Palestinian stabs soldier near Ma'aleh Adumim

[Phx_Dem]

A Palestinian stabbed an IDF soldier Monday afternoon at Almog Junction, located on the Jerusalem-Dead Sea road near Ma'aleh Adumim. The soldier was lightly-moderately injured, and was evacuated to Hadassah Ein Karem Hospital in Jerusalem.

The terrorist succeeded in stealing the soldier's weapon, after which he fled the scene and took cover in the men's room of a nearby gas station.

A detection squadron from Ma'aleh Adumim Police Department located the terrorist's hiding place and detained him. They also confiscated the weapon he had stolen. They began to interrogate him at the gas station.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3597069,00.html

[Vegasaurus]

1. I don't know why everyone can't live altogether is one big happy state!

:)

[Shaktimaan]

24. LOL... np

[Chulanowa]

2. The terrorist?

So now you can be a terrorist just by poking some dude with a knife and running away? Man, that bar keeps getting set lower and lower

[zonmoy]

3. Only standard for not being a terrorist is being a jewish israeli citizen

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Nice display of bigotry.

Had to edit: Happily under my own accord. :)

[Behind the Aegis]

5. "poking some dude with a knife and running away"

Figures you would look for some way to excuse this crime.

[Chulanowa]

8. Did I excuse it?

Is stabbing someone, causing minor injuries, an act of terrorism? No, it's not.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. You're right. You didn't excuse it.

You minimalized it.

[Chulanowa]

10. Straight out of the article

"The soldier was lightly-moderately injured, and was evacuated to Hadassah Ein Karem Hospital in Jerusalem.

The terrorist succeeded in stealing the soldier's weapon, after which he fled the scene and took cover in the men's room of a nearby gas station."

The guy poked him with a knife - "lightly-moderately" injuring him. Then ran and hid in a bathroom. That's how the real terrorist motherfuckers do it, yo.

What, am I supposed to hold a candlelight vigil for the guy who's getting a couple stitches? Scream "DEATH TO THE INFIDEL!" and hope to see the stabber's brains sprayed out of his head? What kind of reaction are you hoping for, Aegis?

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Your reaction was what I expected from you.

I simply commented on it. Your continued "explanation" just firms up your reaction.

[Chulanowa]

12. You're not offering many surprises yourself

And you keep making false statements, so I have to keep correcting your lying mistaken ass.

Now. Is the chump hiding in a bathroom a terrorist? Or is he the Near Eastern version of the shirtless redneck the guys on COPS are always chasing around?

[Behind the Aegis]

13. I don't keep making false statements. I made one, which I corrected.

So don't call me a liar, which is against DU rules, most of the time.

I wasn't calling into the question of whether the assailant was a terrorist or not, that is in your mind; I was commenting on your minimization of an armed assault.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[oberliner]

15. Why choose the word "poke" rather than "stab" ?

That seems as loaded as the OP choosing "terrorist".

[Chulanowa]

16. Good question. Two reasons

First, to point out the silliness of calling him a terrorist.

Second, in my mind, "stabbing" is more damaging than "light-moderate injuries" - totally subjective on my part, of course. But hey, since the guy with the knife is apparently as deadly and ruthless as Omar Sheik Mohammed, Al Sadr, and Tim McVeigh together, the soldier definitely got off lucky!

[oberliner]

17. Appreciate the response

Everyone views everything from their own lens.

I do think it is interesting to look at the language folks use to describe events in the news.

Hard to find any kind of objective truth these days, especially with this conflict, where no two people seem to tell the same story the same way.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. So when it comes to Palestinians, there's no criminals, just terrorists?

Talk about grossly abusing the term *terrorist*. I wonder if whoever wrote this article gets paid per use of the word coz it's sure peppered throughout the article....

[oberliner]

7. If an Iraqi stabbed an American soldier would they be labelled terrorist?

I daresay they would.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Of course they would. The US media abuses the term terrorist as much as the Israeli media does...

It's the motivation and the target that makes someone a terrorist, not their ethnicity or nationality. Iraqi and Palestinian criminals exist and the media braying that they're terrorists doesn't make them so...

[oberliner]

22. Can an attack against a soldier be considered a terrorist attack?

If so, what other characteristics must the attack contain to be accurately labeled that way?

[Violet_Crumble]

25. No. They're combatants, not civilians n/t

[number6]

26. no

an assailant, or insurgent, criminal suspect

[pelsar]

18. terrorist vs criminal....

in israel the difference is based on the motive:

nationalistic causes brings up the word terrorism......be it spur of the moment emotion based or preplanned.....the amount of damage has no relevance to the actual definition of its use.

