Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
By that logic, sentencing a serial killer to 30 months of community service is punishment for inappropriate behavior.

What do you think would be an appropriate punishment? Keep in mind that although the article title says "shooting", what actually happened is that a prisoner was shot in the foot with a rubber bullet.

My opinion is just as valid without quoting conventions of any kind.

Unfortunatly you replied before my edit to make my example more ambiguous, does the context really matter? You'd take two potentially innocent lives for one potentially guilty one?

Even if guilt is assured, that is not a sustainible aproach; you'd kill more innocents then guilty's.

Quote: Original post by Kirl
My opinion is just as valid without quoting conventions of any kind.

Wow, you certainly don't suffer from any kind of inferiority complex.

Quote: Original post by Kirl
You'd take two potentially innocent lives for one potentially guilty one?

See, the "potentially guilty one" is not the issue here. The issue is that a single "potentially guilty" terrorist can claim an unspecified number of innocent civilian lives. So the consideration goes more like this: do you want to trade two potentially innocent lives for an unknown number (maybe zero, maybe one, maybe 50) of other innocent lives.

That, of course, is assuming that the ambulance personnel really counts as innocent lives. If they willingly transport terrorists, they are, of course, terrorists themselves, and so not innocent. If the terrorists hijack the ambulance, that makes the situation a bit more ambiguous. But I'm not sure that was the case here. Moreover, even if they did hijack the ambulance and forced the driver to take them around, I still think it's not the responsibility of Israel to deal with this. This is basically a regular situation with terrorists taking hostages. These hostages are palestinians, and they have their own palestinian government to protect them. So that's who they should appeal to. Did they? If not, perhaps they weren't hostages at all.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by Kirl
My opinion is just as valid without quoting conventions of any kind.

Wow, you certainly don't suffer from any kind of inferiority complex.

I base my opinion on personal knowledge and experience, I'm interested to know what you base your opinion on?

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
By that logic, sentencing a serial killer to 30 months of community service is punishment for inappropriate behavior.

What do you think would be an appropriate punishment? Keep in mind that although the article title says "shooting", what actually happened is that a prisoner was shot in the foot with a rubber bullet.

Now I'm pretty sure the argument is that a rubber bullet is better than a metallic/steel bullet. And I'm pretty sure it is (in some respects). But that fact still remains that he shot someone in the foot. With a gun and a bullet. He has to show the same level of responsibility with a rubber bullet as he would a metallic bullet.

As far as punishment, demotion and a desk job. Kicked out of the military....? I don't have all the facts yet.

Quote: Original post by Kirl
I base my opinion on personal knowledge and experience

Just to make sure you are replying to what I think you are replying: you base your opinion about how the israeli military should behave in a war, on your personal knowledge and experience? May I ask the knowledge and experience of what you are referring to, and how that knowledge and experience is relevant to the middle-eastern conflict?

Quote: Original post by Kirl
I'm interested to know what you base your opinion on?

In the specific case of whether it's legitimate to blow up the ambulances -- I base it on the assumption that a vehicle used to transport militants is a military vehicle (regardless of what it says on the side).

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Which specific link was that?

This one:

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
A simple google search turns up a disturbing article from March this year as the first result.

That link doesn't support your claim that they hold their soldiers accountable when they do something bad. It supports the opposite claim. That link provides examples of Israeli soldiers doing bad things.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Here's an example of an IDF officer getting a slap on the wrist after giving an order to shoot a bound prisoner in the leg:

So you do agree that they punish inappropriate behavior?

The punishment is so light it's barely punishment. The commanding officer was indicted for "unworthy conduct". He should have been indicted for assault with a deadly weapon. They might be putting him on trial for failing to find and confiscate the videotape.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And then there are the American and British peace activists who have been shot, maimed and killed by Israeli soldiers who have not been put on trial for their actions.

You aren't saying they shot these people on purpose, do you? Seriously, don't you think the israeli government has better things to do than shooting a couple of people who are in no position to influence anything significantly?

