel and military support as well as Arab nations military support of Palestine and open hateful protests burning israels flag and effigies. I'm anti this attack and all previous ones on both sides. But I'm not anti Israeli nor am I anti Palestine and the behaviour of both sides means I cannot be pro either side also. So rather than question my impartiality if I were you I'd examine my own bias first.

Royal Irish · 01-06-2010 4:49pm

The death ratio in the winter conflict about 2 years ago was 110/1 with most of the victims being children. In that two week conflict IDF used overwhelming force and chemical weapons on a densely populated civilian area with a complete disregard for human life.

In the month leading up to that conflict Israel claimed 6500 rockets were fired into Israel by Hamas. But an Irish soldier Desmond Travers who was on a fact finding mission for the UN in the Gaza Strip said only 2 rockets were fired in the lead up to that conflict.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding Israel. You have the Israel government giving controversial birth control drugs to black jews to get the black population numbers down. You have the longterm effects of them using chemical weapons on civilians with a huge amount of birth defects reported in Gaza. The list goes on and on of Israels breaches of basic human rights.

Laminations · 01-06-2010 4:52pm

Royal Irish wrote: »

The death ratio in the winter conflict about 2 years ago was 110/1 with most of the victims being children. In that two week conflict IDF used overwhelming force and chemical weapons on a densely populated civilian area with a complete disregard for human life.

I think you'll find that both sides have a complete disregard for human life. There are no good guys in this conflict.

Royal Irish · 01-06-2010 5:03pm

I would agree that the people most involved, ie Hamas, the IDF and the Israeli government would not be good guys in this never ending conflict. But most of the victims of this are Palastinian children.

I have seen alot of photos of some of the birth defects from the IDF using chemical weapons, and not only are children being killed by Israeli airstrikes, but they are being killed before they are even born.

I also believe that if Hamas through down their weapons and become peace loving hippies, the Israeli aparthied will continue as the Israelis are just simply racist fascists.

planetX · 01-06-2010 5:05pm

Laminations wrote: »

I think you'll find that both sides have a complete disregard for human life. There are no good guys in this conflict.

It's refreshing to see this opinion, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Both sides have committed such disgusting atrocities, I would never support either. I don't think death ratios mean anything, it doesn't make the 'smaller' death any less tragic, especially if it's your friend or relative.

Laminations · 01-06-2010 5:09pm

Royal Irish wrote: »

I also believe that if Hamas through down their weapons and become peace loving hippies, the Israeli aparthied will continue as the Israelis are just simply racist fascists.

Opinion drizzled with a nice smattering of anti-Israeli sentiment. Nice. Thats a roadmap to peace if ever I saw one

Manic Moran · 01-06-2010 5:14pm

In that two week conflict IDF used overwhelming force and chemical weapons

<sigh>

Name a chemical weapon that the IDF used.

Please note, neither white phosphorous nor depleted uranium are categorised as chemical weapons, so I presume you are not referring to either of those. That said, tear gas is categorised as one, but then most every country on the planet is guilty of using that at some point.

Hyperbole never helps anyone's case.

NTM

Laminations · 01-06-2010 5:20pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

<sigh>

Name a chemical weapon that the IDF used.

Please note, neither white phosphorous nor depleted uranium are categorised as chemical weapons, so I presume you are not referring to either of those.

Hyperbole never helps anyone's case.

NTM

That doesnt make their use of those weapons acceptable (not that you were saying it does). Like I said, atrocities have been committed on both sides, for people to be pro-palestine they need to adopt some pretty serious blinkers to ignore all the horrible stuff that has gone on. The same applies to pro-israel advocates, defending their right to protect themselves only goes so far, they have also committed atrocities. Calling arabs terrorists or calling israelis racist fascists is not going to move this conflict towards a resolutions. The middle eastern 'incompatibility' is the epitomy of mans inhumanity to man.

Royal Irish · 01-06-2010 5:21pm

I have been to Tel Aviv and I have dated a jewish girl in the past. I have some good friends who are Jewish and one who was actually in the IDF and later in Mossad and they all share the same opinions as myself.

