Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Interesting Statistics
-
11-06-2003 1:18pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Hobbes wrote:
> The only thing I found was listing of terrorist attacks and then only by one side.
> So there is bias on your site.
This is incorrect. Terror attacks committed by Jews and Jewish organizations are listed, and Arab victims of Jewish terror attacks are part of our statistics. Try, for example, searching for incidents since 1 January 2001, leaving organization blank, target = School/University. Or look at Vehicles targed in the West Bank; there's one attack on 29 August 2001, another on 16 August, and one on 19 July. You can also look for attacks by Kach - but there haven't been any since the beginning of the "Intifada". (The Jewish attacks have yet to be attributed to any named organization.)
The "problem" is that there are very few Jewish terror attacks, and not that our site is biased. I'd challenge you to find any "missing" incidents of Jewish terrorism.
> You dismiss figures from the other side. Which is fine but you should list off exactly what deaths your claming as not real.
Why? We discuss specifics incident-by-incident. There is no particular reason for us to spend the effort to refute other websites point-by-point; certainly none of them have done the same with us.
> And list your sources. There are not only just two sides reporting the story. There are numerous sides. You can get information from Red Cross/UN workers (from various departments).
Our sources are listed for each incident. And you are wrong about the Red Cross and UN: The Palestinian Red Crescent (the local affiliate of the Red Cross) is run by Yasser Arafat's brother, and its statistics are highly politicized. And the vast majority of the U.N. staff operating in Palestinian areas consists of Palestinians. Even B'Tzelem, always billed as an "Israeli human rights organization", is staffed almost entirely by Arabs.
In any case, you haven't pointed out any real discrepancies between our statistics and anyone else's statistics. In my opinion, you'll find the following:
A) Many people listed as "civilians" by Palestinian organizations were in fact combatants.
Our demographic information is pretty much identical to everyone else's.
C) None of the Palestinian sites addresses the implications of these demographics.
> Or if you want to do a good system. Put names to the statistics for both sides. Show what each side is loosing in the conflict and the far reaching effects of both sides actions.
I'm not sure what exactly you're asking for here, other than what we've already done. Could you clarify?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Gandalf wrote:
quote:
Just to follow up bonkeys post. The problem is this Don I would classify killing civilians to get one Hamas leader as state sponsored terrorism.
I'm talking about the incident today where a Hamas Leader (not identified yet) was assassinated and 5 others killed including a 3yr old child. Now if this man was guilty of running terrorism would it not be correct international legal procedure to arrest and try him as a criminal instead of acting like terrorists and firing rockets from a helicopter onto a busy street. In my eyes that takes the IDF down to the same level as suicide bombers.
While I disagree with your conclusion, you raise a good question. There are (at least) three issues involved here:
1) Was this "targeted killing" an act of terrorism, a war crime, or in some other way illegal?
2) Should senior terrorists be arrested rather than "hit"?
3) Was this series of "targeted killings" a good idea strategically? Was it morally justified?
Now, first read my article, "War Crimes and Gentleman's Agreements", at http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=479 . Done yet?
The Geneva Conventions, which are the main bit of "international law" applicable here, are actually quite fuzzy regarding what is and is not permissable in attacking military targets embedded among a civilian (i.e. "protected") population. It is made very clear that for combatants to shelter among civilians is itself a war crime, known as "perfidy". It is made equally clear that while legitimate military targets may be attacked wherever they are, the attacking power is not to use "excessive" force. The problem is that the Conventions don't define "excessive". While it's clear the nuking Gaza City to get one person would be "excessive", it's far from clear where exactly the line is drawn between "appropriate" and "excessive". In fact, I could make a good point that Israeli missile strikes are often "sub-appropriate" - in the sense that Rantisi emerged from a missile strike with only light injuries.
While the Geneva Accords (as I pointed out, I think, in my article cited above) don't make a clear enough connection between the two issues, it seems to be generally agreed by experts on the subject that if one side commits "perfidy" - that is, an abuse of the "protected" status of a civilian population to shelter combatants, weapons, and so on - the onus is on that side for any civilian casualties that ensue. In other words, if Hamas hides among civilians, and Israeli forces kill some of these civilians in the course of pursuing Hamas combatants, the blame for the deaths lies not on Israel, but on Hamas.
