Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumStop ignoring the facts about Cast Lead
Posted by Jonathan Sacerdoti - 30 December 2011 16:57
It featured the lowest ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare.
<snip>
In the three years since the operation, there has been an unprecedented 72 per cent decline in the number of rockets launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. No surprise, then, that Israel's Defence Forces Chief of Staff should call the operation "an excellent operation that achieved deterrence for Israel vis-a-vis Hamas". (However, that deterrence is still not enough to have prevented Palestinians from launching 1,571 rockets since the operation, including one attack with an anti-tank missile on a clearly identifiable Israeli school bus.)
Just as Israel's erection of a security fence to prevent homicide bombers from infiltrating Jerusalem saw a bigger than 90 per cent reduction in such attacks, Operation Cast Lead was undeniably effective in reducing terror attacks from the Gaza strip. The numbers speak for themselves.
Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British troops in Afghanistan, has repeatedly commented that, "during its operation in Gaza, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare." Furthermore, he points out that the steps taken in that conflict by the Israeli Defence Forces to avoid civilian deaths are shown by a study published by the United Nations to have resulted in, by far, the lowest ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare.
Kemp explains that by UN estimates, the average ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide is 3:1 -- three civilians for every combatant killed. That is the estimated ratio in Afghanistan. But in Iraq, and in Kosovo, it was worse: the ratio is believed to have been 4:1. Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratios were very much higher in Chechnya and Serbia. In Gaza, it was less than one-to-one.
more...
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/israel-gaza-operation-civilian
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sellitman
(11,605 posts)I was just about to post this but you beat me to it.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... don't fit the narrative. They clearly must be ignored
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Operation Cast Lead, 27 Dec. '08 to 18 Jan. '09
Between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, the Israeli military carried out an attack on the Gaza Strip, which it called Operation Cast Lead. The magnitude of the harm to the local population was unprecedented: 1,389 Palestinians were killed, 759 of whom did not take part in the hostilities. Of these, 318 were minors under age 18. More than 5,300 Palestinians were wounded, 350 of them seriously. Israel also caused enormous damage to residential dwellings, industrial buildings, agriculture and infrastructure for electricity, sanitation, water, and health, which was already on the verge of collapse prior to the operation. According to UN figures, Israel destroyed more than 3,500 residential dwellings and 20,000 people were left homeless.
During the operation, Palestinians fired rockets and mortar shells at Israel, with the declared purpose of striking Israeli civilians. These attacks killed three Israeli civilians and one member of the Israeli security forces, and wounded dozens. Nine soldiers were killed within the Gaza Strip, four by friendly fire. More than 100 soldiers were wounded, one critically and 20 moderately to seriously.
http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/castlead_operation
pelsar
(12,283 posts)did the authors never hear of Dresden, Hiroshima, to name the obvious, how about Bagdad?
___
with crap hyperbolic statements like that btselem loses their credibility, i would now suspect any and all of their claims
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)reading more into it than is there.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The reference to unprecedented is correct in regards to that area/conflict, they were not suggesting
the scope of history you suggested.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)then you could say almost anything coming out of gaza was "unprecedented" given that, the invasion was the first since 67 hence even if the IDF tippy toed and destroyed a few sheds with a tank shell, we get to "unprecedented."
the point is, it nothing more than hyperbole and betzelm which generally writes a bit more accurate has obvious succumbed to the "method of hyperbole" to attract attention.
the downside of such lying or "misuse of common definitions" is that, for people like me, that like the idea of betsalem and believe they are necessary, we simply no longer believe them...
they're obviously joining the ranks of aljazzer where hyperbole is the actual standard.
and other times they unbelievable...
and that the claim as to Israel's primary goal in conducting the operation was not sufficiently investigated
duh, israel to B'Tselem...6,000 missiles for several years is considered reason enough to invade and stop them...if you can't figure that one out, i would say that your collective brains are "insufficient"
and that concludes my new opinion of B'Tselem, where once i donated to...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)ignore..more waste of my time.
Keep donating is my suggestion to you and then read the reports they post...all the way through.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:32 AM - Edit history (2)
Israel doesn't have to be perfect, doesn't have to put it soldiers in danger in order to attempt to get a perfect "score' doesn't have to use useless theories of "lots of bombs and noise to "scare them". Doesn't have to pinpoint accurate missiles that explode and do not stop the missile attacks
israel has to uses what its got, what works,do that best it can with its human soldiers and rely on its own moral judgement what is best to use when. The IDF has more than enough experience in what doesn't work (lebanon II, years of missile attacks and limited response but "war crimes" never the less)
if hamas wants israel not to attack, its their responsibility to stop trying to kill israelis. its a pretty simple cause and effect
as far as more specifics go:
Both hamas and the IDF agree that apron 1300 killed, 700 fighters.....in terms of cold calculations thats about as good as it gets...
it was hamas that made the decision to keep its fighters within the urban areas, one of the most densely populated areas today, it was hamas that has its factories in those areas, and shoots from them.
you "ask for the IDF" to enter, there are going to be explosions, mistaken judgements, bullets that miss, tank shells that cause weak buildings to collapse, mortars that have to be adjusted, artillery shells that not exact (never are), snipers using families for cover (on purpose or just because they are in the next apt). Thats what war is all about and why it should be avoided. The soldiers of the IDF are very human, some make better judgements some make worse ones, but they are all judgements based on a israeli morality (i can't claim its western given that Europe spent 6 months bombing libya from 15,000ft- very inaccurate, or the US uses cameras/drones to decide who to kill these days)
the concept that "explosions" which be nature are uncontrollable should be somehow be "controlled by the IDF is simply against the basic laws of physics...asking for such a thing is simply absurd.
its just not a good idea to attack israel...perhaps thats the real answer
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)is not bound by the Geneva Convention? How about certain laws of war governing military occupation?
You acknowledge this or not?
shira
(30,109 posts)Hamas even admits to it...
http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/Arts/Article.aspx?id=252254
Any sources you're using that claim Gaza is still occupied are worthless.
======
Can you acknowledge the IDF's civilian to combatant ratio was better than any other military WRT assymetric warfare?
Yes or No?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I believe the ICJ has a better grasp of the occupied territories than you do...they disagree with you.
shira
(30,109 posts)...is purely political.
Will you answer my question now? Can you acknowledge the IDF is better WRT civilians in assymetric warfare than any other military on the planet?
I'll just assume you're answer is 'YES' if you attempt to ignore it again.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)If it's not you, stop pushing Hama's line. This should be easy for you to do.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The ICJ is now debunked by Hamas, according to you, lol.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 08:51 PM - Edit history (5)
See, in order for Israel to occupy Gaza, Israel would have take on all government functions within Gaza as mandated by law. Israel would also be responsible for maintaining law and order there. That means taking on Hamas locally so that they do not violate Palestinian rights within Gaza.
They don't do that and NO ONE is calling for them to do so, which proves Israel is not occupying Gaza. If they were, you'd better believe there'd be international pressure for Israel to take full control the government there.
Don't believe me? Fine. Believe the ICRC because they say the same thing...
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm
Of course, you don't think much of the ICRC. They say there's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. You don't buy that one either.
But that's okay, there's always the UN.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=223231
That article shows that the UN resolution call for force against Libya was not in any way a call for occupation. But those measures taken vs. Libya by coalition forces are far and away more comprehensive and invasive than Israel's measures vs. Gaza. So if there's not an occupation in Libya, there's not one in Gaza either.
One standard.
Seriously, Israel doesn't even control the Rafah border into Egypt, so they don't have full control. Extend your line of thinking to the West Bank, and you'd probably claim Israel can't end its occupation there even if they pull every last troop and settler across the '67 line.
Totally absurd.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You're not in a position to tell me nor anyone else what I think about the ICRC. Unless
you can post where I said any such thing, you are once again, misrepresenting.
shira
(30,109 posts)Measures recently taken in Libya are far more comprehensive and invasive than what the IDF is doing WRT Gaza. The UN is very careful not to call that an occupation.
One standard, remember?
The ICRC definition of occupation rules the IDF out WRT Gaza.
Again, one standard.
======================
You didn't answer as to what Hamas was really saying when they claimed the occupation is over.
======================
Lastly, if the IDF is occupying Gaza then they are STILL responsible for law and order there. As an occupying power, they are legally bound by international law to protect Palestinians there from Hamas abuse. They'd have to round up and arrest or detain Hamas members for the harm they do to Palestinians there.
So are you calling for the IDF to do their duty as an occupation force and deal accordingly with Hamas there?
Yes or No?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)as far as gaza goes, both israel and hamas have clearly stated that there is no occupation...and since both israel and hamas are the two major actors involved with each other, i would say they have a better understanding of the situation than any colonial style court in Europe that still carries the concept of the "white mans burden" with their racist ideologies.
and israel does in fact, teach its soldiers about the convention and what is forbidden and what is not, and as per IDF policy follows it.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Glad to hear about the Geneva Convention.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)Both Israel and Hamas agree, Gaza is not occupied. The ICJ opinion is just that, a non-binding opinion that both Israel and Hamas reject.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)She is certainly not convincing. You realize Israel controls the airspace of the Gaza Strip?
They also control the PEOPLE, coming and going..the territorial waters too.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Maybe some white people in Europe can explain to them that they really really really do not understand but that the Jewish State really really really is occupieng Gaza. ( what the hell do people who live there know? Especially Palestinians , Right ?)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You're relying on Hamas, that is a new one..not that I find that wrong..but it is certainly
atypical for you.
The ICJ is not just anyone btw.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)I can set up a court in my kitchen too. Doesn't mean that I have any more standing than the ICJ.
Again, based on International Law, Gaza is *not* occuppied. Go ask Hamas. They agree.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Based on an advisory ruling by actual international law jurists, you're wrong.
Enjoy your kitchen court.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)because as far as i can tell, its a bunch of colonialists that have problems with geography.
the concept that gaza is occupied while egypt and gaza have their own border that egypt and gaza control 100% and have proven such, time and time again, shows how blind the ICJ is.
furthermore, its only an opinion, that both hamas and israel reject, given the hamas and israel are the principle players here, its just just shows what the ICJ thinks of the locals...i.e. like their colonialistic past, they look down upon the locals and their viewpoints.
and I thought a basic progressive value was to respect the locals....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Members of the Court
The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. These organs vote simultaneously but separately. In order to be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes in both bodies. This sometimes makes it necessary for a number of rounds of voting to be carried out.