Some of the biggest Critics of Israeli aparthied are jewish people themselves the most notable one being a 80 something year old survivor of Autswitz.

Royal Irish · 01-06-2010 5:25pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

<sigh>

Name a chemical weapon that the IDF used.

Please note, neither white phosphorous nor depleted uranium are categorised as chemical weapons, so I presume you are not referring to either of those. That said, tear gas is categorised as one, but then most every country on the planet is guilty of using that at some point.

Hyperbole never helps anyone's case.

NTM

International law prohibits the use of white phosphorus in heavily populated civilian areas. All of Gaza is heavily populated civilian area.

Laminations · 01-06-2010 5:27pm

Royal Irish wrote: »

I have been to Tel Aviv and I have dated a jewish girl in the past. I have some good friends who are Jewish and one who was actually in the IDF and later in Mossad and they all share the same opinions as myself.

Some of the biggest Critics of Israeli aparthied are jewish people themselves the most notable one being a 80 something year old survivor of Autswitz.

Thats why I accused you of anti-israeli sentiment and I didnt call you an anti-semite, because I doubt you are. I am also a critic of Israels actions, the occupation, aparthied and blockade but that does not automatically make me pro-palestinian. You rightly recognise one sides infractions but you support the other side that has acted equally heinously - and if not equally (as with the death ratio) this is probably a consequence of capability rather than desireability, so I wouldnt simply allign myself with the side that are 'killing less' when its obvious they just dont have the capability to be killing more. Neither side deserves blanket support.

Royal Irish · 01-06-2010 5:37pm

Good post.

I would be anti Israeli but its more to do with things outside of the Palastinian conflict.

Like Israels blatant disregard for international law. Like take that killing of a Hamas leader in Dubai a few months back. I wouldnt rush to condone his killing, because I would consider him to be a terrorist. Its just the complete disregard for other countries sovereignty with using their passports and Israels comments afterwards stink of "we dont care. we can do what we want"

Laminations · 01-06-2010 5:41pm

Royal Irish wrote: »

Good post.

I would be anti Israeli but its more to do with things outside of the Palastinian conflict.

Like Israels blatant disregard for international law. Like take that killing of a Hamas leader in Dubai a few months back. I wouldnt rush to condone his killing, because I would consider him to be a terrorist. Its just the complete disregard for other countries sovereignty with using their passports and Israels comments afterwards stink of "we dont care. we can do what we want"

I'd agree, but this doesnt make me anti-Israeli although I may be anti much of their actions (especially of late), and being against their actions does not make me overlook palestinian incitement and involvement in all this and become pro-palestinian

Laminations · 01-06-2010 5:53pm

This is how I see the conflict, with just this information you think its easy to label the victim and the attacker but there is so much history there that we cannot draw opinions based on just this strangle-hold.
What if the strangler was actually the victim, protecting his family from an intruder? What if the intruder was responding to a previous act of violence? When the attacker claims to be the victim and there is evidence of attacks and mutual disrespect and hate on both sides, it is unhelpful to take sides, but it remains necessary to intervene.

Israel are currently strangling Gaza.
They argue that this is in response to attacks on Israelis and say if they ease up that Gaza will gain strength and pose a more serious threat to their security. The Palestinians argue that they were responding to Israeli aggression and continue to respond violently to the strangle-hold. It kinda makes sense to think that the longer you piss someone off strangling them to death, the greater they'll retaliate when you stop strangling.

So what can be done?

Agreement on a lifting of sanctions and return of occuppied territories with International policing of a peace accord. International aid, monitored by the UN allowed into Gaza and the promotion of international investment, all the while Israel being given the assurance that if it stops this insane strangling that the international policing bodies will guarantee the safety of its citizens. So in essence the internation community is posting bail or vouching for the palestinians to leverage their freedom. This can and should be done with the acknowledgement that both sides did horrible things and that peace in the region will promote stability in markets and improve growth and standards of living.