I don't think triggers pull themselves. In the most egregious cases the peace activists were wearing day glo vests announcing their presence. There was no question who they were and what they were doing when they were shot. Yes, I do think the Israeli govt has better things to do, that doesn't mean the Israeli govt agrees with me regarding the better things it could be doing. I think the IDF shot them to send a message to other peace activists not to get involved with Palestinians. At any rate, the question is why haven't the soldiers who pulled the trigger in these cases been brought to trial? When you dismiss these events with excuses, you're saying that the lives of the people who were shot don't count. Remember, your claim is that the Israeli government doesn't condone the killing of Palestinian civilians. Your excuses regarding the killing of American and British civilians indicates that they do indeed condone the killing of civilians.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Using White Phosphorus on civilians is a war crime.

It wasn't used on civilians, it was used in a war zone. Unfortunately, this particular war zone happened to be populated. But it was a war zone nevertheless.

Yes, it was used on civilians. And no it wasn't a war zone. It wasn't a war, it was a massacre. Amira Hass called it a live fire training exercise.

Quote:
... By the way, I don’t use—I don’t think that the word “war” is correct. There was no war between two symmetric parties. I see it as a war—as an attack, as a—and this is, by the way, what Breaking the Silence people noticed from the—when they spoke to soldiers, a massive, wet—what we call wet training exercise of the Israeli forces.

AMY GOODMAN: What does that mean, “wet”?

AMIRA HASS: With live ammunition. So a massive exercise. And I see it as a massive exercise for wars to come, not for wars that were, but for wars to come, using all the sophisticated, almost science fiction weapons, weaponry that Israel has against, what I see, Native Americans with their arrows. That’s—if I’m asked to make a comparison, this is mine. That’s why I cannot use the term “war.”
...
International Women’s Media Foundation Honors Israeli Journalist Amira Hass with 2009 Lifetime Achievement Award

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You can read all about it here and here.

Somehow the article mentioning that HRW "found no evidence of using civilians as human shields" despite wide availability of documentation to the contrary (some of it available even on youtube) doesn't make it sound very credible.

The topic was the criminal use of white phosphorus on civilians, not who used human shields (which in Gaza turned out to be the IDF -- read the Goldstone report, listen to the interviews with the soldiers). You're attempting to change the subject. And by the way, youtube isn't exactly a credible source of information.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If they dropped a nuke on the whole place would you excuse it by saying that they claimed that every Palestinian was a terrorist?

If they claimed that that was the case -- sure, I would. Of course, it's up to you whether to believe it or not. But in the absense of any evidence to the contrary, it's just a belief.

That says it all then.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
They should have held those who gave the order to attack ambulances for trial because attacking ambulances is a war crime plain and simple.

Oh no, it's not. Especially when the ambulance carries a terrorist.

Oh yes it is. You may not like it but even terrorists deserve medical treatment when they are wounded.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Attacking civilian targets is a war crime. A bank is a civilian target.

Again, it's not a civilian target when it harbors militants.

Yes, a bank is a civilian target, even when it harbors militant money.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I think it point to the ongoing ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem.

Why do you think it points to ethnic cleansing any more than deporting illegal immigrants points to an ethnic cleansing of California? I think it's a pretty routine thing, people had a visa, then they left or their visa expired, and now they don't have the visa anymore.

It's nothing like deporting undocumented workers. I think you're only seeing what you want to see. Eviction in battle for East Jerusalem, Israel levels Palestinian homes, Settlers evict woman from disputed east Jerusalem home, U.S. condemns eviction of Arab families from East Jerusalem, ...

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
They are called that to disguise the reality of how they came to be Israelis and to suggest that there's no such thing as a Palestinian and that as Arabs they could all move to Jordan and be happy.

No, they are called that just for convenience, to distinguish them from the people who live in Gaza and West bank. Much like we call black US citizens "african american", as opposed to black citizens of, say, Cameroon, who are just "african". And no, they don't suggest that there is no such thing as a palestinian, on the contrary -- those people who live in Gaza and West bank are called palestinians.

I agree it's convenient to call them Arab-Israelis, but I disagree with your comparison with African-American. Are Russian immigrants to Israel called Russian-Israelis? Is Avigdor Lieberman frequently referred to as a Russian-Israeli? I think not. No, such hyphenation is only applied to Palestinian-Israelis.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Dismissing discrimination as nothing unusual suggests that you support it.