In order to ensure a measure of continuity, one third of the Court is elected every three years. Judges are eligible for re-election. Should a judge die or resign during his or her term of office, a special election is held as soon as possible to choose a judge to fill the unexpired part of the term.
Elections are held in New York (United States of America) on the occasion of the annual autumn session of the General Assembly. The judges elected at a triennial election enter upon their term of office on 6 February of the following year, after which the Court proceeds to elect by secret ballot a President and a Vice-President to hold office for three years.
All States parties to the Statute of the Court have the right to propose candidates. These proposals are made not by the government of the State concerned, but by a group consisting of the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (see History) designated by that State, i.e. by the four jurists who can be called upon to serve as members of an arbitral tribunal under the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. In the case of countries not represented on the Permanent Court of Arbitration, nominations are made by a group constituted in the same way. Each group can propose up to four candidates, not more than two of whom may be of its own nationality, whilst the others may be from any country whatsoever, whether a party to the Statute or not and whether or not it has declared that it accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. The names of candidates must be communicated to the Secretary-General of the United Nations within a time-limit laid down by him/her.
Judges must be elected from among persons of high moral character, who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or are jurisconsults of recognized competence in international law.
The Court may not include more than one national of the same State. Moreover, the Court as a whole must represent the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world.
In practice this principle has found expression in the distribution of membership of the Court among the principal regions of the globe. Today this distribution is as follows: Africa 3, Latin America and the Caribbean 2, Asia 3, Western Europe and other States 5, Eastern Europe 2, which corresponds to that of membership of the Security Council. Although there is no entitlement to membership on the part of any country, the Court has always included judges of the nationality of the permanent members of the Security Council.
Once elected, a Member of the Court is a delegate neither of the government of his own country nor of that of any other State. Unlike most other organs of international organizations, the Court is not composed of representatives of governments. Members of the Court are independent judges whose first task, before taking up their duties, is to make a solemn declaration in open court that they will exercise their powers impartially and conscientiously.
In order to guarantee his or her independence, no Member of the Court can be dismissed unless, in the unanimous opinion of the other Members, he/she no longer fulfils the required conditions. This has in fact never happened.
No Member of the Court may engage in any other occupation during his/her term. He/she is not allowed to exercise any political or administrative function, nor to act as agent, counsel or advocate in any case. Any doubts with regard to this question are settled by decision of the Court.
A Member of the Court, when engaged on the business of the Court, enjoys privileges and immunities comparable with those of the head of a diplomatic mission. In The Hague, the President takes precedence over the doyen of the diplomatic corps, after which precedence alternates between judges and ambassadors. Each Member of the Court receives an annual salary consisting of a base salary (which for 2010 amounts to US$166,596) and post adjustment, with a special supplementary allowance of US$15,000 for the President. The post adjustment multiplier changes every month and is dependent on the UN exchange rate between the US Dollar and the Euro. On leaving the Court, they receive annual pensions which, after a nine-year term of office, amount to 50 per cent of the annual base salary.
Although the Court is deemed to be permanently in session, only its President is obliged to reside in The Hague. However, the other Members of the Court are required to be permanently at its disposal except during judicial vacations or leave of absence, or when they are prevented from attending by illness or other serious reasons. In practice, the majority of Court Members reside in The Hague and all will normally spend the greater part of the year there.
http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i think hamas might disagree with their definition of "high moral character"....but what does hamas know, their just the locals.
i ask again, you, not some internet site, don't you believe in respecting the locals? the brown peoples view points?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)website. It is not wise to formulate an opinion as you have imo without
pertinent information..you reject it by claiming the court inept and offer no
support.
You: A bunch of colonialists that have problems with geography.
The brown people's point of view should be a factor on international law, is that your
assertion? If so, it is ridiculous, and the color of their skin is irrelevant.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)to formulate ones own opinion based on ones own knowledge and not depend totally upon listening to what someone else's says to be true.....and i do believe not only do i have pertinent information, as much as those in europe, if not more, i also have the advantage of experience of living in the area, which provides me with an additional level of information.
i'm not much of a believer in "group think" (as you appear to be).... and no the "brown people" factor should not be a factor in international law, and that is exactly what i am claiming is at the base of their opinions.
the definition of "occupation" has multiple aspects to it and in the end is based on an opinion. The "learned" people in europe and their opinion goes against the learned people in both gaza and israel..and i believe the people who actually live in the area, have a better grasp of the facts than those who don't.
seems to me the "learned people of europe" opinion is colorored by their historical and cultural viewpoints of the middle east.
__
now then, its been noticed over the years, that while you will post others opinions, you avoid writing what you personally think, as per this latest example, clearly you have you own reasons for it,
what do you think and why (this is called a direct question to you....nobody else, clearly you don't have to answer, but as i wrote previously, i'm really not interested in anybody else's opinion, if i was, i would ask
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)if you had support..you do not.
The court is not a group think:
Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004
PDF 8.1 Mb
Separate opinion of Judge Koroma
PDF 318.6 Kb
Separate opinion of Judge Higgins
PDF 1.5 Mb
Separate opinion of Judge Kooijmans
PDF 1.9 Mb
Separate opinion of Judge Al‑Khasawneh
PDF 508.6 Kb
Declaration of Judge Buergenthal
PDF 712.7 Kb
Separate opinion of Judge Elaraby
PDF 1.6 Mb
Separate opinion of Judge Owada
PDF 1.5 Mb
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=5a&case=131&code=mwp&p3=4
You possess no argument to support why this court has no idea what they're
talking about but you do. The "learned" people? You have a problem with
laws that do not benefit what you prefer it to be.
You already know what I think...you don't like it...such is life pelsar.
You'd make me nervous if you were called for jury duty, ignoring laws because
those who live in a given neighborhood know more about what they're
dealing with than those "learned" types...screw the law.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)opinions vs facts are also something that seems to confuse you as well
One of the more interesting things one learns with grad degrees, is the realization that having such a degree actually does not always mean one is smart or even learned, it just means one has filled the requirements.
the question is, if gaza is still occupied
those pdfs had nothing to do with that in the year 2010.
____
actually i have no idea what your opinion is about the occupation of gaza...why don't you write it out and defend it, using your own words and as many links as you like, and then explain why hamas who lives there is wrong in claiming there is no occupation.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)of the consensus of the court. If you don't agree that is fine, to put
up snide remarks and use the Hamas statement as rebuke is absurd.
I mean, you can continue to do it, but do not expect me to take
you seriously.
The occupation of Gaza was not the only issue before the court, I suspect you have
not read it in full.
You claim to have no idea what my opinion is of Gaza..I can't help you but to
say this once again. Forming an opinion should include what we know about
international law, should include human rights law. When one looks to these
basic principles, the occupation of the territories, to include Gaza, is illegal.
Hamas and the Israeli government, in part, and their supporters agree when
it is convenient for them to do so. This surprises you, at least it seems to
pelsar. As I had said about the inflated numbers Hamas took credit for after
OCL, they had a reason to do so..they were suppose to protect their
population..and they failed. Taking credit for that which they can't
support doesn't mean they won't try...they're a political entity.
Sharon had Israeli forces removed from the interior of Gaza, a unilateral redeployment.
If Gaza was not occupied as you suggest, it would not be part of final status agreements.
Within Israel some prefer to use the term disputed, and again, this reliance on language
is used to ignore the advisory ruling and the UN Security Council.
It was said by Zahar of Hamas, because as I see it, he knows at this point Hamas
has lost a great deal of support..their relevance to remain a player is critical. So when this
happens don't be too surprised that he would like very much to convince his constituents
it was their armed resistance that achieved the Palestinians an opportunity for independence.
He wants very much for the Palestinians of Gaza to not acknowledge that is was in fact
Abbas who came to maneuver the UN bid etc. If you look at press reports about Gaza
residents not being allowed to participate in Arab Spring demonstrations, you'll see a
pattern of how Hamas responding.
It does not matter what he said, and I will remind you that I have
not heard from anyone else in Gaza via Hamas, that they are not occupied.
The international community, the UN Security Council etc. the advisory ruling,
these are accepted.
One needs to reconcile the fact that Israel controls the airspace, the territorial
waters, and the movement of the people themselves to come and go. To suggest
that Gaza is not occupied is blatantly dishonest.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)this was posted elsewhere but it bears repeating here since it follows your standard;
i shall only post the relevant parts:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=223231
Similarly, the Geneva Conventions, even in the broadest interpretation urged by the International Committee of the Red Cross, require that ground forces exercise “control within” the territory
Moreover, an occupying power must be able to provide all governmental functions – to run things inside the occupied territory, not simply patrol the borders. Yet the de facto government of Hamas rules Gaza without Israeli intervention..
you would have to be dishonest to claim that israel controls the interior and "runs things in gaza'
The argument for occupation has been that since Israel maintains “absolute authority over Gaza’s airspace and territorial sea [it is] manifestly exercising governmental authority in these areas,” in the words of Prof. Iain Scobbie. Others claim that border control amounts to “effective control” of the interior. But prior blockades, like that of Cuba by president John F. Kennedy, were never considered occupations. Moreover, border controls are typical along every international frontier, even among the friendliest of nations.
you would have to be dishonest to claim that israel controls all of the borders, as Egypt clearly controls is border with gaza
and finally we have Lybia
he recent UN Security Council resolution authorizing force against Libya provides an excellent experiment in whether the legal arguments widely made about Israel are also applied in parallel cases. In March, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 in response to Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s violent crackdown on anti-government rebels. The resolution authorized military action, delineated a no-fly zone across all of Libya, froze Libyan assets, and authorized the extensive use of force against Libyan troops.
At the Council meeting, Lebanon’s delegate stressed that the resolution would not result in the occupation of “even an inch” of Libyan territory.
SO WE now have confirmation from the Council that a broad embargo, no-fly zone and months of constant aerial bombardment do not constitute an “occupation.” Certainly these activities have considerable effect on Libya, and “control” much of what happens there. Obviously Israel’s much less comprehensive and invasive measures
again you would have to be dishonest to claim that the 6 month bombing campaign, no fly zone, closure of the ports is any "less of an occupation than israels of gaza.