[azurnoir]

20. So whay are the settlers referred to as just "settlers"

was their intent any different? It seems to me that they were quite clear about what they were doing, perhaps more so than the Palestinian involved in the attack on the soldier, on that does the fact that he was IDF automatically make any attack an act of terrorism?

[pelsar]

21. an attack on an IDF soldier...

by a Palestinian is usually motivated by nationalism...and given that the attacker is not wearing a uniform, and his intent is probably not to steal the soldiers wallet.....its gets the terrorist definition, which i think is quite reasonable.

Palestinians throwing stones, dont get the terrorist label...nor do the settlers for doing the same. The settlers do, as in Baruch Goldstein, when they kill Palestinians.

[Shaktimaan]

23. The settlers were referred to as just "settlers" because

that is what they are. Just as the Palestinian stabbers were both referred to as "Palestinians" initially. Were the settlers referred to a second time it would have been in the context of their actions, (ie: rioters), not their identity. It is common for news articles to use a standardized system like this when making multiple references to a person or group.

Would you have been happier had the article referred to the settlers as terrorists as well? How would that have read exactly?

The terrorist escaped, and terrorists retaliated by rioting in a Palestinian village...

By the way, there were many Palestinian riots during the intifadas and the participants were almost always referred to as "rioters." Not "terrorists." It did not matter that the rioters were Palestinian or that they injured IDF members. Rioting is different than terrorism no matter who is doing it. On the other hand, Baruch Goldstein is always referred to as a terrorist, regardless of the fact that he was Jewish.

I know you'd like to see a conspiracy here, where all Arabs are automatically labeled as terrorists while settlers are given benign labels. But I am curious... do you really consider it such a stretch calling these two knife-wielding perpetrators "terrorists?" If you were reporting on the scene of a white mob lynching a black man, would you have also hesitated to refer to those perps as "racists?" (I mean, it's possible that they were lynching him for some OTHER reason, right? Maybe this Palestinian similarly had a different, non-terrorism-related reason for stabbing that nine-year old kid.)

[number6]

27. the "terrorist's" hiding place

only arabs and muslims are terrorists,

white Christan's and jews, just cause collateral damage,

so if a Arab is stabbed, he's collateral damaged by a democracy spreader .....

......................:sarcasm:

[Vegasaurus]

28. Arabs and Muslims who specifically try to kill innocent people (usually Jews)

are terrorists.

When you have evidence that Israelis and Jews are strapping on bombs to kill innocent Palestinians or other Arabs, we can talk further.

[azurnoir]

29. Nope Israel has a standing military to do that for them

that would be killing Palestinians which makes it ok to do at least according to some. add to that in so called negotiations Israel or its government will not "allow" a "free" Palestinian state to have a military.

[Shaktimaan]

30. They do?

Israel has a standing military that specifically tries to kill innocent Palestinian women and children? I was entirely unaware of that policy.
Or are you trying to suggest that there isn't any difference whatsoever between collateral damage and terrorism? That seems like a senseless argument if only for the reason that it would render the term "terrorist" moot. If you define the word in such a way that every army and every police force are "terrorists" then it become pointless. Especially since this is not the definition that most people use. What is the point of critiquing a news article for their usage of a word when you yourself have a bizarre definition for it? Your real complaint becomes, "The world won't conform to my standards!"

add to that in so called negotiations Israel or its government will not "allow" a "free" Palestinian state to have a military.

I don't understand that statement at all. Are you criticizing Israel for not allowing the PA to have a military? Why would they even need a military if Israel is providing them with protection? Japan seemed to do just fine without a military for many decades.

[azurnoir]

31. So Palestinian women and children

are only "collateral" in your mind but Israel's are innocent victims, talk about double standards, but it is not a surprise at all except in that you are willing to state that honestly.

And as far as Palestinians not having an military the statement reffers to after the supposed Israeli pull out, when and if that happens. Are you claiming the IDF will conitnue to "protect" Palestinians just as they do now?

[Dick Dastardly]

32. So you are suggesting as Shak said

"there isn't any difference whatsoever between collateral damage and terrorism"

not as he otherwise said because

"Israel has a standing military that specifically tries to kill innocent Palestinian women and children"

Why do you think that there is no difference between a terrorist strapping a bomb on to target and kill innocent civilians, and an Army targeting and trying to get these terrorists but in the process unfortunaly kill innocent civilians as collateral?