Getting back to the strangling analogy, we need to step in and break it up, not worry about the blame game, and just see to those that need humanitarian help.

EDIT: I'm aware that its not as easy to do as it is to say. All roadmaps to peace have failed so far, but taking sides and spouting bile about the other side is no way to progress these peoples towards peace.

Manic Moran · 01-06-2010 5:59pm

Royal Irish wrote: »

International law prohibits the use of white phosphorus in heavily populated civilian areas. All of Gaza is heavily populated civilian area.

Actually, no. There is only a blanket prohibition on its being dropped by aircraft on urban areas. Any other delivery system is permitted if appropriate for the expected effects on target vs civilians, which becomes a judgement call, not a de-facto state.

NTM

OhNoYouDidn't · 01-06-2010 6:22pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

<sigh>

Name a chemical weapon that the IDF used.

Please note, neither white phosphorous nor depleted uranium are categorised as chemical weapons, so I presume you are not referring to either of those. That said, tear gas is categorised as one, but then most every country on the planet is guilty of using that at some point.

Hyperbole never helps anyone's case.

NTM

WP most certainly is.

I think what is actually relevant from the statistics is the number of non combatants, specifically children, killed. That says a great deal about restraint and policy, and that stat is heavily skewed one way....

Manic Moran · 01-06-2010 6:26pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

WP most certainly is.

It's categorised as an incendiary.

NTM

karma_ · 01-06-2010 6:29pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's categorised as an incendiary.

NTM

Nevertheless it's still a scumbaggery weapon to use in civilian areas.

TheInquisitor · 01-06-2010 6:39pm

RATM wrote: »

For sure yesterdays actions show they use excessive force but Im just trying to place it in context of the conflict as a whole. After all the Palastinians are not innocent in this conflict either.

Anyway that link to the UN's stats on the death toll are varied.

(numbers in parentheses represent casualties under age 18)
Year Deaths
Palestinians Israelis
2004 828 (179) 108 (8)
2003 588 (119) 185 (21)
2002 1032 (157) 421 (37)
2001 467 (82) 191 (36)
2000 279 (83) 41 (0)

Total 3194 (620) 946 (112)

So the ratios of Palistinians to Israels dead are:-

2000- 7.6/1
2001- 2.44/1
2002- 2.45/1
2003- 3.17/1
2004- 7.66/1

Over those 5 years the total is 3.37/1.

But perhaps more interesting is the death toll of children

2000 83/0
2001 2.27/1
2002 4.24/1
2003 5.66/1
2004 22.3/1

The total over 5 years is that there have been 5.5 Palastinian children killed for every Israeli child killed.

Now we all know Hamas deals in randomly fired rockets. But Israel on the other hand is supposed to be a nation state and therefore liable to the rules of engagement and UN Declaration on Human Rights/Children.

But these figures indicate that children are either targeted or that the IDF just fire indiscriminantly with no consideration whatsoever for children being about. Guerilla warfare or not those stats are sickening.

Im a bit lost, why did you use the old figures from 5 years ago why not use the figures from only 2 years ago?

Year Deaths Injuries
Palestinians Israelis
2008-26.12.08 464 (87) 31 (4) 15:1
2007 396 (43) 13 (0) 30:1
2006 678 (127) 25 (2) 27:1
2005 216 (52) 48 (6) 4.5:1
1754 117
Average over the figures from the latest years is 15:1

Nodin · 01-06-2010 7:03pm

Laminations wrote: »

How can you be pro any side in this conflict?.

...because one is colonising the other. Please don't tell me you're not aware of this.

Laminations wrote: »

And please just listen to my message which is the promotion of and protest for PEACE and not try and undermine my playing devils advocate here. Please refrain from alluding to me being pro-israeli in this raging conflict, I cant list off the atrocities each side has committed in full, and I'm not arguing for Israel here, I agree with you that they also use human shields amongst other reactionary and provocational acts of violence - hence I'm not taking sides. .

....then be more even handed in your condemnation. Otherwise you effectively are.