______
and it requires additional dishonesty to write such a statement:
One needs to reconcile the fact that Israel controls the airspace, the territorial
waters, and the movement of the people themselves to come and go
to do so requires one to ignore the entire egyptian border and its government policies..i'll let you explain this one since you wrote the claim yourself. How does israel control the movement of people in and out of gaza via the egyptian border? (this out to be very good....)
as far as your interpretation of why hamas has declared itself not occupied, i'm afraid you should best stick to copy and pasting others opinions......at best amateur hour based on a wild imagination, best describes what you wrote, at worst its the colonialist attitude that 'disses" what hamas believes.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)of movement is open and has full access..is that your claim? The airspace
and the territorial waters are not controlled by Israel either and have
no impact on the Palestinians..again..a ridiculous assertion.
Your posted opinion is not going to change the UN Security Council
position. When they do, that will be a different story.
I'm an amateur, and you are the expert on Hamas is not based on anything
to support your claim except to say I have a wild imagination.
Three separate entities of support are the advisory ruling,
the UN Security Council and the international community
to include the United States regarding what is occupied territory.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2011.pdf pg 538:
do you deny that simply fact that if egypt opened up its border, then the israeli blockade and restrictions would be irrelevant to import and export of gaza goods and movement of people....
try it, your answer should be an interesting "pretzel of logic"
as far as hamas goes and your attempt to understand their motivations...yes you are clearly an amateur with little understanding of them, stick with the cut and paste stuff, your have a better foundation for that.
as far as the rulings of the definition of an occupation, the Libyan war show how its nothing more than a political definition..i.e. nothing to do with law, just politics
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)to you..not the UN Security Council, not the international community to include
the United States, and not the ICJ.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)Jews defending themselves is unprecedented. btselem has never seen a defensive maneuver by Israel that they could not recast as "offensive".
shira
(30,109 posts)For some reason, Amnesty isn't as hard on other Western democracies WRT Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, etc., even though the destruction they wrought was magnitudes worse.
Hmm.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You are free to ignore the human rights groups, that is your choice.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Why not debate the content of that post rather than the semantics?
vminfla
(1,367 posts)That is an impressive feat considering their military targets intentionally mingle with civilians and routinely use civilians as human shields.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)He seems to have a problem with the phrase "kill ratio" or something.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)use of language..feel free.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I'm not defending anything, however I don't see anything wrong with her language. What do you think is wrong with it?
I think that you don't want to admit that Israel's civilian to militant casualty ratio is lower than anyone else's who is fighting similar battles, so you are choosing to focus on something irrelevant like word choice.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)to her. This is not the first time she offers no valid substantiated support for her claim...old news.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)These are well known, substantiated facts. Such low civilian casualty rates, especially in an urban conflict, is exemplar. No other nation on earth can be such a shining example as Israel when it comes to the use of judicious force.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)vminfla
(1,367 posts)There are those that think it is quite OK to ethnically cleanse a population, such as Sudan and WWII Germany. Then, there are those who seek to limit civilian casualties, such as Israel and most of the civilized world. For those people, Israel is an examplar nation.....again, provided one has a firm grasm on 3rd grade math.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)that Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British troops in Afghanistan has a third grade understanding of the I/P conflict? While you must have a firm, graduate-level grasp of the history and current issues involved, compared to him, I guess?
Because, here's the thing, Col. Kemp has validated figures to show, the experience and knowledge to use them and an appointed title that represents public trust and responsibility.
What have you got?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)B'tselem didn't say anything to contradict Kemp in their criticism. They would criticize no matter how well OCL went comparatively. They certainly did not oppose his statement.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)do you have to support that, no matter how well OCL went, your words, they would criticize
comparatively?
I have no idea why you think they would need to post a response to Kemp.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)"Kemp explains that by UN estimates, the average ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide is 3:1 -- three civilians for every combatant killed. That is the estimated ratio in Afghanistan. But in Iraq, and in Kosovo, it was worse: the ratio is believed to have been 4:1. Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratios were very much higher in Chechnya and Serbia. In Gaza, it was less than one-to-one"
Less than one to one. Breathtaking.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)In the OP, Col. Richard Kemp (former commander of British troops in Afghanistan), offered his analysis using UN validated figures. What in the world would you accept as "valid" if even this doesn't make the cut?
And what was your observation anyway? That she uses the word "kill" a lot? Seriously, what do you think the implication of that is? What can be so relevant about that where you feel the need to actually post it?
vminfla
(1,367 posts)See how quickly he resorts to name calling when confronted and challenged with inconvenient truths. He is quick to point out the unrelenting meaningless UN resolutions condemning Israel for one imagined infraction after the next. However, he will dismiss the inconvenient truths from objective data gathered by the same austere body that he values so highly when their message coincides with his world view.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)vminfla
(1,367 posts)"During the operation, Palestinians fired rockets and mortar shells at Israel, with the declared purpose of striking Israeli civilians. "
Yes. Shocking.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I already obliterated it.
Do you have an argument beyond referring me back to your disproven assumption?
Or an answer to my questions?
Because right now you're debating like someone who knows they are wrong but is too proud to admit it.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You're personalizing this, enjoy.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)You have no point to make, so you make the same non-point over and over again. We are still left with the uncontested facts in evidence that OCL was an effective campaign to curb terrorism with an examplar civilian casualty loss rates. Nothing you have non-stated has disproven these facts.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)vminfla
(1,367 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)
Who would not support stopping terrorists shooting hundreds of rockets and mortars into civilian populations?
shira
(30,109 posts)vminfla
(1,367 posts)As far as I can tell, those opposing Operation Cast Lead would like to see more dead Israelis.
shira
(30,109 posts)The truth is that all critics outside of Israel who hold Israel to impossible standards are hypocrites.
Their nations are worse WRT assymetric warfare.
Israel is setting the standard and has no other nations to look up to WRT civilian safety in combat situations.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Obliterated your assertion that "she offers no valid substantiated support for her claim."
In fact she offered significant valid, substantiated support for her claim. As has been shown to you repeatedly.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Why are his assertions backed up by no other independent group? You can't be serious but I suspect you are.
He never even entered Gaza! If you honestly believe he obliterated all these reports, there is nothing else I can
say here.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)His assertion is pretty straightforward. If the numbers are correct then there's no denying it. Amnesty's reports are not comparative to anything. They list the things that they view as war crimes or negligent or bad in some way. But what are they comparing it to? In war bad things happen. If their standard is a perfect execution without any collateral damage or mistakes then they have an unrealistic benchmark, to say the least.
B'tselem is a fair organization. And they freely admit that they exist to criticize Israeli actions in the hopes of making them better. This is a noble goal and unlike Amnesty they do a good job of looking at those actions within the greater context of the conflict at large.
If anything is to be taken from these reports then I believe it is that Israel can take more precautions than any other army does and a large number of civilians will still die. That said, those precautions do work in limiting the amount of mistaken casualties that occur. Israel can make these mistakes while still being the best nation out there WRT humanity in warfare.
Why are his assertions backed up by no other independent group?
Are they not? I have not looked. Let's see... it looks like the founder of human rights watch fully supports his findings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html
Do you realize the flaws in his assertions, on any level??
By all means elucidate.
edit: what I obliterated was your comment about shira's post being unsubstantiated. Now, just because you don't LIKE what the expert (by any measure), said doesn't mean that his work does not exist or is lacking validity in some way.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Amnesty's report is not comparative to anything? What are you talking about? Do you realize
the collective nature of all the reports do not support Kemp?
The percentage of civilians that died makes his assertion impossible...the use of white phosphorus in a
densely populated civilian area equates with taking the greatest care possible?? Because the Israeli military
had an obligation to use such force?
Have you ever read what soldiers in the IDF have said of Operation Cast Lead?
Do you really wish to continue to defend this?
All the above speaks to your request for elucidation.
Richard Bernstein..you don't find it odd that he uses Kemp ( never went to Gaza) for validation of the Israeli military but claims
HRW wasn't there, so how can they say what was a crime? hmm.
For the sake of argument, take out HRW, feel good about their absence now?
The death toll numbers paint a very different picture regardless.
shira
(30,109 posts)...was lower than in any other modern conflict. So if Israel is 'bad', everyone else is worse.
Get it yet? Probably not, so let's consider that the IDF really and truly had malicious intent. How on earth did they manage a civilian to combatant ratio that is better than any other in the history of assymetric warfare?
If you doubt the numbers of dead combatants vs. civilians, consider that Richard Goldstone wrote in his WAPO retraction that "The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas (although Hamas may have reason to inflate the number of its combatants)."
So as 'bad' as Israel is, everyone else is worse. And that makes Israel better comparatively. Correct?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)once you place in the comparison of combat/non combat deaths of NATO/US forces/Russia vs IDF
is that israeli soldiers are expected to have super skills/knowledge in combat and have abilities that go beyond all the expectations/ standards that are used for judge the US/Nato forces in Afghanistan, iraq, the european 6 month bombing campaign in Lybia, etc.
the microscope used on israeli actions tends to cloud the actual final ratio of deaths or destruction...or more appropriate lack of destruction:
3 weeks of bombing one of the most densest populations on earth had no more than 1400 deaths. A single row of 2-4 story apartment buildings along one of the main boulevards in gaza city easily house several thousand citizens, yet after 3 weeks of bombing and those boulevards weren't even touched.
so what exactly was the IDF bombing for 3 weeks one would ask, clearly it wasn't the cities where thousands of people were living, nor did they really have anywhere to go and hide, nor apparently were they hurt.
even for someone who barely gets past 3 grade math should be able to understand that if the Israeli Army was interested in killing as many as possible or was interested in killing "lots" 3 weeks of bombing in one of the most densest populations on earth would have a lot more than 1400 dead.
what that leaves us with are judgement calls in the middle of a war...at which point, given that none of the various reports had any access to the IDF's post action reports, all they had was limited information, not enough for any kind of real conclusion.
the only clear fact is the agreed upon ratio of combat to noncombat deaths, and that speaks louder than any report that only has limited information. And that ratio apparently is clearly better than NATO or the US can claim....
and there is nothing to apologize for, that is for hamas to do.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You're funny too...but not in a ha ha manner.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)you prefer "black marks on pieces of paper" that somebody has written over hard physical evidence of what is clearly obvious:
the "counter" is simple 3rd grade math:
limited destruction after 3 weeks of bombing, limited life lost and a combatant/civilian ratio that NATO/ US/EU can't even get close to.
and the reports? just descriptions of the imperfection of war and the people who are involved.
you'll have a better chance of fixing up NATO/ EU and the US since they have a lot to fix vs the IDF which clearly has much less to, perhaps thats where you should be concentrating on
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)your argument, consider abandoning the empty and embarrassing defense.