That's an interesting statement. I also think that drug trafficking and violent crime happen everywhere all the time. Does that mean I support these things too?

Do you know the difference between suggest and mean? It doesn't appear that you do. Remember, you're claiming that Arab-Israelis aren't discriminated against. Your out of hand dismissals of accounts of such discrimination coupled with the excuse that it's not unusual do not make a convincing case for your claims.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom
Just to clarify a bit what I mean by saying that discrimination is nothing unusual. One of the articles you linked mentioned that 50% of (supposedly jewish) israelis do not want to live next to arabs. That situation, by itself, is not unusual at all. Things like that happen in all countries. For example, rich don't want to live next to the poor, very religious people don't want to live next to atheists, etc. If you asked white americans whether they want to live in someplace like Harlem, do you think more than 50% would say yes? I'm sure they wouldn't. So that, by itself, however negative you may consider it, is not a phenomenon specific to Israel. What Hodgman suggested was that in Israel this kind of discrimination was institutionalized somehow. Do you think it is? If yes, would you care to give an example?

Are you trying to say that two wrongs make a right? That because religious Americans don't want to live near atheists or white people don't want to live in Harlem that makes it ok that 50% of Israelis don't want to live near Arabs?

I wonder if that 50% is the same as this 50%: Poll: 50% of Israeli Jews support state-backed Arab emigration

Regarding institutionalized discrimination...

Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

Israel/Occupied Territories: High Court decision institutionalizes racial discrimination

GSS: Israeli-Arabs are Existential Danger to Israel

Tel Aviv judge defends right of Arab anti-war protesters

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Are Arab-Israelis allowed to buy land?

Yes, they are, and of course many of them own land in Israel. That refers to government-owned land. Private land owners can make their own decisions about who to sell to.

Most Arabs can't buy most homes in West Jerusalem

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And what about this: Anger over Palestinian Nakba ban proposal

What about that? A guy proposed some law, which some people found inappropriate and criticised. You are not suggesting that things like that happen only in Israel, do you? If that law were passed, that would be another matter, but it was criticised within Israel itself.

The proposal indicates that discrimination is rising. I'm not aware of similar laws proposed in other supposed democracies. Are you? It seems that you are, so how about sharing what you know with us?

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by phresnel

Quote: Geneva Convention IV, Article 18
Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.[...]

This article doesn't apply here. An ambulance is not a hospital. Moreover, even if you did try to broaden the meaning of this article somehow by, for example, saying that the ambulance can be considered some kind of "portable hospital", it still wouldn't apply to an ambulance with a terrorist inside since, obviously, such an ambulance is organized to harbor militants rather than "to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases".

Take a look at Article 21:

Quote:
Article 21

Convoys of vehicles or hospital trains on land or specially provided vessels on sea, conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected in the same manner as the hospitals provided for in Article 18, and shall be marked, with the consent of the State, by the display of the distinctive emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949.

And yes, that applies to ambulances with terrorists inside. It is a violation of that law for combatants to use ambulances to disguise their travel. The claim that "there's a terrorist inside" does not justify the war crime of attacking an ambulance.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Now I'm pretty sure the argument is that a rubber bullet is better than a metallic/steel bullet.

That, too. Basically, if you read only the title you might think the prisoner was killed. The reality is, they didn't kill him and didn't even try to kill or maim him. They tried to intimidate the prisoner and inflict pain. Not to say that that's a cool thing to do, but definitely deserves a different punishment from what killing someone would deserve.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
He has to show the same level of responsibility with a rubber bullet as he would a metallic bullet.

I'm not sure why. You don't think he should show the same level of responsibility with a toy gun as with a real gun, right? So a rubber bullet gun is worse than a toy gun, but definitely better than a lead bullet gun.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
As far as punishment, demotion and a desk job. Kicked out of the military....? I don't have all the facts yet.

The guy who did the actual shooting was in fact demoted. The officer who ordered the shooting was indicted of "inappropriate behavior". When choosing a specific sentence, they took into account his cooperation during investigation and his prior merits. Given that, I don't think reassignment is a horribly inappropriate punishment. Maybe too light for your taste, but I don't think it's completely out of the appropriate range.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That link doesn't support your claim that they hold their soldiers accountable when they do something bad. It supports the opposite claim. That link provides examples of Israeli soldiers doing bad things.