Laminations wrote: »

There is no need to doubt my sincerity, in fact I find your aspersions quite insulting.
.

....see above. I didn't single out your post for comment at random.

Laminations wrote: »

You on the other hand proclaim yourself as pro-palestinian, and although I'm against the continuing occupation and blockade of Palestinian territory I can never bring myself to be pro palestinian when in large parts they teach hatred and shelter terrorists/freedom fighters.
.

While I can't say I support Hamas, thats because of some of their methodolgy and above all their ideology. Overall, the Palestinian cause is one of the clearer cases of justified resistance to aggression.

Laminations wrote: »

Opinion drizzled with a nice smattering of anti-Israeli sentiment .

...while I disagree with his stereotype of Israelis, there is in his statement an unfortunate Kernel of truth. At one stage it was the "communist" PLO, then the "evil terrorist" Yasser Arafat, then the "Islamic threat"....yet at every stage the building went on, the land grabs continue.

Pauleta · 01-06-2010 7:08pm

Israel has more efficient weaponry. If Hamas had the weapons and military force Israel have then Israel would not exist.

Manic Moran · 01-06-2010 9:46pm

karma_ wrote: »

Nevertheless it's still a scumbaggery weapon to use in civilian areas.

Perhaps, but it's not illegal.

As I said, hyperbole never helps a case.

NTM

Mr. Incognito · 01-06-2010 11:46pm

Israel grabs land and rings it with soilders. When people rightly get pissed off they are called terrorists.

If Israel could feck off back to it's border and stop commiting acts of terrorist aggression I might have some sympathy. As it is how they are casting themselves as some kind of victim is a joke. Without the US blocking it they would have been condemned by the UN as a terrorist state years ago

Laminations · 02-06-2010 11:57am

Nodin wrote: »

....then be more even handed in your condemnation. Otherwise you effectively are.

While I can't say I support Hamas, thats because of some of their methodolgy and above all their ideology. Overall, the Palestinian cause is one of the clearer cases of justified resistance to agression

I think I'm quite even handed - I condemn actions of both sides - how much more even handed do you want. Stop trying to read between the lines and read what I'm saying, I completely condemn this latest attack and all previous ones but this does not make me pro Palestinian because they (mostly HAmas) have committed heinous acts too. You on the other hand are not even handed, you are trying to justify acts of terror and although you claim not to support Hamas you don't condemn them very strongly.

Nodin · 02-06-2010 12:16pm

Laminations wrote: »

I think I'm quite even handed - I condemn actions of both sides - how much more even handed do you want. Stop trying to read between the lines and read what I'm saying,
.

I did. I'd suggest taking the advice as its meant.

Laminations wrote: »

You on the other hand are not even handed,
.

Not entirely, as I regard the occupation and settlement as clearly aggressive acts. I take the same attitude towards Western Sahara, Papua etc.

Laminations · 02-06-2010 12:34pm

Nodin wrote: »

Not entirely, as I regard the occupation and settlement as clearly aggressive acts. I take the same attitude towards Western Sahara, Papua etc.

and could it be possible that the occupation came about (even in a small part) as a retaliation against agressive acts? You are simplifying this conflict, it needs mediation and intervention, not people taking sides and name calling

Selkies · 02-06-2010 12:51pm

Nodin wrote: »

"suprising" compared to the idea that loss of life was collateral, caused mainly by rockets and bombs aimed at targets. A great deal of it was caused by aimed sniper and rifle fire.

Can you provide me with a source for that statement?

I don't have any figures myself, I've been googling for a bit on the Israeli Collateral damage, most of it is just news reports condemning Israel, nothing comparing it to other similar conflicts. So I think we are at a stalemate on this point unless you can provide something to say that the collateral damage is above normal for a situation like this.

Nodin wrote: »

What?

You said we started blaming everything on Hamas, while you guys tend to stick with the occupation + settlements.

I was pointing out that hamas became the main problem once they were elected.

Nodin · 02-06-2010 1:32pm

Selkies wrote: »

Can you provide me with a source for that statement?.