From Cordesman, even his report negates your third grade math counter defense, and I have not linked the testimony
from the IDF yet..but I will.
snip* Nonetheless Cordesman is forced to concede, if only by indirection, that what Israel fought was scarcely a war. He says that Hamas was a “weak non-state actor” whereas Israel possessed a massive armory of state-of-the-art weaponry; that the Israeli air force “faced limited threats from Hamas’s primitive land-based air defense”; that “sustained ground fighting was limited”; that the Israeli army avoided engagements where it “would be likely to suffer” significant casualties; that “the IDF used night warfare for most combat operations because Hamas did not have the technology or training to fight at night.” In the final tally 1,300-1,400 Palestinians were killed, between one-quarter and one-third children,(20) while total Israeli casualties came to 10 combatants (four killed by friendly fire) and three civilians. The ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed was 100:1. These figures attest not to a war but a massacre.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/link.php?id=83637
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)So Israel is committing some kind of wrong by not having a more even casualty ratio? I'm afraid I don't understand. What are you saying that Israel did that was bad here?
Israel has a far superior military and soldiers with advanced hardware. Of course they are going to win by a wide margin. What about that is immoral?
Is avoiding scenarios where one is likely to suffer greater casualties some kind of war crime? I would tend to think it was just being smart and fighting well. Is there some Geneva convention that requires wars to have equal numbers of casualties on either side? Because I think that this complaint doesn't make sense.
After all, Hamas attacked Israel. Are you suggesting that Israel is not allowed to fight against an enemy it is capable of easily beating with limited casualties to itself, merely because the enemy is smaller and weaker? Hamas should take a page from Israel and refrain from engaging in scenarios where it is likely to suffer large casualties. See, that's just really dumb tactics. Hamas having dumb tactics doesn't make Israel guilty of any crime.
I can't believe that you are actually making the argument that Israel has no right to engage even obvious Hamas militants, based on the fact that they are too inept to defend themselves.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)assuming i understood correctly, the article and post is complaining that the IDF takes full advantage of its equipment and training to protect its troops (me, family and friends) while inflicting damage.
i'm afraid my brain can't wrap around the concept that that the IDF should protect its troops less, use dumb tactics so more will be killed as a concept.
maybe you might explain why i should remove the protective equipment, perhaps turn off the radio so i don't know whats going on so we might get ourselves killed?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)One reason I asked you in an earlier post, #58 if you were suggesting Israel was not bound by
the Geneva Convention was due to your remarks in post# 48.
In part: ..israel has to uses what its got, what works,do that best it can with its human soldiers and rely on its own moral judgement what is best to use when. The IDF has more than enough experience in what doesn't work (lebanon II, years of missile attacks and limited response but "war crimes" never the less)."
Deterrence at any cost pelsar is unjustifiable..makes no difference what you accept or not, nor whether a government gets
away with it...mine gets away with a lot of shit too. There are principles of distinction and proportionality, and save
the snarky horse shit about turning off a radio. Btw, Hamas had every reason to inflate those numbers..they were
incapable of defending their population against the IDF...not too thrilled about needing to admit it.
Use of white phosphorus: B’Tselem: Cover-up of phosphorus shelling in Gaza proves army cannot investigate itself
http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20100201
Key:
Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001)
30-09-2002 Article, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 847
snip*13. The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to immediately refrain from committing grave breaches involving any of the acts mentioned in art. 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as wilful killing, torture, unlawful deportation, wilful depriving of the rights of fair and regular trial, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. The participating High Contracting Parties recall that according to art. 148 no High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself of any liability incurred by itself in respect to grave breaches. The participating High Contracting Parties also recall the responsibilities of the Occupying Power according to art. 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention for the treatment of protected persons.
14. The participating High Contracting Parties also c all upon the Occupying Power to refrain from perpetrating any other violation of the Convention, in particular reprisals against protected persons and their property, collective penalties, unjustified restrictions of free movement, and to treat the protected persons humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/5fldpj.htm
pelsar
(12,283 posts)hence we don't drop and A-bomb on gaza city, don't napalm the groves where hamas hides out, don't use 2000kg bombs on rows of apartment buildings.
we do have one sided cease fires so that the red cross can enter and take out the wounded, we do phone up the gazans to tell them to get out because in a few minutes were going in.
what we don't do is use "less force" so that we expose ourselves and make ourselves more vunerable.
sniper fire from the third floor?..send in a tank shell or two or three, or a helicopter missile in to the building.
machine gun fire from a bunker?...drop 1000kg bomb on it.
thats the reality of war that your objecting to, and there is no way thats going to be changed, Overwhelming force is the primary choice of soldiers in the field worldwide, and there is a reason for it and and it not going to change. The concept is to kill the guy shooting at you and make sure he's dead....without exposing yourself too much
____
your definition of "deterrence" is subjective and from what i understand, has little to do with reality:
1300 killed in a 3 week war in one of the most densest urban populations on earth speaks very clearly to the limited force and precision actually used. Thats the basic fact you can't get around
just compare...other 3 week wars in terms of death and destruction....try it, just compare numbers
vminfla
(1,367 posts)Amnesty International and btselem offers their opinion. It is their belief that a weapon should never be fired unless it hits someone who has already been adjudicated guilty a priori. As this is not a realistic or tenable reality in a combat zone, their reports are informative, objective soundbites.
Kemps analysis is math. There is no subject opinion like the AI or btselem report that you proffer as "proof" of some kind of evidence. In fact, their reports are not proof of anything other than their particular bias. Kemps report is basic math.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...is better than any other Western military during assymetric warfare?
If not, cite some evidence.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)discredited by several reports already posted here, there is additional testimony from the IDF themselves available
as well.
I guess Kemp didn't want to talk to those soldiers.
shira
(30,109 posts)....were Hamas militants.
The IDF has said the same thing all along.
What evidence do you have that's not accurate? Further, which other nation has done better WRT civilians in modern assymetric combat?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)reports which btw include fault to Hamas during OCL. and Kemp finds no fault at all...just excuses.
The bullshit from Kemp is unsupported...re-read the links again..if you like.
I will say I enjoy your reliance on Hamas, lol. If you can't figure out why they would state as they did, you
don't know much about politics..they are a political entity.
I have no interest in your question about which governments military is top dog.
shira
(30,109 posts)....but you and your like minded friends think it's okay to pretend as if they're among the worst.
The final numbers WRT civilians/combatants shows Israel was more careful with civilians than any other modern military. Deal with it, Jeff.
I suppose the reasoning - according to you and your like minded friends - is there was some miracle. Despite the IDF's evil intent, somehow and someway their numbers are better than any other Western military. The evil bastards aren't competent enough to kill more civilians in order to earn the title of nastiest killing force on the planet.
Oh well, maybe next time you can root for significantly more civilians dead in OCL 2. At least then you'll have some substance behind your accusations.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)So what parts of his reasoning do you reject?
Do you think that there were more civilians killed than were officially recorded? Do you think that other nations' ratios are actually much better than Kemp asserted?
It's a very simple equation, and it has very real implications. If you are going to reject his findings out of hand then you must at least explain where you find his work flawed.
The bullshit from Kemp is unsupported.
It's supported by the accepted figures provided by the IDF, the UN, B'tselem and Hamas itself. What exactly do you consider proper support? Do your facts meet this same standard of support?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Why are you asking me questions about this here when I already explained
the concerns about what he said in an earlier post you did not respond to...btw, there was no work. He never entered Gaza,
never spoke to anyone..no interviews. Richard Bernstein had no problem with that fact, but he claimed HRW findings were flawed
for the same reasoning..you don't find that peculiar I guess. You have no problem with the fact that he did not speak to nor
address the testimony of the IDF..they were not all united on the alleged war.
Ii► Testimonies From Idf Soldiers Regarding War Crimes In Gaza
http://wn.com/II%E2%96%BA_Testimonies_from_IDF_soldiers_regarding_war_crimes_in_Gaza#
You have no problem with believing Israel's government, and this guy, Kemp, who does not for the life of him address the numerous
reports documenting otherwise. THEY must all be lying, must be stupid at math too...Kemp's ratio's make sense to you.
Your comments to me in post#88 regarding the Cordesman OP, clearly from your response, you're confused. If your enemy is poorly
armed and rests within a dense civilian population..you don't bring such enormous firepower, BECAUSE YOU DON"T NEED IT, to do otherwise is reckless and indicates an intention of disregard for innocents...see Fourth Geneva Convention.
Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001)
30-09-2002 Article, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 847
snip*13. The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to immediately refrain from committing grave breaches involving any of the acts mentioned in art. 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as wilful killing, torture, unlawful deportation, wilful depriving of the rights of fair and regular trial, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. The participating High Contracting Parties recall that according to art. 148 no High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself of any liability incurred by itself in respect to grave breaches. The participating High Contracting Parties also recall the responsibilities of the Occupying Power according to art. 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention for the treatment of protected persons.
14. The participating High Contracting Parties also c all upon the Occupying Power to refrain from perpetrating any other violation of the Convention, in particular reprisals against protected persons and their property, collective penalties, unjustified restrictions of free movement, and to treat the protected persons humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.( end)
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/5fldpj.htm
You argued he reconciled data from B'Tselem, and the UN..there is nothing in his own words to support your
assertion..he only speaks about the UN..and is not referencing it with any citations. You have a link to any
"work" you think he actually did, please post it. Until then, as I have said, his words are bullshit. That you find
comfort in them is your choice..but he has not reconciled the numerous reports of human rights groups, not on
any level. His words unlike the reports from HRW, AI, B'Tselem and others noted crimes committed by Hamas..but some
how the Israeli government gets a high five from this guy. Odd how a Colonel has nothing to say about
the use of white phosphorus..not one word. You might want to think about the definition of intellectual dishonesty
before you throw it out at someone.
The cease fire was not broken by Hamas btw, there is ample documentation for that too.
Israel and Hamas ceasefire begins
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7462554.stm
Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
An Unnecessary War
By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, January 8, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702645.html
Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn't about security
Posted on Wednesday, June 9, 2010
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/09/95621/israeli-document-gaza-blockade.html
For the record, Colonel Kemp's words, the most recent and below that, his initial speech. As far as I am aware, that is
all he has offered...there is no report.
A salute to the IDF
By RICHARD KEMP
15/06/2011
You may think that you’re simply defending your country, but in fact you are defending mine too.
Adapted from a speech by the former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, who spoke in Tel Aviv this week to a group of young professionals and IDF soldiers.