Unless it can be shown that Israel has gone after Hamas members with truly "excessive" force, or has indiscriminately attacked Palestinian civilian neighborhoods without bothering to target specific military personnel or facilities, Israel has committed neither terrorism, war crimes, nor crimes against humanity. I don't think any serious case can be made against Israel in this regard.
* * *
Should Israel arrest terrorists rather than kill them "extra-judicially"? The short answer is that Israel usually does exactly that. There are many more arrests than "targeted killings". However, it is not always simple, safe, or easy to make such arrests. Especially in Gaza, whenever Israeli forces enter a neighborhood to make an arrest, announcements go out over the local mosque loudspeakers for everyone to grab his gun and "confront the Zionist invaders". A gunfight inevitably ensues, and typically a dozen or so Palestinians wind up being killed. While most of these are armed (and therefore "combatants" in our definition), they are not the people we went in to arrest; and innocent Palestinians often get caught in the crossfire as well. In short, arrests often wind up A) getting the "suspect" killed in the firefight; and killing more bystanders (armed and unarmed) than "targeted killings". This is hardly a panacea!
In any case, there is no "correct international legal procedure" being violated here. Soldiers on the battlefield are not entitled to a fair trial; and neither are active terrorists and the leaders of terrorist organizations.
* * *
Are these "targeted killings" a good idea strategically or morally? This is a much harder question for me to answer! I'm no great fan of "targeted killings", and I think that the Israel government has often shown an extremely bad sense of timing in carrying out these attacks. I'm also far from convinced that most of these attacks yield a result that's worth the trouble. (There may be exceptions - for example, when one terrorist has special technical know-how that others lack.) So I won't undertake a spirited defense of "targeted killings" as a strategy, since I'd be pretending to an enthusiasm I don't in fact possess.
Morally, I think there is a genuine case to be made for "targeted killings", as long as the utmost effort is made to minimize "collateral" casualties. The people Israel is targeting are not choirboys; they are vicious terrorists who are responsible for the cold-blooded murder of many innocent noncombatants. As my wife would say (she's from Texas), they need killin'. As they don't do us the courtesy of confronting us on the battlefield, we have no choice other than to let ourselves be killed without making any response, and going in after the killers. I do wish to emphasize, though, that my approval of such attacks is *very* conditional: Only the top commanders should be targeted, and great care must be made to "do the job cleanly".0 -
-
-
-
-
-
That would require that not only the method used, but the primary goal itself would have to be justifiable - and neither is.In fact, I could make a good point that Israeli missile strikes are often "sub-appropriate" - in the sense that Rantisi emerged from a missile strike with only light injuries.
I'd like to see your citations for that, if you please. Frankly, I don't believe you.While the Geneva Accords (as I pointed out, I think, in my article cited above) don't make a clear enough connection between the two issues, it seems to be generally agreed by experts on the subject that if one side commits "perfidy" - that is, an abuse of the "protected" status of a civilian population to shelter combatants, weapons, and so on - the onus is on that side for any civilian casualties that ensue.
That is disingenous. Firstly, the IDF were not "pursuing" Hamas combatants, they were trying to assasinate a Hamas spokesman, and secondly, the method used was assured to cause the deaths of nearby innocent civilians. This wasn't a sniper bullet, it was an anti-tank missile fired in a crowded street. The blame is very, very clearly on the IDF.In other words, if Hamas hides among civilians, and Israeli forces kill some of these civilians in the course of pursuing Hamas combatants, the blame for the deaths lies not on Israel, but on Hamas.
What else do you call using anti-tank missiles in a crowded street?Unless it can be shown that Israel has gone after Hamas members with truly "excessive" force
That's a charge that has been laid against the IDF on many occasions, and it has never been acceptably refuted. The death of Rachel Corrie, for example, was not caused by a bulldozer according to the IDF. James Miller was supposedly shot during an exchange of fire between a tank and an anti-tank group - despite the fact that no such firing is heard on the footage that shows his death. Brian Avery was shot in the face with a mounted .50-cal, in direct violation of even the IDF's rules of combat which state that mounted machine guns cannot be used to fire "warning shots".or has indiscriminately attacked Palestinian civilian neighborhoods without bothering to target specific military personnel or facilities
I beg to differ. Israel doesn't care to listen to such cases, but that's due to prejudice, not facts.I don't think any serious case can be made against Israel in this regard.