A definitive one that you'd accept? No. However
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/28/comment.israelandthepalestinians
gives an idea of what I'm on about.

It's not only Palestinians that have been on the receiving end either
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4534620.stm

Selkies wrote: »

I was pointing out that hamas became the main problem once they were elected.

If it wasn't Hamas, there'd be another "problem". The construction trundles on, though it's pace may vary according to the situation and who is in power.

Nodin · 02-06-2010 1:33pm

Laminations wrote: »

and could it be possible that the occupation came about (even in a small part) as a retaliation against agressive acts?

You could argue that, and sure there may well be some element of truth to it. The settlements however, rather undermine the idea that its for "defence".

Laminations · 02-06-2010 1:54pm

Nodin wrote: »

You could argue that, and sure there may well be some element of truth to it. The settlements however, rather undermine the idea that its for "defence".

Well I didn't mean defence, I meant reprisals or retaliation. Firing rockets into Israel is not defence either, it's retaliation. And that's what this conflict is, two sides repeatedly retaliating and provoking each other. You can't decipher the root cause, the initial agressir. It's been suggested on another thread that israels existence is the spark, but to try and deny them existense (not expansion) only fuels this conflict

Selkies · 02-06-2010 2:09pm

Nodin wrote: »

A definitive one that you'd accept? No. However
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/28/comment.israelandthepalestinians
gives an idea of what I'm on about.

It's not only Palestinians that have been on the receiving end either
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4534620.stm

Wow that's awful.
First let me say that is completely wrong, the Israeli military should investigate and try those responsible.

Nodin wrote: »

If it wasn't Hamas, there'd be another "problem". The construction trundles on, though it's pace may vary according to the situation and who is in power.

The real problem about any Palestinian government is that it's not democratic, until people not affiliated with armed groups can run for office the Palestinian people will not be adequately represented.

Before Hamas arrived on the scene I would have said that the corruption and war profiteering of Fatah was the main issue holding the Palestinians back from contributing to a successful peace deal.

Nodin · 02-06-2010 7:21pm

Selkies wrote: »

Before Hamas arrived on the scene I would have said that the corruption and war profiteering of Fatah was the main issue holding the Palestinians back from contributing to a successful peace deal.

There's "peace" in the West Bank now. Theres no stop to the building though, is there? I'd suggest smelling the coffee.

UltimateMale · 02-06-2010 7:38pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Agreed. As you said in another thread (that was subsequently deleted), it would be great if a protest march advocating neither side, but just peace, was held. While the protest marches against Israel at the moment provide a justified means of portraying the anger people feel over the flotilla incident, those protesting run the risk of alienating Israeli people from themselves. I think that history has demonstrated that peoples' communal values and cultural sensibilities are only intensified when they are put under pressure. This can be seen in places such as Northern Ireland, where the sense of Irishness amongst the nationalist population is arguably greater than that in the Republic, where the Irish culture is not under threat.

A solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict will require concessions from both sides, and jumping to one side is only to overly simplify a very complex international situation. The Palestine death toll being higher does not go anywhere near to making it a black and white scenario, whatsoever.

So basically what your saying is, don't put any pressure on the Israeli's and hopefully someday they might stop their gross abuse of the people of Gaza. Do nothing and hopefully it will be ok :rolleyes:

Gee schucks. maybe the aparthied regeime in South Africa should not have had boycotts, international condemnation, solidarity protests etc but everyone should have just done nothing and hopefully it might have changed someday......:rolleyes:

( and BTW, I actually believe the Israeli aparthied regieme is much worse than the South African one was)

Nodin · 02-06-2010 7:39pm

Selkies wrote: »

Wow that's awful.
First let me say that is completely wrong, the Israeli military should investigate and try those responsible.

Well, funny enough that has happened, though very rarely.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/16/israel2

No one was ever charged over the death of James Miller, though I think Tom Hurndalls killer got 8 or 12 years for manslaugher. I'm unaware of anyone that was given a similar sentence for the death of a palestinian.

Israeli-Palastine Death Count

Comments