It is an honor for me to stand in the same room as those of you in IDF uniforms. You might think that you’re simply defending your country, but in fact you are fighting against violent jihadist terrorism for the whole of the Western world, and you are at the front lines of the battle.
Although not quite a lone voice, mine was certainly a very lonely voice among the many dozens of speeches endorsing the Goldstone Report and repudiating Israel that were made over the two days of the UN Human Rights Council hearing after Operation Cast Lead. This is what I said to the Council: “During its operation in Gaza, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”
What was behind my comments? Apart from basic decency and humanitarian considerations, the commanders of the IDF knew, as do British, American and other NATO commanders, how vital to a counterinsurgency conflict is winning over the hearts and minds of the people, especially in a conflict where they could be sure that killing innocent civilians is exactly what the enemy would be trying to lure them to do.
Because Hamas (like Hezbollah in Lebanon, like the Taliban in Afghanistan and like al-Qaida and the Shi'a militias in Iraq), use their own people as both tactical and strategic weapons of war.
Hamas used them on the tactical level as human shields, to hide behind, to stand between Israeli forces and their own fighters, sometimes forcing women and children to remain in the positions that they would use to launch attacks from.
Hamas used their people too on the strategic level, luring IDF troops to attack and kill them. People whose deaths would be callously exploited in the media as a means of discrediting the IDF. And this is exactly what insurgents do almost daily too in Afghanistan, seeking to provoke NATO and Afghan forces to kill the local people. In these most difficult circumstances, IDF commanders took unprecedented measures to minimize civilian casualties. When possible, they left at least four hours’ notice to civilians to leave areas designated for attack, an action that handed a distinct advantage to Hamas.
Attack helicopter pilots had total discretion to abort a strike if there was too great a risk of civilian casualties in the area. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and even unilaterally announced a daily three-hour ceasefire knowing this would give Hamas vital time and space to re-group, re-equip and re-deploy for future attacks. A factor often forgotten, but this of course added to the danger to the IDF’s own troops.
The Israelis dropped a million leaflets warning the population of impending attacks, and phoned tens of thousands of Palestinian households in Gaza urging them in Arabic to leave homes where Hamas might have stashed weapons or be preparing to fight. Similar messages were passed on in Arabic on Israeli radio broadcasts.
But despite Israel’s extraordinary measures, a number of innocent civilians were killed and wounded. This was inevitable. Let us not forget: Hamas was deliberately trying to lure the Israelis to kill their own people.
Many have contradicted my assertion about the IDF.
But no one has been able to tell me which other army in history has ever done more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone.
In fact, my judgments about the steps taken in that conflict by the IDF to avoid civilian deaths are inadvertently borne out by a study published by the United Nations itself, a study which shows that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza was by far the lowest in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare.
The UN estimate that there has been an average three-to one ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide. Three civilians for every combatant killed.
That is the estimated ratio in Afghanistan: three to one.
In Iraq, and in Kosovo, it was worse: the ratio is believed to be four-to-one. Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratios were very much higher in Chechnya and Serbia.
In Gaza, it was less than one-to-one.
This extremely low rate of civilian casualties flatly contradicts many of Goldstone’s original allegations, and the bleating insistence of various human rights groups about Israel’s alleged crimes against humanity.
And last month, even Judge Richard Goldstone changed his mind.
As with Cast Lead, the tragedy of the Gaza Flotilla incident, a year ago, has been widely exploited as part of the conspiracy to delegitimize Israel.
There is every reason to believe that the activists on board the Mavi Marmara set out deliberately to provoke the Israeli boarding party into an attack that would cause bloodshed to be exploited in the world’s media. The Turkish group IHH was prominent among the organizers of the flotilla, and had purchased the Mavi Marmara for that purpose.
As well as being a genuine humanitarian aid group, the IHH is a radical Islamic organization. The IHH is vehemently anti-Israel and anti-America, and has extensive connections with international jihadist groups, including al-Qaida. According to a French investigative magistrate specializing in terrorism, the IHH played an important role in an al-Qaida plan to carry out a mass-casualty attack at the Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium.
Many who should know better have stridently proclaimed that the Gaza blockade itself is illegal. But does not the government of Israel the right – the duty – to protect its citizens against the re-arming of Hamas and other jihadist groups in Gaza, which continue to attack the civilian population with rockets, and undoubtedly desire to expand their conflict in line with the proclaimed objective of destroying Israel as an entity?
Today, Israel faces a conspiracy of delegitimization, which aims to give validity and justification to attacks on Israel by groups such as Iran’s proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, allowing them to strike at Israel with impunity, and encouraging the view that any retaliatory or defensive measures by Israel are by definition disproportionate and should be criminalized.
The more traction this idea is allowed to gain, the greater the instability between Israel and its neighbors. This lessens the chances of any lasting peace, and consequently increases the blood that will be shed on all sides in the region.
The most powerful weapons in this conspiracy are legal, diplomatic and media. Fundamentally, we are talking about a war of words, words that are given unprecedented potency by the internet, by the globalization of the 21st century.
If this is a war of words, we must also use words to counter attack.
The conspiracy seeks to undermine the right of Israel to exist as an entity. And it is this that we must stand up against. As we would stand up vigorously against any movement that seriously sought to undermine the existence of any legitimate, democratic state.
In this war of words, all that is necessary for this evil conspiracy of delegitimization to triumph is for good men to say nothing. I have enough experience of the IDF to know that the harsh condemnation all too frequently applied to them, usually by those with an anti-Israel agenda, is, more often than not, completely unjustified.
Like all other armies, including my own, the IDF is far from perfect. They make mistakes like other armies, mistakes that are often compounded by the fog and the friction of war. And like other armies, they have their share of bad soldiers as well as good.
To my personal knowledge, Israel’s armed forces and security services have often proved to be firm friends of Britain and the British people. Two events stand out in my mind.
The first happened when I was sent out to be Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan in 2003. We were confronted with an enemy whose many tactics included suicide bombings. This was the first time British troops had to confront suicide attackers, and we had no policy with which to counter them. I telephoned an Israeli contact of mine, who arranged for a Brigadier-General in the IDF to meet with me in London.
This man (at the time, serving as a full-time commander of an operational unit) took the time to fly to Britain within two days. For four hours, we sat in a lobby in a London hotel. He spoke; I took notes. And it was from that meeting that my policy for countering suicide bombers in Afghanistan was devised – a policy that was subsequently adopted by all British forces, and has saved lives.
The second incident occurred a couple of years later, after the terrorist attacks in London on July 7, 2005. We in the UK were deeply shaken by the attacks, the first suicide bombings Britain had experienced at home. At the time I was working for Cobra, the UK national crisis management committee. Very soon after the terrorists struck, I received a call from my contacts in the Israeli security forces who offered every assistance they could provide. I received few other such calls from our allies around the world.
It was then that we knew who our real friends are.
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=225172
Initial Kemp speech, set up by UN Watch:
Thank you, Mr. President.
I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.
Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.
Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.
Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.
The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.
The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.
Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.
More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.
Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.
And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.
Thank you, Mr. President.
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409
B’Tselem’s investigation of fatalities in Operation Cast Lead
http://www.btselem.org/download/20090909_cast_lead_fatalities_eng.pdf
*Operation Cast Lead, Israeli military responsible for 758 Palestinians deaths, who did not
participate in the hostilities. 318 of them were minors..more than 5,300 Palestinians were injured,
and more than 350 seriously.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)care to explain?...which weapons should we leave at "home"....should we leave out the helicopters with their precision missiles? who about those jets with laser guided bombs?
perhaps we don't need the 81mm mortars and just use the 60mm ones. True we have to get closer, and shoot a lot more, but perhaps your right, they hamas cant shoot straight anyway with their AK-47's
how about the night vision equipment?...i mean they don't have it , so its kind of not fair that we do correct? how about if we just don't bring the backup batteries as a compromise?
whatelse?..i know the armored personal carriers, let the IDF soldiers walk, so they will be tired and that will "even out" the battlefield a bit, also they'll have limited ammunition so they'll have to shoot less (i'm sure you like that one).
too many tanks? how about if each carries only half a load of shells? is that ok?
___________________________________
ok enough fun, now clearly you have no idea why an army uses as much firepower as it has to finish a battle:
its like this: to kill as many of the other side as possible without getting any of your own guys killed, and that means the more your shooting at them with larger munitions the less time they get to shoot back. You 'll find its a preference for every soldier in every army in every country since time began...only those who have never been would even suggest that an army should "hold back" and leave some weapons "at home" in a conventional war.
this isn't paintball....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Israel is bound by the Geneva Convention..yet, you seem to have
no understanding of what that means.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)no understanding of what that means.
so now is your chance to actually explain what that means in real terms..not some vague moral argument that can be interpreted by anyone to mean anything...
___
and your answer?...
let me guess, either a single sentence that shows i know nothing, or a long post cut and pasted from some website
_____
how about this, have some guts (its only a small forum in the larger world) and put forth a definitive opinion with real actual detailed information as you believe, so that i can take it apart and show just how little you actually understand of the events that take place.
yes its a trap, because if you do actually attempt to write what you believe and why about that, it will be clear how little understanding you actually have of how its actually interpreted and applied by governments....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)when you reject the law?? Why the hell do you do that without
something to back you up other than discrediting the court
with snide remarks?
You I am sure would greatly appreciate if I no longer
posted rulings..how you formulate an opinion is beyond me.
Please, move forward and school the ICJ "learned" people and the ICRC in how
the real world works in interpreting how governments apply all this. You're
so much more enlightened than they are..clearly.
One safety net you seem to rely on is the fact that none of your
government leaders have had their corrupt ass carted off to the Hague for
crimes against humanity..none of mine either. I would not interpret that
to mean they have not met the criteria.
Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001)
30-09-2002 Article, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 847
snip*13. The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to immediately refrain from committing grave breaches involving any of the acts mentioned in art. 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as wilful killing, torture, unlawful deportation, wilful depriving of the rights of fair and regular trial, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. The participating High Contracting Parties recall that according to art. 148 no High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself of any liability incurred by itself in respect to grave breaches. The participating High Contracting Parties also recall the responsibilities of the Occupying Power according to art. 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention for the treatment of protected persons.
14. The participating High Contracting Parties also c all upon the Occupying Power to refrain from perpetrating any other violation of the Convention, in particular reprisals against protected persons and their property, collective penalties, unjustified restrictions of free movement, and to treat the protected persons humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/5fldpj.htm
pelsar
(12,283 posts)so does the security council's opinion beat that of the ICRC?
see this is easy to play since its all about intreperaton...in this case i would say the UN beats your ICRC
the UN Security Council resolution authorizing force against Libya provides an excellent experiment in whether the legal arguments widely made about Israel are also applied in parallel cases. In March, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 in response to Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s violent crackdown on anti-government rebels. The resolution authorized military action, delineated a no-fly zone across all of Libya, froze Libyan assets, and authorized the extensive use of force against Libyan troops.
Yet Resolution 1793 specifically rules out any “occupation” of Libyan territory. This was not stray language. The prohibition of occupation has helped secure the support of several skeptical nations.
SO WE now have confirmation from the Council that a broad embargo, no-fly zone and months of constant aerial bombardment do not constitute an “occupation.” Certainly these activities have considerable effect on Libya, and “control” much of what happens there. Obviously Israel’s much less comprehensive and invasive measures against Gaza do not constitute an occupation by this standard.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=223231
see how easy that is?...so now what are you going to do? make some simplest statement that UN isn't as smart as the "other guys" that the UN is playing politics and don't understand that law?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)that extrapolates what they believe the UN Security Council supports
via Libya. The UN Security Council have made no such statements
to support such a premise...why do you believe they have not done so?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)than the other barbarians. Why don't you peasants appreciate that and acknowledge our moral superiority?"
shira
(30,109 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)See, that's where you are wrong. It is the percentage of civilians who died that undeniably proved his claim. You see, while you find the percentage of civilian deaths to be horrific you are comparing it to a perfectly executed war, which is impossible. In reality, to get an idea of what an acceptable ratio is we have to look at other, similar conflicts, and see what those ratios are like. Only then can we determine if Israel has a good or a poor ratio.
And when we compare Israel's ratio to other states, like the US or the UK or Russia or China or just about anyone, really we find that their ratio of civilians to soldiers killed is very low. Lower than just about anyone else in fact.
See, the percentage on its own is meaningless. Unless we know if it is better or worse than other armies, fighting similar wars, we don't really know if it is good or bad. Now you might look at Israel's actions and say that they deserve a grade of "C+" regarding ethical warfare and safeguarding civilians during combat. I mean, there's no mistaking the fact that plenty of civilians, children even (!) were killed by Israel. My point is that a C+ is actually an excellent grade if every other student for the past 50 years received a D or lower.
So by all means criticize Israeli actions. They certainly have room to improve and I hope they do. (I really hope they don't need to actually.) But when we critique their actions during wartime we must acknowledge the fact that they are more successful than just about any other state WRT safeguarding civilian lives. To state otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.
shira
(30,109 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)has no right of self-defense?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)on the false pretext of self-defense. Also, leaving aside the issue of whether the Gazans have a right to resist their illegal captivity by violent means, Israel initiated the hostilities by breaking a six-month ceasefire in November, 2008, prior to conducting the larger massacre. There is no legitimacy for the massacre, and no reason for you to ask this irrelevant question. Israel's actions in the occupied territories proceed from the imperatives of colonization, not "self-defense."
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Isrel pulling out of Gaza completely support your theory of colonization?
And how does it justify thousands of rockets being fired against it's populace?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Gaza is small, of little value to the colonizers, crowded and hard to control. The Israelis declared a "withdrawal" that consists of imprisoning the Gazans on their little parcel of land, under blockade, treating them to slow starvation and occasionally moving in to provide a disciplining assassination or massacre. As you know well, the colonization of all the best land in the West Bank and the seizure of water resources are pretty much complete, though settlement building continues. The Palestinians are crowded onto fragmented, isolated Bantustans surrounded by the wall, Israeli bases, Israeli-owned zones, Israeli-only roads. Gaza is the largest and most isolated of the Bantustans.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)the blockade came AFTER Hamas began attacking Israel.
Look it up.
edit: and if Israel grabbed the BEST land in the WB then why weren't the Palestinians using it beforehand? Settlements are only 3% of the WB and only on unused land. The Palestinians purposefully chose terrible land for themselves according to you?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Israel killed 1400 Palestinians quite cheaply 14 Israeli's dead 1/3 of which were from friendly fire, quite an accomplishment for Israel, much better than it did in Lebanon in 2006 where it took 165 Israeli lives to kill a mere 1200 or so Lebanese.
and if anyone complains well it must be because they want to see more Israeli dead because of course the thought that perhaps seeing less dead all around can not be possible 
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Operation Cast Lead was effectively a turkey shoot. You have effectively 10 square miles out of a total of 40 where the enemy is capable of hiding. You have a generous assortment of helicopter gunships, and you have a foe that has mainly small arms and not very many of them.
You would hope that in such circumstances where there was only very limited danger to its own troops that Israel would have managed to kill only one civilian for each Hamas fighter killed - bear in mind that a lot of the Hamas dead were not even militiamen but were police and the like.
Contrast with Lebanon, where Israel faced a force of about 1500 to 2000, and managed to kill 1200 Lebanese civilians while killing only several hundred Hezbollah according to the best estimates.
I have no doubt that the US military manages to kill many more civilians, but they are not really a model to look up to.
Of course, had the British launched air strikes on the Jewish neighbourhoods from whence the Haganah were attacking them in 1948, and killed only one Jewish civilian for every underground member, I wonder whether this level of discretion would be lauded in the same way that it seems to be good enough for the IDF.
Its worth noting that the British essentially zero Jewish civilians during the war of independence, and killed very few Irish civilians during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Clearly Colonel Kemp and the like are talking out of their arse when they claim that Israel's army is the most moral force in the world.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)perhaps Hamas might figure it out
but you clearly don't understand the nature of urban conflict
You would hope that in such circumstances where there was only very limited danger to its own troops that Israel would have managed to kill only one civilian for each Hamas fighter killed
that was the ratio...and to keep the danger limited, it means more physical damage.
___
and if your comparing, your comparisons would be best when israel was actually occupying gaza physically, as did the brits in palestine and ireland
but i think its fair to assume you also know this, and wrote it for the naive and for those who have little knowledge, so instead of teaching or informing your deliberating misleading
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)civilian casualties in Afghanistan vs civilian casualties in Gaza and something pops up if you were average the number of civilian casualties per duration of engagement what seems to come up is that IDF vs Coalition forces isn't doing so well, we keep seeing numbers thrown out but never the fact that OCL lasted 3 weeks vs an on going war of 10 years duration
as to Col Kemp he spent less than 6 months in Afghanistan however he was in charge of British troops in Ireland during "The Troubles" I find myself wondering if what he really so admires about IDF is the amount of leeway they are given when dealing with civilians and the amount of 'support' they get from Israel's supporters on an international level
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Awesome!
if you were average the number of civilian casualties per duration of engagement what seems to come up is that IDF vs Coalition forces isn't doing so well
So basically, the IDF killed far more civilians per day or per hour or whatever than coalition forces in Afghanistan, right? OHMYGOD!!!! Why, that implies... well, that the IDF killed civilians at a faster rate than US or UK forces. But since the Gaza war was only 22 days while the other is 10 years I'd wager that the IDF killed militants at a faster rate too. They probably killed everyone quicker, my GOD!
Wait... why is this a bad thing? Why does it matter at all? What matters is the percentage of civilians killed to combatants. I would expect the war in Gaza to take less time and have a higher casualty rate per day. Gaza is a lot smaller than Afghanistan. And it doesn't have caves or mountains where militants are hiding. And the coalition forces have a much more comprehensive mission than the IDF does.
Basically, what you're saying is that the IDF killed a far lower percentage of civilians than the US/UK AND did it in a fraction of the time.
we keep seeing numbers thrown out but never the fact that OCL lasted 3 weeks vs an on going war of 10 years duration
So a 10 years war with a higher ratio of civilian deaths is better than a 3 week war with low civilian deaths? To who, bullet manufacturers?
I find myself wondering if what he really so admires about IDF is the amount of leeway they are given when dealing with civilians and the amount of 'support' they get from Israel's supporters on an international level
Really, you're wondering that? That's actually a thing you're thinking about?
Are you also wondering if he has sex with housecats? Because that's even worse.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Tailiban: killed 27422
This page was last modified on 3 January 2012 at 15:52.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Taliban_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan
civilians killed: 9007 direct deaths: at least 6,215 - 9,007
direct & indirect deaths: 9,415 - 29,007
This page was last modified on 29 December 2011 at 00:54.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
seems just about the same as IDF however thanx for pointing out that IDF is more efficient at killing
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i notice that in your link, there is no mention of what the taliban claim as number of dead...
i would say your numbers of civilians to taliban militant deaths in fact have little credibility
___
and if were more efficient at killing, i would say its a good thing, we can concentrate our resources on killing those that were trying to kill and spare those that shouldn't....efficiency is a good thing here and glad to see that you see it.
unlike the coalition forces in Lybia, iraq, afganistan.....who bomb at 15,000 ft and above, use only unmanned aircraft...i guess that is the western standard today.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)What is it in Iraq? Oooh, closer to 2:1 or even 3:1 by some calculations. Not as good.
What has Israel's been like. This year it was around 1:10. Not bad.
But wait! In 2007 it was a staggering 1:30!
According to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the civilian-to-soldier death ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century has been 10:1, meaning ten civilian deaths for every soldier death.[1] In 2007, Israel claimed to have achieved a ratio of 1:30, or one civilian casualty for every thirty combatant casualties, in its targeted killings campaign on militants in the Gaza Strip.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli_airstrikes_on_militants_in_the_Gaza_Strip
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Obviously, he was stationed in Northern Ireland for a long time, nearly a decade. Surely he must know that when he says that the IDF acted with more restraint in Gaza than any armed force in the history of humankind, he is lying.
One possibility is that he is simply a hack, mouthing platitudes to a consistently willing audience. The alternative is as you suggest - that he wishes he could have done to the IRA what Israel did to Hamas.
shira
(30,109 posts)...coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Russia/Chechnya, etc.
WRT the troubles in Ireland, Israel still does better than the Brits:
The civilian casualty ratio dropped steeply to 1:28 in late 2005, meaning one civilian killed for every 28 terrorists killed. Harel credited this drop to the new IAF chief Eliezer Shkedi's policies. The ratio rose again in 2006 to 1:10, a fact that Harel blamed on "several IAF mishaps". However, in 2007 and 2008 the ratio dropped to an unprecedented level of less than 1:30, or 2–3 percent of the total casualties being civilian.[17] Figures showing an improvement from 1:1 in 2002 to 1:30 in 2008 were also cited by Jerusalem Post journalist Yaakov Katz.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_targeted_killings
This page was last modified on 13 October 2011 at 04:39.