Should Israel not defend against terror attacks because in the process innocent Palestinians may be killed so its just as wrong and better to just accept the terror attacks?



btw
He never said that the Palestinians victims were not innocent but Israelis were. That is a false statement

[azurnoir]

34. So only Shak can misrepresent a post ?

His statement that I said IDF purposely targeted women and children was also false, I have said in the past that IDF does not target women and children which was my point in posting what I did. But hyperbole and dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder is it not?

[Dick Dastardly]

36. He never said you said that,

he asked you questions as to what you suggested because of your claim

"They do?
Israel has a standing military that specifically tries to kill innocent Palestinian women and children? I was entirely unaware of that policy.

Or are you trying to suggest that there isn't any difference whatsoever between collateral damage and terrorism? "



Your response was the latter, equating collateral damage and terrorism the same as anything else is a double standard.

[pelsar]

33. lets clarify this...it seems to come up quite a bit...

IDF solider and Palestinian attacker are the same......

or at least you seem to be stating very clearly.

____

i assume you mean, please feel free to correct me, that when a Palestinian "terrorist" kills an israeli that is deemed a successful mission (by that group)..and when us israelis go out on patrol and dont "get any kills" that day our patrol is then described as a failure.

did i get that right? you did seem to be saying the IDF and the Palestinian attacker have the very same values.....or...and here you have a good chance to clarify it:

does the IDF have the same values, as lets say Hamas/Hizballas etc...and are our "rules of engagement" similar?

[azurnoir]

35. Did you get what right?

the usual hyperbole, misrepresentation and as far as feeling free to correct ? Well are you stating then that Palestinians go out to kill Israeli's on a daily basis, if so is it in Gaza or the West Bank, both and which Palestinians would it be most of them or what, are most Palestinians over 18 participants in this unless they get deferred?
Now why would Israel not want Palestinians to have a standing military? Could it be because as things stand any action against Israel whether the military or civilian can be classified as terrorist, much in the same way that Haganah's and Irgrun's were prior to independence?
Your final question I cannot answer as to values, but which side has the higher civilian body count?

[pelsar]

37. it always amazes me.....and i admit to not understanding it....

does the IDF have the same values, as lets say Hamas/Hizballas etc...and are our "rules of engagement" similar?

I cannot answer as to values, but which side has the higher civilian body count?

------------

one group goes out and looks to kill as many civilians as possible....be it children, mothers and other non combantents...celebrates those killings with sports events named after those successful killings, posters on the walls etc.

the other group before they go out are given a set of rules based on judgements about when they can and cant shoot to defend themselves with the core reason as to not hurt non combantents...at risk to their own lives sometimes.

and to you those two aspects seem to be so confusing that you cant even tell the difference between those two value systems

i do like the honesty however......IDF/Hama/Hisaballa....we're all the same....(i guess next time i should just machine gun down those Palestinians waiting in line, or going to work....as far as your concerned (as i understand) it would be within our value system....)

[azurnoir]

38. If you like honesty

why do keep posting stuff that would indicate otherwise?

do like the honesty however......IDF/Hama/Hisaballa....we're all the same....(i guess next time i should just machine gun down those Palestinians waiting in line, or going to work....as far as your concerned (as i understand) it would be within our value system....)

I did not say thyat I said I did not know, and asked however which side had the greatest civilian body count, I will take the disingenuous answer as indicating perhaps IDF, but I also seem to remember something about it not being a "numbers game", although I must wonder what if those numbers were reversed?

[Behind the Aegis]

39. Do *you* like honesty?

"...asked however which side had the greatest civilian body count..."

The greater civilian body count would fall to Palestinians. For most, that is enough to end critical thinking. However, if one were to ask which side is more likely to kill civilians; that again would fall to Palestinians. It is rare for Palestinians to die when there is not a form of armed conflict in the vicinity. This is not true of civilian Israeli deaths. For these very reasons, it is why I find people ignorant and/or stupid when they say Israel targets civilians because it is obvious, the Palestinian forces, focus on killing civilians, and do so in greater percentages, than the Israeli forces.

[azurnoir]

40. It is rare for Palestinians to die when there is not armed conflict

in the area? You mean like "Operation Hot Winter"? Yes there was armed conflict in the area IDF invaded or more PC made an "incursion" in to Gaza

[Behind the Aegis]

41. So, we agree?

Has Hell frozen over?!