That's not even close to a justification for the policy of assassinations. Firstly, the suspect (no inverted commas please, we tend to require people to prove guilt rather than just point to someone, say they're guilty and shoot them), has a right to due process. Secondly, you've given an emotive scene, but not one that's backed up with evidence.In short, arrests often wind up A) getting the "suspect" killed in the firefight; and killing more bystanders (armed and unarmed) than "targeted killings".
Correct. But soldiers are demarked by wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon. If either of those conditions are not met, then that person is entitled to, at a minimum, not be shot out of hand. If armed, they must be shooting at someone to be classed as a target, and if unarmed and in uniform, they are protected by the Geneva Convention.In any case, there is no "correct international legal procedure" being violated here. Soldiers on the battlefield are not entitled to a fair trial;
On the contrary, they are entitled to due process. The only people not entitled to due process are armed soldiers in uniform during time of war.and neither are active terrorists and the leaders of terrorist organizations.
Even such a minimal case is invalid here, as the methods being used are assured to cause additional causalties.Morally, I think there is a genuine case to be made for "targeted killings", as long as the utmost effort is made to minimize "collateral" casualties.
The only proof we have of that is the word of people that fire anti-tank missiles in crowded streets and who shrug off UN charges of violations of the Geneva Convention as though they don't matter, and who have killed or shot several peace activists in the last few months with no remorse.The people Israel is targeting are not choirboys; they are vicious terrorists who are responsible for the cold-blooded murder of many innocent noncombatants.
Whatever texan wives think, the rest of the planet is generally agreed that people are not permitted to wander around killing at random.As my wife would say (she's from Texas), they need killin'.
You would like Hamas to line up to be shot by a militarily superior force?As they don't do us the courtesy of confronting us on the battlefield
Incorrect. There are other effective responses.we have no choice other than to let ourselves be killed without making any response, and going in after the killers.
Which is the precise opposite of what we're seeing.Only the top commanders should be targeted, and great care must be made to "do the job cleanly".
From your own paper :A correct and objective definition of terrorism can be based upon accepted international laws and principles regarding what behaviors are permitted in conventional wars between nations. These laws are set out in the Geneva and Hague Conventions, which in turn are based upon the basic principle that the deliberate harming of soldiers during wartime is a necessary evil, and thus permissible, whereas the deliberate targeting of civilians is absolutely forbidden. These Conventions thus differentiate between soldiers who attack a military adversary, and war criminals who deliberately attack civilians.
The IDF don't come off terribly well under such a definition.0 -
I'd have to agree with most - no, every point made by Sparks in his last two posts (I'm assuming/hoping your comment regarding Hamas lining up on the battlefield wasn't an attempt at justifying Hamas' tactics).
As for bias, it's just plain silly to suggest that that site is totally objective and unbiased. There are very few (if any) sites regarding this conflict that are not biased toward one side or another, whether run by Arabs, Israelis, Liberals or Conservatives.
Even here, on an Irish website, it's near impossible to get an objective view (usually we end up with Sand and Typedef squaring off
). Personally I'm taking the most cynical view possible and basically giving up on both sides, since each apparently has no greater desire than to wipe the other off the map. 0 -
As for bias, it's just plain silly to suggest that that site is totally objective and unbiased. There are very few (if any) sites regarding this conflict that are not biased toward one side or another, whether run by Arabs, Israelis, Liberals or Conservatives.
Agreed - The database is interesting because with a database you can try and bring everything down to known facts/categories. The interpretations of that information can be biased, but at least you can challenge those interpretations with interpretations of your own and back them up.
As for the basic point of the article, It does seem that palestinian targets are far more random and "careless" than Israeli targeting which seems to be far less random. Thats an interpretation of the data presented. Maybe others can be drawn.it's near impossible to get an objective view (usually we end up with Sand and Typedef squaring off
Ive not actually debated/argued (Neither term seems to fit tbh, Im sure Type will have a better term
) with Type for ages, I dont waste my time in Israel/Palestine threads that much anymore for one thing. And for the record Ive read a few posts of Types recently which have convinced me I dont need to post on a given thread because hes pretty much saying what I think. Give yourself to the dark side Type:x 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bonkey, the problem with your argument is twofold:
1) Your description of Palestinian behavior implies, in effect, that the Palestinians are either crazy, stupid, or at best completely incapable of handling their own testosterone levels. Were I a Palestinian, I'd be highly offended.