So Israel has a better record than the Brits WRT The Troubles. Consider that the Brits weren't sending suicide bombers into the British mainland, shooting rockets over the border, or cynically using human shields like the Palestinians.
Kemp is right.
Israel grades out far better than the Brits.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The British killed 184 civilians in Northern Ireland over the course of the Troubles from 1969 to 2003. This represents about 10% of the total civilian dead of the Troubles. The IRA were responsible for one-third of those and Catholic splinter groups and Loyalist militias were responsible for the remainder.
The British killed about 370 Republican militiamen during the same time, giving a ratio of about 2:1. This would be lower but for the numbers of civilians killed by the British in two massacres, one of which was the famous Bloody Sunday.
During the First Intifada, by contrast, about two thousand civilians were killed by Israel, and about 1000 militiamen. During the Second Intifada some one to two thousand militiamen were killed by Israel and some 4700 Palestinian civilians were killed. Broadly, this gives a ratio of at least two civilian dead for every Palestinian militiaman killed by Israel.
"However, in 2007 and 2008 the ratio dropped to an unprecedented level of less than 1:30"
You have admitted on several occasions that at least half of the dead of Operation Cast Lead in 2008 were civilians. Presuming that this was the bulk of Palestinian dead for that year, exactly how do you contend that the ratio of civilian dead was as low as 1:30, unless the dead from OCL are simply disregarded?
"Consider that the Brits weren't sending suicide bombers into the British mainland"
The IRA used suicide bombers, and carried out bombings in the British mainland. This is a distinction without a difference.
"shooting rockets over the border"
Well, that would be rather difficult seeing as Northern Ireland and Britain do not share a land border, and very few artillery rockets would be capable of crossing the ocean separating the two. The IRA did however use mortars on the British mainland, including against the Houses of Parliament.
"cynically using human shields like the Palestinians"
Do you contend that the IRA did not do this? What specifically are you saying that the Palestinians do that the IRA did not?
shira
(30,109 posts)IRELAND: Civilians the main targets
BELFAST — In what is being hailed as "the most comprehensive study to date" of Troubles-related deaths, an April 1999 University of Ulster study confirms what has long been hidden by British propaganda and complicit media: pro-British forces have been responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths in the six counties during "the Troubles".
Data in the new study also confirm the fact that the Irish Republican Army was waging war against the British state forces, while the British and their supporters waged a war of terror against the Irish civilian population.
The study, "Northern Ireland's Troubles: The Human Costs", shatters carefully cultivated British mythology of the "British army as protector" of nationalist communities. Data prove clearly that pro-British combatants in the six counties more often than not kill unarmed civilians, not armed combatants.
Pro-British forces, according to the data section, "Mapping Troubles-Related Deaths", have killed nearly 10 times as many unarmed civilians as they have killed members of republican military forces.
more...
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/22548
The 1:30 ratio was during one year of a 10 year period. At other times the ratio was 1:10. In OCL it was 1:1, just as it was back in 2002-03 when Israel had to invade the W.Bank due to Intifada 2.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Gaza one year on: look into my eyes
Friday, February 12, 2010 - 11:00
On the January 18, 2009, Israel pulled its troops out of the Gaza Strip leaving many Palestinians with tremendous losses. Israel's war on Gaza, known as Operation Cast Lead had begun on December 27. The vicious attack killed 1417 people, wounding 5303 and leaving many thousands homeless, widowed and orphaned. To add pain to misery, many women who were pregnant at the time gave birth to defected children due to inhaling white phosphorous. One year after the attack, after its was confirmed by the United Nations Goldstone report, the Israeli government finally admitted that white phosphorous was used during its war on Gaza.
<snip>
Just a statistic
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights said 1417 Palestinians were killed and 5303 wounded in 23 days. On the other side, 13 Israelis were killed and 518 wounded.
But these are just numbers until you hear families talk about their loss.
The Palestinians who survived the Gaza massacre still suffer with loss — of a parent, a brother, a friend, of a sense, a limb.
A 10-year-old Palestinian boy lost both eyes because of the white phosphorous that resembled fireworks from afar. Israeli defense officials initially denied the use of white phosphorous, but researchers proved that there was excessive use on random targets.
Once this fatal chemical is exposed to skin, it burns and creates a powerful itch — burning the victim while they furiously scratch.
Television stations from across the Middle East hosted donation campaigns to help Gazans. One donor from Qatar called and said he'd like to donate one of his eyes to the young boy, declaring the gesture an obligation and responsibility rather than a donation.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/43196
shira
(30,109 posts)...in Ireland during the Troubles (compared to combatants) than the IDF in Gaza.
But keep trying.
See if you can find another military that is more careful than the IDF in protecting civilians during war time.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)interesting indeed, as has been pointed out the deaths your source cites were for the most part not committed by the British military but by British "Loyalists" were also terrorists of a sort
for my part I think Col Kemp sells the men he commanded in North Ireland quite short don't you?
shira
(30,109 posts)Neither are worth a crap IMO as I'm having a harder time distinguishing between the two as time passes.
As for Kemp, he's right. The IDF is more careful than any other military WRT civilians. The situation WRT Palestinians is much different than what the Brits faced. Despite what your colleague says below, the Brits didn't have to deal with suicide bombers (proxy bombing isn't the same), rockets into the mainland, or the same type of human shielding. I suspect the Brits' record would have been far worse if the Irish acted more like the Palestinians. As it is, Israel's ratio is still better than the Brits WRT the Troubles.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)just thought you should know
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)again, your reading abilities fail you. In any event, I am intrigued that you regard Green Left as a credible source, even though the last time you cited it you were wrong then also (when you accused the Australian Government of bulldozing Gordon fields).
You are alleging that the ratio of civilians to militant dead killed by Israel in 2008 was 1:30. Operation Cast Lead took place in 2008 and as you seem to be admitting led to the deaths of at least 700 civilians. To sustain that average Israel would have needed to have killed 21000 militiamen in that same calendar year, or approximately 57 per day.
Do you stand by that allegation?
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 09:45 AM - Edit history (1)
From the article citing the study:
The RUC has killed nearly twice as many unarmed civilians as they have killed republican military force members, and these figures do not even include RUC shoot-to-kill murders which are officially denied by the British government. More than 80% of the murder victims acknowledged by the RUC have been Catholic.
Loyalists have murdered 33 times as many unarmed civilians — nearly 860 unarmed civilians, nearly all of them Catholic — as they have killed members of republican military forces, clear evidence that the occupation forces have been unable or unwilling to protect the nationalist communities from Unionist and loyalist violence. These figures do not include the 1997-98 "random" sectarian killing spree that loyalists engaged in at the height of the peace talks.
The British army, since 1969, has killed more unarmed Irish civilians (168) than republican military force members (117).
Again, the IDF numbers are better than the British military during the troubles. The IDF's worst numbers over the past decade were a 1:1 ratio which the Brits never attained.
You also can't claim the Brits weren't responsible for the Loyalists when OTOH you're quick to blame Israel for what happened at Sabra/Shatilla.
As for the 1:30 ratio, that was from 2007-2008. OCL began at the very end of 2008, so I'm not sure if that's included with the figures. I'm pretty certain most civilians in Gaza were killed at the beginning of 2009.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)and no one particularly cares about your Green Left article citing an otherwise unidentified study apparently from the University of Belfast.
The closest thing to a non-partisan, universally respected catalogue of deaths related to the Troubles is the Sutton Index, which you can find here:-
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/
That gives the figure of 188 civilian dead killed by the British. There were 293 dead IRA, and about 70 other dead from other militia. That results in a ratio of 2 to 1, as I indicated above.
"You also can't claim the Brits weren't responsible for the Loyalists when OTOH you're quick to blame Israel for what happened at Sabra/Shatilla."
Actually, the British Army never armed or trained Loyalist militia in the same way that Israel armed, trained and escorted the Phlangist militias that committed the Sabra and Shatila massacres.
Interestingly, however, at least one Loyalist militia did receive arms from Israel, via South Africa - the apparent motivation being the ties between the PLO and IRA.
shira
(30,109 posts)Here's yet another study proving you wrong...
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/cts/fay98.htm
Look at Table 12 right before 'Conclusions' near the end of the page and you'll find the British army (along with the RUC) killed far more civilians than combatants.
Again, the IDF's worst over the past decade - including OCL - was a 1:1 ratio. The Brits did worse than that and there weren't rockets raining down on the British population or suicide bombers. I think we both know very well had that happened, the British performance would have been far worse.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)and 168 civilians. Still, enough for me to admit that I was wrong on one point - the British did indeed kill more civilians than militants over the entire period of the Troubles.
"Again, the IDF's worst over the past decade - including OCL - was a 1:1 ratio. The Brits did worse than that."
The Brits did much better than that over the last decade of the Troubles. If you look at the chronological catalogue of deaths from 1990 to 2000, the British Army killed three civilians, and given that all of those three were engaged in an act of armed robbery at the time, there was probably some basis for their actions:-
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/index.html
If you actually wanted to be honest about this exercise, you would be comparing the total ratios across both conflicts, rather than seeking to compare the total British Army ratios with the Israelis during one particular time or another.
"The Brits did worse than that and there weren't rockets raining down on the British population or suicide bombers."
As I've said to you before, there were suicide bombers, just not on the mainland. The IRA also made extensive use of mortars, although again primarily on British civilians and targets within Northern Ireland.
The total British Army/Protestant death toll of 1,769 during the Troubles is also higher than the amount of Israeli dead suffered in both Intifadas combined.
shira
(30,109 posts)The RUC results should be added to the Brit Army stats as they're also state paid. They killed twice as many civilians as militants.
If we had real numbers of IDF results over the entire conflict, I agree it would be worthwhile to compare.
The Irish didn't make use of suicide bombers in any way like the Palestinians. Their limited use of proxy bombs doesn't compare.
Neither do mortars compare to rockets on the mainland.
And of course, the Irish didn't abuse civilians (and especially children) by using them as involuntary shields.
All these factors make Israel's record vs. the Brits all the more remarkable.
They're not the British Army. They were a police force. If you want to play around with definitions, the religious settlers are all yeshivot and receive a stipend from the Israeli state. During the First Intifada, settlers killed 115 Palestinians, 23 of which were children. Is the IDF responsible for what they do?