EVERYBODY BUY ICE SKATES!

[azurnoir]

43. I guess. if what you meant is when

IDF attacks Palestinians many of them die, however as I said to I think Pelsar that is also why in the negotiations for a Palestinian state the Israeli side demands that the Palestinians have no standing military that way the only ones that can legitimately attack the other is the Israeli, because Israel has an official military, any move by Palestinians even in that case self defense is automatically classified as terrorist.

[pelsar]

45. how about its saving Palestinian lives?

armies go by the ideal of "overwhelming force"......soldiers like that philosophy as it keeps them alive, plus no solider i know would willing remove his/her advantage to make it a "fair fight'."

As is stand with the Palestinians having limited arms, the IDF in turn uses very limited force to enter/arrest etc. Give the Palestinians more arms, more armor and instead of a couple of jeeps and lightly armed soldiers the standard will be raised to tanks armored personal carriers, helicopters etc (see gaza for example)....and fighting in built up areas is a very very messy environment.....ask the germans, the russians, the iraqis, the chechnyians. The dead will be at least 10x more....on the Palestinian side......

whats your preference?...lives or some kind of pseudo morality of "playing fair"

[azurnoir]

46. Are you claiming

Hot Winter saved Palestinian lives? How so, because IDF could have nuked them. in that case Israeli lives were saved as well, but more likely you mean cluster bombs and or left over bunker busters, IMO Israel did not use thoise in Gaza because of the possible repercussions, not that the Israeli government usually cares the US will almost always defend them, however there is bad PR and BAD PR, the use of cluster bombs in Gaza would have been difficult even for the US to go along with.

[pelsar]

49. i mean tanks...and mortars and regular artillary....

"hot winter" used those in gaza.....since hamas is far better armed than the PA...and the damaged they caused is far worse than what happens in the westbank. Let the PA follow the footsteps of hamas in terms of weapons and well see tanks and APCs in the westbank as well.

nothing to complicated about it....and the recent events show thats how it works......
___
all of this stuff is easily seen in the events.....the better armed those who attack israel are, the more force israel uses to stop them...its been going on since pre 48......and the more "of them" get killed". Your idea is more of the same....and will get more people killed....its not even theory, its on going history.

[azurnoir]

52. Is that the best you can do?

So answer one question How many Israeli citizens live in Gaza as opposed to how many Israelis live on the West Bank?

But I am sure that is not the reason right.:sarcasm:

[Shaktimaan]

53. Why would that have affected anything?

It is not as though the Israelis live in the same areas as the Palestinians do in the WB. Do you think Israel couldn't engage, say, Jenin on an larger scale without endangering the lives of Israelis in settlements?

In situations where they couldn't you would be right, of course. The presence of Israeli civilians would undoubtedly affect the way the IDF engaged in the area. Yes, Israel is more concerned with protecting the lives of its citizens than it is with the lives of Palestinian civilians.

But that is the way it is supposed to be. It doesn't mean that Israel is unconcerned for the lives of Palestinian civilians.

For example, I may care more about protecting the life of my mother than I do about the life of someone I've never met. But that does not mean that I am unconcerned with the fate of others altogether. Or that I actively wish them harm. In order to better protect Israeli civilians, the IDF might be more willing to put its soldiers at greater risk than they would be to ensure the safety of Palestinian civilians. Again, there is nothing wrong with that... it is actually what I would expect.

You seem to be suggesting that Israel is UNCONCERNED with the lives of Palestinians altogether though. Or even that they are actively trying to kill as many as possible (as long as they retain plausible deniability.) Am I accurately describing your belief here, or am I misunderstanding you?

[azurnoir]

54. Israeli's do not live in the same area's?

you mean like Hebron, Ramallah, East Jerusalem on the other side of the line? Ah yeah if you say so

[Shaktimaan]

55. You think that the IDF won't use tanks anywhere in the WB all because some Israelis live in Hebron?

Ha ha.

You implied that the real reason Israel used tanks, artillery and APCs in Gaza but not in the West Bank was because there are Israeli civilians living in the WB. But since the only place that Israelis and Palestinians really co-habitate is Hebron*, I guess I don't understand what you think is keeping the IDF from using a heavier hand against the remaining 99% of Palestinians who live separately from Israeli settlers there.

Israel has actually used heavier firepower in the WB when the situation called for it. (Much like how pelsar described.) Remember Jenin?

Now, I noticed that you only responded to argue an irrelevant technical point, but ignored the rest of my post. Would you care to answer my questions at the end of that post? I'm trying to clarify your position.