You claim that male Palestinians are killed because they "physically oppose invasion or occupation". But this doesn't make sense when we're talking about noncombatants. These consist mostly of kids and youths with rocks (and sometimes pipe-bombs or Molotov cocktails, and sometimes nothing at all), confronting one of the world's best-equipped militaries. What's the point of throwing rocks at a Merkava tank? (Another point: You're saying, in effect, that the vast majority of those we've classified as noncombatants were, in fact, combatants. Are you sure you want to defend such a position?)
For an act of "defense" to be worthy of the name, there must be some reason to think that it may be successful. When kids throw stones at Israeli soldiers and tanks, there is no question that A) their acts are futile in that they pose no significant risk to Israeli forces; and the kids themselves incur a substantial risk of serious injury or death.
If this is "physical opposition", something is seriously wrong!
As I see it, guerilla/terror attacks - even suicidal attacks - make a degree of sense from the Palestinian perspective, since they offer a reasonable probability of costing Israel more than they cost the Palestinians. But participating in riots or throwing rocks at tanks offers no such advantageous risk/reward ratio; it has substantial risk, with no obvious reward.
2) While you are correct in saying that statistics cannot prove a particular motive (and I think "A.E.T." reflects that fact), I believe that the statistics do show that a large number of the Palestinian fatalities in this conflict are the result of *some* motive - that is, that they reflect a combination of Palestinian deliberate behavior and Israeli stupidity, rather than simply Israeli random shelling or bombing of Palestinian areas. Once we've established that much - at least tentatively - we can search to see what possible motives might account for the Palestinian side of the equation.
As I think I demonstrated above, I don't think much of "physical opposition" as an explanation for most Palestinian noncombatant deaths. It just doesn't work as a rational decision; and I refuse to believe that so many ordinary Palestinians behave in a comletely irrational manner.
While I can't rule out other motives than "suicide propaganda", there are some good reasons to take this hypothesis seriously:
A) Parsimony. This hypothesis seems to account for a good deal of Palestinian behavior over the course of this conflict without bringing in any mystical, unobserved causative factors. As I'll detail in (B) below, there is a substantial amount of evidence for exactly the kind of indoctrination and propaganda campaign I'm suggesting. And the only "sensible" goal for such a campaign is a high fatality count - Arafat's "million martyrs". Evidence. Various media watchdogs (including Palestine Media Watch, http://www.pmw.org.il - check out their "Ask for Death" feature) have documented repeated Palestinian TV commercials and programming glorifying "martyrdom", aimed at adolescents and pre-adolescents.
One classic that appeared early in the conflict showed Mohammed al-Dura in heaven, extolling his fellow kids to follow him. Remember that Dura (who may well have been killed by a Palestinian bullet, not that that's relevant here) was the archetypal innocent victim: He wasn't even throwing rocks or rioting at the time of his death. Why would the Palestinian Authority want to induce kids to follow this example?
Remember, too, that Palestinian media are closely supervised by Yasser Arafat's associates. Palestinian TV in particular is tightly controlled; so anything potentially controversial that has appeared on Palestinian television, especially material that has been endlessly repeated, has to have been approved by the highest echelons of Arafat's government. Certainly nothing Arafat himself has said would cast any doubt on this hypothesis - his own words, as I quoted a couple of days ago, are entirely consistent with a strategy of using "martyrs" for propaganda purposes.0 -
Originally posted by Don Radlauer
1) Your description of Palestinian behavior implies, in effect, that the Palestinians are either crazy, stupid, or at best completely incapable of handling their own testosterone levels.
So, you're saying that the implication that these people are stupid - or at least doing something incredibly stupid - is a flaw in my argument?
Tell me - how smart would you rate someone who decides to go out and deliberately try and get themselves killed because of an ad they saw on TV telling them to do so?
If my argument is flawed because I have not credited all of these people with the greatest of intelligence and cunning....surely then your own argument is at least equally flawed for the exact same reason. You have the same people carrying out teh same stupid acts, only now they're doing it because someone else told them it would be a great thing to do...and used tv ads as one means of convincing them of this.
You claim that male Palestinians are killed because they "physically oppose invasion or occupation". But this doesn't make sense when we're talking about noncombatants.
So are you saying that the Israelis are mostly killing people who are not actually doing anything? That there isnt even provocation for shooting them?
No, I'm not saying that as all. Given that you just posted a clarification of why the rock-throwing kid isnt a combatant, I hardly need to explain the logic to you(Another point: You're saying, in effect, that the vast majority of those we've classified as noncombatants were, in fact, combatants. Are you sure you want to defend such a position?)