It says that these bad things are being investigated. So it does support my claim that they hold the soldiers accountable.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
He should have been indicted for assault with a deadly weapon.

A rubber bullet is not a deadly weapon.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I think the IDF shot them to send a message to other peace activists not to get involved with Palestinians.

I don't think so, mainly because american/british peace activists are not particularly threatening to IDF. Basically, about 30-50% of israelis themselves are peace activists. So if they were to start shooting peace activists on purpose, they'd have a lot of shooting to do at home before starting shooting foreigners.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
At any rate, the question is why haven't the soldiers who pulled the trigger in these cases been brought to trial?

I assume it's because they think pulling the trigger was either justified or a justifiable mistake.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Yes, it was used on civilians.

No, it was used on military target. It just happened that these were near civilian population.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And no it wasn't a war zone.

Would you mind sharing your definition of a war zone, then?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Amira Hass called it a live fire training exercise.

Sure, you can call it whatever you like. It doesn't make it true.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The topic was the criminal use of white phosphorus on civilians, not who used human shields (which in Gaza turned out to be the IDF -- read the Goldstone report, listen to the interviews with the soldiers). You're attempting to change the subject.

I'm not attempting to change the subject, I'm just casually remarking that an article that shows gross incompetence on one subject can hardly be regarded as a credible source of information on a closely related subject.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
And by the way, youtube isn't exactly a credible source of information.

Depends on what it's showing. If it shows video footage, then it's as credible as any other medium showing video footage.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Oh yes it is.
Yes, a bank is a civilian target, even when it harbors militant money.

Would you be able to support these claims with a suitable quote from international law?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Are Russian immigrants to Israel called Russian-Israelis?

Of course.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Is Avigdor Lieberman frequently referred to as a Russian-Israeli?

He specifically isn't, I think because he lived in Israel for so long that nobody remembers it. But Nathan Sharanski and his colleagues from his party were indeed called that.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
No, such hyphenation is only applied to Palestinian-Israelis.

Not true. It is applied to immigrants from Soviet Union, Morocco, Ethiopia, Yemen, and a lot of other ethnicities.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Remember, you're claiming that Arab-Israelis aren't discriminated against.

I'm claiming that arabs are not discriminated against by the israeli government. As for individual people, of course, there is some discrimination in Israel (against arabs, as well as russians, moroccans, ethiopians, etc.), as, of course, everywhere else in the world.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Are you trying to say that two wrongs make a right?

I'm trying to say that the situation is Israel (no legalized discrimination and some civilian discrimination) is not unique in any way.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

Despite what the title may suggest, it doesn't mean that ALL arab parties were banned in Israel. On the contrary, there were and still are several parties that cater specifically to the arab sector, as well as several arab politicians in other (not specifically arab) parties. The article actually refers to banning two specific parties from elections. This, of course, happens all the time, as there is some set of rules which a political party must conform to to be admitted to elections. And, of course, these two arab parties were not the only parties that were banned.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Israel/Occupied Territories: High Court decision institutionalizes racial discrimination

I think it refers to a phenomenon where certain arab citizens would marry a palestinian woman, bring her to Israel, then divorce within a year or so and repeat the process, sometimes several times. After trying to prevent this by other means, they eventually gave up and did this. So yes, formally, there is some kind of discrimination here, but this is not just to oppress the people, but it was done for a specific reason. Also, if you do insist on formalities, this cannot be called "racial discrimination" since, of course, not only arab citizens, but all other citizens as well cannot bring in spouses from palestine into israel.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Most Arabs can't buy most homes in West Jerusalem

I suggest you actually read articles before posting. The article in question discusses how non-israeli-citizen arabs cannot buy homes in west Jerusalem (or anywhere in Israel, for that matter). It says nothing about israeli citizen of any ethnicity being unable to buy land.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The proposal indicates that discrimination is rising. I'm not aware of similar laws proposed in other supposed democracies. Are you? It seems that you are, so how about sharing what you know with us?

Well, here's one.