*Israelis do not live in Ramallah, they live in settlements nearby. And EJ is not really part of the West Bank, it is considered part of Jerusalem. But so what if 300 Israelis live near some Palestinians in Hebron, when 99% of Israeli settlers in the WB live separately? Do you really think that Israel won't use tanks or artillery in the WB because they might hit one of the 300 Jews in Hebron?

[azurnoir]

59. It is far more than Hebron

and in my example of EJ I said on the other side of the line, however

The place he calls home is the town of Karnei Shomron, a Jewish settlement with a population of 6,400 people in the middle of the Palestinian West Bank, the region that Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War. A total of 275,000 Israelis live in more than 120 settlements in the West Bank, not including East Jerusalem.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,574995,00.html

[Shaktimaan]

60. Right, they live in the WB...

but in SETTLEMENTS. Not in and amongst the Palestinians, but in closed communities, usually on hilltops, (many with separate Israeli-only roads connecting them with Israel and each other). The Palestinians live in the towns and cities that are mostly in the valleys. Most WB settlements are in blocs, situated near the green line. Except for Hebron, there is a clear division between the areas where Palestinians live and those where the settlements are.

So back to my original question... What is it about these Jewish settlements that you think is preventing Israel from using tanks, helicopters or artillery against the WB Palestinians?

-----

and in my example of EJ I said on the other side of the line,

The green line, right? Well sure, all of EJ is East of the green line. That's why it is called "East." Regardless, it is still considered part of Jerusalem, not really the WB. (Which is why your quote above made a point of saying "not including East Jerusalem.")

It doesn't matter anyway because Israel considers EJ to be part of Israel, and they have full control over the area. It isn't under the authority of either the PA or Hamas, so this discussion wouldn't apply to it. Israel wouldn't need to shell an area that it has authority over.

[azurnoir]

61. I never said that Israeli's live among Palestinians

however a full on attack on the West Bank would put Israeli lives at risk.

[Shaktimaan]

62. And you believe that this is why...

Israel only launches big operations, like Hot Winter, in Gaza? Because an operation of that scope would have endangered the lives of Israelis living in the WB... am I correct? I'm basing this assumption on your earlier comment:

So answer one question How many Israeli citizens live in Gaza as opposed to how many Israelis live on the West Bank?

But I am sure that is not the reason right.:sarcasm:

-----

The main problem with this argument is the fact that Israel HAS launched large scale attacks on the West Bank before, (and I don't recall anyone mentioning that any settler's lives were at risk.) Operation Defensive Shield was much larger than Hot Winter, (in fact it was the largest operation in the WB since the six day war) and many times as many Palestinians were both killed and wounded as during Hot Winter.

So, Israelis living in the WB did not seem to deter the IDF from launching a huge operation there. If we look at what caused Op. Def. Shield, it was the spate of suicide attacks that had been killing record numbers of Israelis, which would seem to support what pelsar said earlier... using more serious weapons or posing a more serious threat to Israel will result in Israel using more serious weapons and launching larger operations that will result in many more Palestinian casualties.

-----

I never said that Israeli's live among Palestinians

No, you said that they live in the same areas.

[pelsar]

63. history is your friend....and it tells a lot...

IDF tanks were used in the west bank at and during the intifada II....were in Ramalla (blowing holes in Arafats HQ)...etc.), in Jenin and a host of other places....

(and yes lots of Palestinians were killed during that period.....the reason? suicide bombers were killing israelis)


so much for that empty theory of yours......try again....i have no doubt you'll come up with something that ignores the ever present short history of the area (i'm going to start a list....i keep "threatening" to, i know, but i cant help but think that "next time" you'll do some research before posting some post that is so wrong and so easily proven to be wrong......).

but then again...you dont write out your accusation in simple words...you either "hint" at it, or use words such as "might" perhaps etc....still implying but never stating outright...... plausable denial.....

[azurnoir]

65. As Shakti pointed out

No Israeli's actually live in the towns you name, and the as far as near by settlements go IDF is there to guard them.

Ny theory is hardly empty, intifada II was almost 8 years ago and the settlements have grown quickly since then along with their IDF guards as far as tanks LOL small fry comparatively what about bombing and drones? Those are used qiuite freely in Gaza since the withdrawal.

You quote

but then again...you dont write out your accusation in simple words...you either "hint" at it, or use words such as "might" perhaps etc....still implying but never stating outright...... plausable denial.....

what accusation I not spelled out? The use of the word might only indicates a willingness to give the benefit of a doubt and I have had at least one good teacher, ah sir

But do feel free to keep a list

[pelsar]

66. so to be clear...

are you actually claiming that the IDF cant/wont use tanks, artillery, mortars, drones in the westbank because there are more jews there?...and that they might get hit?

is that what your claim is?

[azurnoir]

67. I think I already have been clear

it would put over 1/4 million Israelis in danger. I notice that you do not mention bombing. I also find it odd that you of all people who have supported the multi-layered wall in it;s present position as necessary to the safety and security of Israeli's would question this.

But I will add an additional reason the West Bank is under a rather stringent Israeli occupation Palestinians are not allowed freedom of movement except for in some but not all cases with in their own villages, why use any of these weapons when there are already occupying troops on the ground?

[pelsar]

68. clear but wrong...so wrong...

perhaps a lesson on munitions is in order?...or a lesson on the various geographic positions of the population?.....

500lb bombs, dropped by the air, have definitive radius of destruction...given the size of the various arab villages even 10 of them, wouldnt touch the jewish settlements near by...and that would be those villages that even have jewish settlements near by...which is the minority..... and if 500lb bombs are too big, there are the 250 variety...as well as the heavy 80mm mortars...all very precise designed for smaller targets....(they would be fired from the vicinity of those jewish settlements.....as would the tanks-as they are on the hills)

so much for that theory of yours.....

more so the real reason is what you mentioned....the Palestinians in the westbank are under a tight control with night time raids etc...which prevents them from bringing in heavier weapons...the lesson of Intifada II have been well learned by the IDF. That is why the heavier weapons arent used in the westbank today as they were once and as the are now used in gaza......they're not needed as all the jihadnikim have to use are basically small arms

[azurnoir]

69. So you are in suppt of continued occupation

and what about settlements I have seen you condemn settlers is it really condmnation of the settlers or just that they should be more discrete?

[pelsar]

73. support of the occupation?....no i'm not

The occupation has a tremendous moral and financial drain on israel and a high cost to the Palestinians as well. At the sametime i am very well aware of the short history of the area...and the results of a weak PA leadership that cant decide or wont decide that it wants to live in peace with israel...and i'm also aware of what a hamas take over of the westbank would mean.....and i'm also aware of the fact that there is no "undo" for a failed PA central leadership in the westbank and the subsequent new "govt" that copies Lebanons hizballas or gazas hamas...both of which with iran are gunning for the westbank.

more so i'm very aware of what that would mean in terms of deaths, suffering for both sides....but more so for the Palestinians....For reasons that are unclear to me you seem to believe that removing the settlements will bring peace.....pretending that israel is guilty for gazas kassams and lebanons katushas and somehow that when the mortars start from the westbank (because no pullout will satisfy all) israel will be guity of that as well, the only difference being that unlike lebanon and gaza the IDF will have to react faster and far more violently to stop the shooting......

and of course the condemnations will come fast an furious...so why would israel do it?

[azurnoir]

74. First off do you really believe

that if the settlements stay that IDF will leave?
You say you do not support continued occupation but then justify it in the rest if your post, you point out Gaza repeatedly but is it not possible that the air and sea blockade have a bit to do woth hostilities?
Lebabon has little to do with this that is a separate issue
And since when has Israel really cared much about condemnation?

[pelsar]

75. its really quite simple....

i dont want jerusalem, Tel Aviv, intl airport katushaed, kassamed and mortared....Giving the PA that oppportunity is nothing more than foolish if not stuiped.

and you make my point about gaza so clear: they're hostile to israel because of the blockade you claim yet...they're not shooting at egypt because of the blockade..only israel....the reason is nothing more than another excuse to shoot at israel....

any pullout from the westbank at this point will encounter the same series of excuses for when the bombs start falling on israeli cities (Lebanon is a great example: pullout confirmed by the UN.......and the attacks continued)

why wont that happen in your opinion to a westbank pullout?

[Shaktimaan]

71. funny

more so the real reason is what you mentioned....the Palestinians in the westbank are under a tight control with night time raids etc...which prevents them from bringing in heavier weapons...the lesson of Intifada II have been well learned by the IDF. That is why the heavier weapons arent used in the westbank today as they were once and as the are now used in gaza......they're not needed as all the jihadnikim have to use are basically small arms


You beat me to it. I just finished posting my boring, long-winded commentary only to then see your brief, succinct version which says the exact same thing.
Still... funny that we both picked up on the same thing. Maybe not so surprising though.

[Shaktimaan]

70. What is your source for this statement?

why use any of these weapons when there are already occupying troops on the ground?

Well, yes. Exactly. Basically, you are agreeing with pelsar and I now.

The IDF has to use airstrikes and tanks in Gaza because the area is too dangerous to just use some jeeps and unarmored soldiers. Even when settlements still existed in Gaza, airstrikes were much more common there than in the WB. But now that Hamas has full control over the whole strip, airstrikes are the only means of engaging militants short of sending in a large, coordinated ground force.

Interestingly, they have really only had to use powerful weapons like tanks in the WB since the occupying troops on the ground redeployed from Palestinian governed areas. As you said, things have changed since the early 2000's. Before then there actually WAS a stringent occupation with an IDF presence throughout the entire WB. It was only after the Oslo Accord changes were made whereby Israel withdrew entirely from sections of the WB and removed the checkpoints and roadblocks, that places like Jenin really had the opportunity to become bases for Hamas and IJ that focused on recruiting, training, arming and exporting terrorists.

BTW, airstrikes were not called in for Jenin because the IDF was afraid that the civilian casualty rate would be extremely high, NOT because of anything to do with Israeli settlers. When the fighting in Jenin was over, the casualty ratio was roughly 2 Palestinians to every 1 IDF soldier... a very high casualty ratio for Israel.

Anyway, since then Israel has re-established the checkpoints and built the barrier. These measures are there so that the WB doesn't devolve into a situation resembling Gaza where the army basically has no alternative to using heavy weapons despite the large amount of collateral damage they cause. Jenin had been heading in that direction and still would be except that the checkpoints now severely limit the flow of weapons and equipment between areas.

the West Bank is under a rather stringent Israeli occupation Palestinians are not allowed freedom of movement except for in some but not all cases with in their own villages

As far as I know, this is untrue. The areas where almost all WB Palestinians live fall under the PA's jurisdiction. The IDF certainly has checkpoints and barriers set up on major thoroughfares between cities and the WB barrier has all but completely cut off a very small number of villages from the rest of the WB, but most Palestinians can (and do) move freely around the WB. Checkpoints have made traveling much less convenient and far more time consuming, but Palestinians have not been restricted from commuting between WB towns and villages.

Freedom of movement doesn't guarantee that you won't have to wait on a line or show your ID.

[azurnoir]

72. There are places were PA has jurisidiction LOL

on paper maybe, but not in action at least according to Keith Dayton the American military officer who is in charge of training the PA.

As far as agreeing with you and Pelsar, hardly I simply pointed out the obvious.

And you seem to believe waiting hours in line to show ID at check points is freedom of movement?

[Dick Dastardly]

42. You did equate collateral damage and terrorism the same and anything else is a double standard. N/T

[pelsar]

44. what confuses you?

between a Palestinian suicide bomber/attacker of civilians vs an IDF soldier whos attackes are limited with multiple rules surrounding what is and what is not allowed?

do you find the same inability to decide between involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder?

[azurnoir]

47. And you are claiming that IDF always follows the rules?

Like when an unmanned drone opened up on a soccer field full of kids during Hot Winter or was that an accident? Having an official military does have it's advantages, I think it's called "plausible deny ability"

[pelsar]

48. so those who break the rules, are what you use to judge?

do you apply that to everything..or just israel? rule breaking, poor judegement.....thats part of life......

none of that is this issue...you seem to think...and i can only guess here, that even if some of the soldiers in the IDF have good intentions they are out numbered by those who actually do target civilians and pretend that it was a mistake...making the whole IDF rules of engagement nothing more than a farce..

did i get that right?

[azurnoir]

51. Well you get the spin right

but as usual not the meaning, as far as the rules being a farce, welll let's see 2 weeks in jail for causing the death of a newborn, oh that's right IDF claimed the baby would have did any way.

Of course for you there is no issue it is Palestinian not Israeli lives, and when it comes right down to it who would you rather see dead?

What I have begun to find humorous is the charge that no matter how many times we "leftists" say that we prefer no one died we get charged with wanting Israeli's dead, but of course only Israeli Jews. That is why I almost never do it anymore, seemed a rather one sided requirement

As for judgment MY own country scores even lower that Israel IMO, Iraq and now Somalia.