If I had wanted to infer these people were combatants, I would have used the term "combat" or "combatant".
For an act of "defense" to be worthy of the name, there must be some reason to think that it may be successful.
Agreed, and if I had used the term "act of defense" this would be somewhat relevant. I used the term "physically oppose" very deliberately, because I do not accept the base assumption that this must be an act of defense. Its for the same reason I avoided using the term "combatant" - its not the applicable term
When kids throw stones at Israeli soldiers and tanks, there is no question that A) their acts are futile in that they pose no significant risk to Israeli forces; and the kids themselves incur a substantial risk of serious injury or death.
Well, actually, point B is only uncontestable when you believe that one of the best-equipped armies in the world feels threatened enough by these stones to have to shoot at the people throwing them (which would then refute point A). Well - there are also a number of alternate, less charitable explanations , but I'm sure I don't need to iterate through them - we've all heard them before.
Why? You said that for it to be an "act of defense", it had to have a chance of success. Are you now saying that an act of "physical opposition" must also have a chance of forcing the invaders out in order to be considered worthy of the name as well?
If this is "physical opposition", something is seriously wrong!
In that case (Just so we can stop this dance, cause my feet are getting sore)...what term should I use for an act which is designed to show that you do not wish the occupiers to remain, as opposed to one which is designed to actually get them out?
And the people we typically see involved in this are - for lack of a better term - angry young men.But participating in riots or throwing rocks at tanks offers no such advantageous risk/reward ratio; it has substantial risk, with no obvious reward.
Look around the world. There is no shortage of people doing stupid things, getting hurt (sometimes even killed) for no obvious reward. In your terminology, there is no advantageous risk/reward...and still they do it. Why should Palestine be any different?
As I think I demonstrated above, I don't think much of "physical opposition" as an explanation for most Palestinian noncombatant deaths. It just doesn't work as a rational decision; and I refuse to believe that so many ordinary Palestinians behave in a comletely irrational manner.
But you see nothing irrational in suggesting that they will forget how stupid the life-threatening action they perform is once they have been given some exposure to media etc. extolling the virtue of getting killed, and they cleverly decide to give it a go by carrying out this action?
Which ever way you argue it, what they are doing is stupid....and yet this is only a flaw in my argument???While you are correct in saying that statistics cannot prove a particular motive (and I think "A.E.T." reflects that fact)
Where does it reflect it? I see the bit where it informs the reader how to read a graph correctly - thereby assuming that the reader is unfamiliar with some of the basic pitfalls of mathematical presentation - but I see no accompanying clarification about the shortfalls or limitations of statistical analysis in general.
For example : right at the end we see :
The fact that Palestinian deaths caused by Israeli actions do not, as a rule, follow the same pattern would seem to undermine claims that Israel deliberately targets Palestinian civilians.
OK - "seem to undermine" is obviously not presenting something as proof, but at the same time, you don't explain why this is the most logical conclusion to be reached.
I would have said that the patterns show that Israel is not engaged in indiscriminate targetting of Palestinian civilians. Indeed, there is a high correlation between the gender/age of Palestinian combatant and non-combatant deaths.
There's a peak of 15-20 year old male combatants...and lo and behold there's a peak of 15-20 year old male non-combatants.
There are some explanations offered for this - one which effectively says "maybe later analysis of the Phases by Incident Type will be more revealing", and the other says "A very high proportion of young males is taken to indicate that many of the fatalities likely resulted from confrontations that the victims could have avoided." Neither of these failings rules out rules out what we could term "Angry Young Man Syndrome" (or AYMS for short?). Neither rules out the possibility of profiled targetting by the Israelis. And yet you draw one conclusion over these others....its as if there is only one conclusion which can be drawn.
No mention of the other possibilities, if only to rule them out. No discussion of why the conclusion is the most logical. Simply a choice of wording which does not state it as fact.
Bear in mind that we're dealing with a readership who has a large enough contingent of maths "non-literati" that they need to be told how to read graphs. Now all of a sudden, they're smart enough to deal with the subtleties of understanding the limitations of statistical analyses because the one conclusion offered wasnt phrased as an absolute???
At the end of the day, I guess we'll have to differ on this one. I think there is a wealth of information in your article, but I'm not convinced its delivered in the most objective and balanced manner possible. Obviously, you believe in your work and its quality.....so I doubt we'll ever reach consensus here. I still appreciate you discussing it though
jc0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement