IDF denies B'Tselem claim it 'executed' 2 West Bank militants

[Englander]

By Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondent

The Israel Defense Forces on Monday denied claims by an Israeli human rights organization that the shooting death of two Palestinian militants near the West Bank town of Jenin last week was an "execution."

An IDF special forces unit opened fire on the two Palestinians in the village of Kfar al-Yamin while the two were already wounded and helpless, the B'Tselem group reported. Three other militants were killed in the raid.

>snip

According to B'Tselem, the militants were "executed by soldiers as they lay wounded on the ground, unarmed and without giving any indication of danger toward the soldiers."

The group said in its statement, "the fact that the soldiers did not shoot at the youths as soon as they entered the house, did not search their persons or bind their hands, supports the assumption that the soldiers did not see them as a threat." B'Tselem petitioned the military prosecution to open a criminal investigation of the event.

The IDF did not deny B'Tselem's claims of the order of events during the raid, but emphasized that the shooting was not an "execution."

More at;
Haaretz

[bemildred]

1. "Confirming the kill", I think it's supposed to be called. nt

[Scurrilous]

2. Suspicion: IDF soldiers execute injured Palestinians

Human rights group claims IDF soldiers operating in West Bank town shot and killed two injured, unarmed Palestinians

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3327936,00.html

<snip>

"The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories B'Tselem reported claims that IDF soldiers operating in al-Yamoun, a West Bank town west of Jenin shot two injured and unarmed Palestinians at close range last Wednesday, killing them both.

According to an investigation by B’Tselem , Salim Abu al-Heijah and Mahmoud Abu Hassan were the two Palestinians killed by IDF soldiers, after seeking refuge and medical care at a relative's home.

The investigation by B’Tselem claimed that the two Palestinians went to the home of relatives in the village when they were injured. They were taken in, received first aid, and covered in blankets.

About 20 minutes later, an IDF force arrived at the house and ordered the family to leave. According to the investigation, the soldiers broke into the house, stepped over the injured, and two minutes later, shot them both at close range."

[MrPrax]

3. New security head ?

Maybe this is how Liebermann is going to make a name for himself:

ISRAEL MINISTER WANTS TO MOVE ARABS OUT OF COUNTRY

HILLEL FENDEL, ARUTZ SHEVA - Just days after joining the government, Avigdor Lieberman has set the national agenda - at least for the day. His statement that Arabs must be separated from Israel has become the talk of the town. Lieberman, Israel's Minister for Strategic Affairs, told The Sunday Telegraph's Jerusalem correspondent that the best way to achieve peace in the Middle East would be for Jews and Arabs - including Israeli-Arabs - to live apart.

The remarks drew a storm of protest from the left-wing. MK Dov Hanin of the joint Arab-Israeli Hadash party said that Lieberman should be fired for his racist remarks. . . MK Uri Ariel (National Union), on the other hand, justified Lieberman's position: "His words about the threat presented by Israeli-Arabs to the physical existence of the State of Israel are correct. Now that he has entered the government, it remains only for us to see which of his plans he will actualize to deal with this threat."

"We established Israel as a Jewish country," Lieberman said. "I want to provide an Israel that is a Jewish, Zionist country. It's about what kind of country we want to see in the future. Either it will be an country like any other, or it will continue as a Jewish country."

Undernews -- original Arutz Sheva link

Lieberman out of the shadows: Israel's Minister of Strategic Threats

Jonathan Cook

"...he has recently demanded the execution for treason of any Arab parliamentarian who talks to the Palestinian leadership in the occupied territories or commemorates Nakba Day, which marks the expulsion and permanent dispossession of the Palestinian people in 1948. That would include every elected representative of Israel's Arab population.

These are Lieberman's official positions. Apparently unofficially he wants even worse measures taken against Palestinians, both inside Israel and in the occupied territories. In May 2004, for example, he told a crowd of his supporters, in Russian, that 90 per cent of the country's Arab citizens should be expelled. "They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost." His speech could have had second billing with one by Adolf Hitler at a Nuremberg Rally..."

...

In the newly established post of Minister for Strategic Threats, Lieberman -- the self-avowed Arab hater -- will shape Israel's response to Iran, leading the chorus threats being made by Israel that it is only a hair's breadth from dropping bombs, possibly nuclear warheads, on Tehran. After that, he will presumably help the government decide what other "strategic threats" it faces.

While Olmert enthuses over Lieberman, most in the Labor party seem quietly resigned to his inclusion. Labor's elder statesman and former leader, Shimon Peres, says he has no objections, so long as Lieberman does not challenge the core policies agreed by Kadima and Labor. This, of course, is precisely what Lieberman is doing -- it was the price of the bargain he struck with Olmert. Lieberman wants no peace overtures to the Palestinians, and favours the hardline neoliberal economic policies pursued by Kadima.

EI

Ring the Alarms

"...Israeli racism may be founded on denial of the naqba but since the "war on terror" began, its freedom to act on that denial has been enhanced by the suspension of external checks and balances on its behaviour. Now, when Israel kills civilians on a beach in Gaza, international sanctions are levied against its victims. When it commits war crimes in Lebanon the US rushes through emergency military aid.

In such a climate, it sometimes feels as if there's no limit to how far rightwing reaction in the country can spread. Avnery and Bishara are right to sound an alarm.

Anti-Arab racism, for example, is currently approaching epidemic levels. Earlier this year, an opinion poll found that more than two-thirds of Israeli Jews would refuse to live in the same building as an Arab and half would not allow an Arab in their home. Among those surveyed 41% wanted entertainment facilities to be segregated, 18% said that they felt hatred when they heard Arabic spoken and 40% thought Israel should "support the emigration of Arab citizens".

The irresistible rise of Avigdor Lieberman, now the second most popular prime ministerial candidate in Israel, is not so much making racism respectable as demonstrating what happens after the fact. If it helps liberals in the outside world to wake up to what is happening in this blighted land, Lieberman will have done a favour to Palestinians, the international community - and Israeli Jews. ..

Guardian

Israeli Left-Right Divide Unmasked as Phony

Nicola Nasser

"...To some fringe and marginal Israeli voices prominent European right-wingers are “lightweight” compared to Lieberman: “Lieberman, the extreme right-wing settler, and his party, are members of the dubious club of extreme right-wing parties with populistic-fascist characteristics. Le Pen in France and Haider in Austria are lightweight compared to him,” Meretz parliamentary faction chairman MP Zahava Gal-On said in a published letter last week.

Israeli left-wing politics have been misleadingly linked to peace-making for too long now. “WHAT does it mean to be a left-winger in Israel these days?” The Economist asked on October 26.

The Economist has touched on an issue that has divided Palestinian leftists, let alone the mainstream nationalists, since the early days the PLO sought contacts with Israeli “leftists” motivated by a sincere peace drive and influenced by its former world power ally, the USSR, as well as by indigenous communists and their Arab and international comrades.

...

Israel may be said to be suffering from a chronic “Lieberman syndrome” that it has chronically failed to overcome by exaggerating its phony “left” credentials, especially among the peoples of its American and European allies.

However camouflaging its extreme right-wing policies by ultra-leftist rhetoric could not conceal its rightist agenda; Israeli left has not in fact failed but unmasked as a propaganda front for the Zionist rightist agenda which nurtured both left and right and on which peace and the peace processes have crashed and doomed to be always evasive and illusive so long as Zionism remains the terms of reference for an Israeli peace-making based on dictating a fait accompli in the name of security.

GlobalResearch

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[IntiRaymi]

5. I have a tough time believing the IDF.

Their ability to wage a moral fight is being taken apart, piece by piece, by these actions.
It is unavoidable when you become the oppressor.

[Englander]

6. It's the poisonous nature of colonialist occupations.

In order to prolong that occupation, it is necessary to fight a 'dirty war', incidents like the one
mentioned above. Legality, & morality, be damned.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. B'Tselem. There is an "objective" source. n/t

[Englander]

8. From the archives;

'Drop in number of Palestinians killed in hostile actions in 2005'

The number of Palestinians and Israelis killed in hostile actions dropped considerably in 2005, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, B'tselem, reported on Wednesday.

Some 197 Palestinians and 50 Israelis were killed in 2005, down from 803 Palestinians and 107 Israelis killed in the previous year.

The human rights center said 73 of the Palestinians killed this year were killed in clashes withIsraeli security forces while 22 were killed in targeted killings.

Another 96 of the fatalities were not directly involved in fighting and seven others were bystanders during targeted killings.

more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=110073

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Doesn't change the fact that they are not objective.

Reporting something from Ha'aretz doesn't imply agreement. Just ask bemildred.

[Englander]

10. Is that a *fact*?

Or is it opinion?

Which is a fact, & which is opinion?

Statement; B'Tselem are an Israeli NGO.

Statement; B'Tselem are not objective.

Here's a quiz that might be helpful in any attempts to differentiate between a statement that is a
fact, & a statement that is opinion;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/words/reading/fact_and_opinion/quiz.shtml

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Here's a little test for you...

Check their stats. See how many times suicide bombers are reported as Palestinian deaths, despite the fact they say they are not recorded in the "official" numbers. Or even better, how many Israeli deaths are reported. Here's a little help...the only "Israeli" deaths they count are Jews. Israeli Arabs are counted in the Palestinian "column."

So, as for your absurd...

Statement; B'Tselem are an Israeli NGO. True.

Statement; B'Tselem are not objective. True.

One is not reliant on the other.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. B'Tselem are objective...

They're infinitely more objective than many of the partisan posters in this forum, and what's more they're a human rights organisation that gives a toss about BOTH Israeli and Palestinian civilians, a habit that appears to upset some folk who would prefer to launch lame attacks on B'Tselem than actually absorb anything they have to say or even attempt to comment objectively on the OP itself...

[bemildred]

15. Hey Vi.

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Hiya bemildred!

Check yr inbox when you get a chance :)

[Englander]

13. That isn't relevant.

(And the claim about the statistics is scarely credible, never mind the relevance.)

That doesn't change the *fact* that the statement 'B'Tselem are not objective' is an *opinion*.
It is a belief, a point of view, an *opinion* that 'B'Tselem are not objective', it is not a *fact*.

It's a *fact* that there are sources who consider the statement 'B'Tselem are not objective' to be a
fact, that doesn't change the reality that the statement 'B'Tselem are not objective' is an *opinion*.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Fact -- something that actually exists; reality; truth

objective -- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

B'Tselem is as objective as Fox News, which is not objective and that is a fact. Unless you consider calling Fox News un-objective, simply an opinion and not fact.

[Englander]

26. Hilarious. n/t

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[eyl]

22. Actually

it seems Israeli Arabs are counted in the "Israeli" column (granted, I only checked the case of the Maxim bombing, since that's the only one I remember by name where Israeli Arabs were also killed).

Where B'Tselem did use to have problems was a overwide definition of "civilian" - eventually, they added a clarification to their site.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Check the first week after Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

[eyl]

29. They're not included in either tally

see the notes at the bottom of the casualites page.

[bemildred]

14. No source is objective.

I just want to point that out. Sources are useful or not useful. They are useful if they do one of two things:

1.) Present points of view coherently
2.) Keep one informed as to facts and events

Bad sources have many sorts of deficiencies, all of which boil down to the fact that they confuse rather than clarify, they obscure and invent and confuse and blather on about nothing. But if they present a point of view coherently and clearly, whether you agree or not, or verifiable facts and events, things people actually said, quoted verbatim, they are useful.

Sites are not always one thing or another, one must take published content case by case. To criticize a piece according to it's source rather than based on what it says is a form of the ad hominem attack.

The ad hominen attack, by the way, gets a worse name than it deserves. There are sites and posters that over time one learns to ignore, not because they will never say anything interesting, but because one does not have time to wait or search for those rare events. One prefers places where the odds are better of getting something nourishing. Thus, the ad hominem attack, when used in the sense of "not worth my trouble" can be a sensible criticism. But it still fails on grounds of logic.