[pelsar]

56. no spin...just a double standard...or a confused value sytem.......

as i understand it...as i wrote. and you said you cant answer:

in the I/P conflict you cant tell the difference between the different kinds of deaths:

first degree murder, second degree, man slaughter, premeditated murder etc:
__

your actually claiming that you cant decide if there is a difference between someone who walks into a bus and tries to kill everyone on the bus vs a soldier in a battle killing an innocent, or an artillery shell that isnt precise (do some basic research on them...might surprise you, the additional knowledge)

---

perhaps you cant tell the difference, its not a matter of being a leftest or rightest or progressive......its something else (of which i have no idea)...and its irrelevant who the dead are....

[pelsar]

57. preference that no dies...i get that....

What I have begun to find humorous is the charge that no matter how many times we "leftists" say that we prefer no one died we get charged with wanting Israeli's dead,

theres a difference between what one prefers and the reality of consequences...... sure it would be great if someone could count to 3 and everyone would lay down their arms and that would be the end of it, but thats only a fantasy dream.

for every action or no action there will be a reaction from the other side, thats just the way human relations work and one has to work within those bounds. Sure, when hizballas snipes, kidnaps, hamas shoots kassams and mortars it would be great for israel to do nothing (that seems to be the preferred response by many here)....it would after all keep the overall death rate down wouldnt it?....

the only problem with that ideal, is that most humans really dont like "standing around" waiting to get killed..... especially jews who actually did exactly that not to long ago.......

and along those lines there are different value systems being used in this conflict...its a shame you cant see that....or dont want to.

[Shaktimaan]

58. Question...

As for judgment MY own country scores even lower that Israel IMO, Iraq and now Somalia.

Do you mean that the US scores even lower than the actions of governments like Israel's, Iraq's or now even Somalia's?
Or do you mean that the US scores even lower than Israel BECAUSE of our interference in places like Iraq and Somalia?

IYO, what are some countries that would score substantially higher than Israel (or the US)?

[azurnoir]

64. Because of of interfernce, geez sir

what ever bad I have said about the Israeli government, I have said worse about our own, one of "stinkier" things they have done recently where Israel is concerned is to leave it up to al Maliki as to whether or Israel could use Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, seems good on the surface maybe, but in reality it is damned if they damned if they don't for Iraq

[Shaktimaan]

50. It is very simple.

The difference is in the intent.

Palestinian (and Jewish) terrorists intend to kill as many of the opposing side's civilians as possible. Their goal is the murder of innocent civilians, and to that end they use methods designed to increase the body count. Such as the Palestinian practice of sending in a second bomber to a location directly after the initial strike in order to kill the emergency workers present at the scene.

An army tries to limit the amount of civilian casualties, restricting their attacks to belligerents.

So Palestinian women and children are only "collateral" in your mind but Israel's are innocent victims,

This statement makes no sense at all. The term collateral damage usually refers to innocents. Victims of BOTH nationalities are often innocent victims. Israelis are just not usually considered "collateral damage" because their deaths are not collateral... they are the target. Palestinians are usually deemed "collateral" because they were not the intended target, they were accidentally killed.

As far as the "Palestine having to have terrorists because Israel won't allow them an army" argument goes, I'd point out that Israel does not allow Palestine to have terrorists either but that doesn't seem to stop them. What I mean is that there is absolutely nothing stopping Hamas or IJ from following the same set of rules required of all armies. They do not "have to be terrorists" because of anything that Israel says or does. The difference between a soldier and a terrorist is not dependent on how your opponent acts.

If they don't like being called terrorists then nothing is stopping them from putting on uniforms, locating their bases and soldiers away from civilians, restricting their attacks to soldiers and so on. Of course, they would get creamed by the IDF if they did that. The fact is that the only way Hamas can wage an effective war is by using terrorism. No one denies this. But this fact doesn't mean that their tactics aren't terrorism.

The solution you posted seems rather novel though. Give the Palestinians an army... more weapons, so they can fight the Israelis in a more legitimate fashion. That WOULD solve the terrorism problem, I'll give you that. It would be sort of like curing a patient's headache by dosing him with Ebola though. (Hey, if you're dead then you can't have a headache!) Personally, I doubt that increasing the scope and intensity of this war would bode well for anyone. Just my own humble opinion though.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. It's bigoted to claim that terrorism is defined by ethnicity...

Terrorism isn't defined by the ethnicity of a person. Anyone can be a terrorist, and there are Jewish terrorists, despite yr bizarre claim to the contrary. Terrorism is quite simply an act of political violence, usually carried out by a non-state actor...