Any attempt to achieve something like "objectivity" about a subject(*) in dispute requires an honest attempt to entertain or study all points of view on the matter, really to step "outside the box" and consider them all in relation to each other, something which is sadly lacking in most cases. The wildest advocates for one side or another will claim that their opponents are not "objective", meaning really simply that the other fellow does not agree with them, and since they are themselves obviously right, their opponent must be nuts. In other words it is just a meaningless name, a slur without content, a disguised claim that you are correct and the other fellow is wrong, and a way to avoid engaging with inconvenient arguments.

(*) - Notice the lexical irony there: objectivity about a subject.

[msmcghee]

16. Hey, we agree.

But you forgot to include "critical thinking" which is often used much like "objective" in arguments.

The I/P forum, because of the strong emotions of armed conflict and others, is full of posts that defend positions based on the emotional beliefs underlying them - and where "thinking" is used solely to justify those beliefs - not examine them. Basically, it often devolves to a verbal extension of the conflict itself. One seldom examines the objective basis for a conflict while one is launching a projectile toward the enemy - verbal or otherwise.

As I said, the only way to get past that is to lay those beliefs out there and examine them objectively which few here seem willing to do. When questions arise that focus on those beliefs or expose them to reality, posters disappear.

[bemildred]

17. There are courses in "Critical Thinking" with a well defined subject matter.

There are no courses in "Objectivity" or anything like it. Objectivity is a fiction like an absolute inertial frame of reference. Critical thinking is not.

I know that you think it is important to be stupid and emotional when fighting, but you are wrong, and I don't need to be annoyed about it over and over.

There is very little here that passes for "thinking" or even purports to be that, so we agree about that, and that is much to your credit.

[msmcghee]

18. A discussion engaged? Let's see what happens.

There are courses in "Critical Thinking" with a well defined subject matter. There are no courses in "Objectivity" or anything like it. Objectivity is a fiction like an absolute inertial frame of reference. Critical thinking is not.

I was not comparing them in terms of college credits. I was comparing them according to the frame you introduced - their use to bolster one's argument by claiming that it is "objective" or based on "critical thinking".

I know that you think it is important to be stupid and emotional when fighting, but you are wrong, and I don't need to be annoyed about it over and over.

OK, now stop being angry and read this carefully. I said that being stupid and emotional is what we all do when fighting - it is human nature. It's like a switch gets thrown and we leave "problem-solving" mode and enter "fight" mode. Once that happens it's very difficult to return.

If you've been following my posts at all - you know that that is one of the reasons it bothers me when one party to a conflict uses force and intimidation to achieve their goals. It always escalates, innocent people always die and unless one side achieves complete victory - the underlying problem is compounded.

I am against war and the death of innocents. IMO the most effective way to prevent war is for outside parties to a conflict to try to set up a venue for negotiations and if that fails - be rather ruthless regarding the side that first resorts to force (Hamas in this case). That's why it makes me angry when I see people defending and apologizing for them - as that encourages them to believe that through the use of more force they will eventually succeed. That's a sure prescription for many more innocent deaths down the road - and no resolution of the underlying problem.

(This is the endless road the ME has been on since 1948 IMO, when the UN failed to come to Israel's defense and instead washed their hands of the consequences of the Partition Plan they had agreed to - 23 for, 13 against, 10 abstain.)

There is very little here that passes for "thinking" or even purports to be that, so we agree about that, and that is much to your credit.

Well, that's not what I said. Once we humans enter "fight" mode - we can be very clever. We enlist our intelligence to justify our strong emotional beliefs that are feeding the conflict - not to examine those beliefs in the first place. Examining our beliefs is the only way we can ever change them. Defending them with clever arguments only makes us hold on to them more strongly.

As pelsar said, being aware of this part of human nature is the first step. Now, ask yourself, which side here is even attempting to examine those underlying beliefs and which side refuses to even engage in that conversation.

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm saying let's start with the honest acceptance that we could both be wrong and then let's use our brains to figure it out. Until that happens those who think Hamas in this case is the aggressor - are left with batting down memes. I'd rather be looking at our underlying beliefs - using "critical thinking" to expose them to "objective" examination.

[bemildred]

19. Bugger off. nt

[eyl]

21. well said n/t

[bemildred]

23. Pissing in the wind, I expect, but what the heck.

Thanks.

[Englander]

27. Good post, be. n/t