"If we had real numbers of IDF results over the entire conflict, I agree it would be worthwhile to compare."
B'Tselem (probably the most well known and respected human rights group in Israel) have published figures saying that the ratio of combatant to civilian dead from targeted assassinations is 60:40 - a far cry from 30:1 or whatever the IDF claims.
"Their limited use of proxy bombs doesn't compare."
This is another example of your dishonesty. A proxy bomb is a suicide bomb with a twist - the person suiciding isn't a willing participant - although in a lot of cases Palestinian groups put very heavy pressure on suicide bombers to go through with their actions.
So you're wrong. From time to time you might want to admit that - as I did in my post above. Its the first step towards intellectual honesty.
"Neither do mortars compare to rockets"
A bald assertion and a positively stupid statement. A mortar is perfectly comparable to a rocket if you're getting hit by one.
"And of course, the Irish didn't abuse civilians (and especially children) by using them as involuntary shields."
Again, another bald assertion with nothing to back it up. The IRA operated out of residential neighbourhoods the same as any other militia. In much the same way, the Jewish Underground operated out of homes and synagogues in the 1940s, and the British found weapons caches in synagogues from time to time. The IRA made similar use of churches administered by sympathetic priests.
Just an example - during the Battle of the Bogside and in other confrontations, Catholic women would appear in doorways and start banging rubbish bin lids against the sides of the buildings when British soldiers appeared in the alleys. The intent was to disorient the soldiers as well as to provide a noise screen for militiamen, particularly snipers.
shira
(30,109 posts)The religious settlers aren't a state paid police force in the OT like the RUC. There's no comparison. Truly lame...
What stats from B'tselem are you referring to (60:40)? From what time period?
Proxy bombs are in no way comparable to suicide bombers. They were used for a very limited time due to their unpopularity AND they were used against the British military. OTOH, suicide bombers have been used for many years and specifically against civilian targets within Israel. Another crap comparison...
Mortars used primarily against military targets are no comparison to rockets fired intentionally at civilian areas.
Very lame.
Even the human shield comparisons are ridiculous. Hamas and the PLO frequently boobytrap homes, schools, and mosques. The Hamas high command hid in a hospital during OCL. Hamas and the PLO calls on children to be martyrs, militants, and shields.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Yes, they are. The main difference is that the proxy bomber is not committing suicide willingly. On the other hand, Hamas reportedly blackmailed its mules by saying that they were collaborators, or if they were female, by threatening to out them on some act of sexual misconduct, so I suspect that even that difference is not very clear cut.
"What stats from B'tselem are you referring to (60:40)? From what time period?
Here:-
http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=29&sM=09&sY=2000&eD=26&eM=12&eY=2008&filterby=event&oferet_stat=before
"Mortars used primarily against military targets are no comparison to rockets fired intentionally at civilian areas."
So in other words, if an Irish Republican group kills a Protestant civilian in a bombing or shooting or mortar attack (frankly, I don't really think the method makes much difference) it is nowhere near as bad as when Hamas kills a Jewish person?
You seem to believe that the death of a Jewish person is categorically much worse than the death of anyone else (an inclination that I have observed in many of your previous posts, incidentally).
"Even the human shield comparisons are ridiculous. Hamas and the PLO frequently boobytrap homes, schools, and mosques. The Hamas high command hid in a hospital during OCL. Hamas and the PLO calls on children to be martyrs, militants, and shields."
Alright. Are you alleging that the IRA never "hid" in hospitals or other such civilian centres? Are you alleging that they never used booby traps? Are you alleging that Irish children were never exhorted to be martyrs, or that there was no cult of martyrdom amongst Irish republicans?
shira
(30,109 posts)They were used for a very short time due to their unpopularity and always against military targets.
Am I wrong?
Because if not, how does that compare to nearly 2 decades of suicide bombing attempts that are primarily aimed at civilians?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Question:
"They were used for a very short time due to their unpopularity and always against military targets.
Am I wrong?"
Answer:
Yes. You are wrong.
shira
(30,109 posts)1. They were used for a brief period of time.
2. They were primarily used (if not exclusively) against military targets.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)That is wrong.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)lebanon 2006 was based on false theories of lots and lots and lots of bombs would "scare them" and "harm less"... The IDF preserved mosques since they were considered holy places (and were then used as look outs to spot IDF movements...)
the result: lots of repeated battles with no clear outcome and lots of israeli dead.
In gaza the lesson was learned well. mosques were destroyed first thing, tactics were changed, no more "scaring' but aimed to kill with more firepower
the result: fewer israeli dead, more pinpoint destruction.
lesson learned
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)than evening prayers right?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)day/night when ever its most appropriate for the attacker.....
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)was when the mosque was full of civilians? thanx
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i dont recall seeing a destroyed mosque with bodies all over the place and a IDF bomb next to it?
perhaps it was one of those "work accidents" that hamas has once in a while...
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)All context is either ignored or falsified: As long as it is under blockade, tiny Gaza remains effectively occupied territory, regardless of Israeli pronouncements. Israel broke the six-month ceasefire in November, then began its offensive with a surprise bombing of a police graduation ceremony. The IDF brought a free-fire zone to a sealed and captive area packed with one of the world's highest population densities. This is an illegal killing spree, illegitimate from the start, and therefore all killings were illegitimate, no matter how fair and humane Israel proclaims them. You don't get to frame the matter as though the only question is the ratio of civilian to "combatant" deaths. (I like how a comparison to other illegitimate aggressions by other countries is supposed to show that Israel murdered fewer civilians per combatant and is therefore blameless and noble; also how Israel gets to determine who counted as civilian and who was "combatant."
As usual in recent years, the most effective thing about Hasbara is the self-reinforcing quality of making its practitioners believe it is working, when no one else is buying the bullshit any more. Its practitioners cannot see it has become counterproductive to its own ends.
shira
(30,109 posts)...and react more humanely in response.
Deal with it.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)OK, I fail to see how anyone can still think this.
To begin with there was no "cease fire." There was a lull and at no point did either side fully enforce it. Rockets and mortars continued to be fired from Gaza, albeit at a much reduced rate. In the case of Israel's incursion in November (what you are referring to as the break), you must look at the context.
Israel entered 2/10ths of a mile into Gaza to secure the entrance to a newly discovered functional tunnel leading from Gaza INTO Israel. The entrance was hidden by a house, which the Israelis entered surprising a group of known Hamas militants who then fired upon them (understandably.) In the course of the firefight the building exploded and collapsed, killing the militants. The IDF denies blowing it up suggesting the firefight triggered a booby trap, which is entirely possible.)
Following this incident, Israel offered a continuation of the lull which Hamas rejected. Hamas officially ended the lull a few days before it was due to expire. Unable to agree on terms for a new lull, Hamas and Israel exchanged fire over the border. Prior to the invasion, Israel repeatedly warned Hamas that their repeated attacks would be met with force to no avail.
Regarding occupation, Israel simply doesn't meet the definition of an occupier. Gaza is not even "sealed" as you put it, nor does Israel control all of its borders. Egypt controls one.
The IDF brought a free-fire zone to a sealed and captive area packed with one of the world's highest population densities.
Patently untrue. There was NEVER a free-fire zone in Gaza. You have no evidence of such a thing, it's patently absurd. Had there been a free-fire zone we would have seen exponentially more deaths. Tens of thousands, easily. Perhaps more. The casualty numbers prove your assertion to be ridiculous propaganda.
This is an illegal killing spree, illegitimate from the start
Do you deny that Hamas was firing rockets and mortars into Israel, targeting Israeli civilians? If not, then how in the world can you categorize this action as illegitimate or illegal? International law provides wide latitude regarding a nation's enforcement of self-defense.
also how Israel gets to determine who counted as civilian and who was "combatant."
The figures used were the UN's. But Hamas' are not very different.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)seems hamas disagree with you, they claim there are not occupied and lack for nothing.
SO...now you have a dilemma, are you the "white colonialist" who knows better than the local "brown people" or do you respect them, their knowledge their opinions and accept their view of their situation?
____
which is it?......
just try answer, at a minimum it will be fun
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)pelsar, please refrain from projecting on to me your unsubstantiated assumptions and caricatures about my worldview.
We can all look for ourselves. When I look at Gaza, I see a four-sided strip of land with 1.5 million people crowded into one of the world's highest population densities, very dependent on goods from the outside. The territory is sealed off and blockaded by the IDF on three sides, and usually (in the years since 2005) also blockaded on the south side by the Egyptian military. Israel does not recognize Gazans as citizens of a state. As a foreign power, Israel maintains blanket surveillance of the area, controls the airspace and sea rights, and decides who goes in and out (generally meaning who doesn't go in or out). Israel explicitly reserves the right and has the capability to make unannounced military incursions at any time, as it has done on many occasions, most significantly during the Cast Lead Massacre of 2008. When exercised, the IDF's ability to apply force in Gaza is usually overwhelming. The people of Gaza recognize the IDF's authority over them only when it is applied by force. By any reasonable definition, these conditions describe a territory under the harsh military occupation of a foreign power. The current Israeli government and Hamas leadership may both have political reasons to claim this is not an occupation. Neither claim changes the current validity of the facts I've described.
.
shira
(30,109 posts)Israel has an obligation as the occupying power to enforce law and order there, protecting Palestinians whose rights are being severely abused by Hamas.
Should Israel abide by International Law, knock Hamas completely out of power, and govern the people of Gaza?
That is, after all, what an occupying power is supposed to do.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)This is not an occupation under international law. It is an illegitimate occupation, predicated solely on force. Israel has no rights in Gaza.
Note: Please refrain from using usernames as devices of ridicule. I don't make puns off your username, it adds nothing to discussion, and if you do it again I will alert. Thank you.
shira
(30,109 posts)....or for Sadat to negotiate land for peace. The Palestinians wouldn't have agreed to Oslo in the 90's if the occupation was illegal. Israel would have been ordered from the start to GTFO of all territories, no negotiations.
You're wrong and you know it.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Perhaps you mean to say, if the IDF did not have the power to occupy the territories, there would have been no need for all the resolutions and negotiations you mention, since the Palestinians would have kicked them out themselves. Or perhaps you mean to say, force writes the facts on the ground and then everyone has to deal in their own way. A dangerous as well as morally dubious doctrine, to be sure, but for now and for a foreseeable future, that leaves Israel on top of the territories.
shira
(30,109 posts)....in that document that hints at an illegal Israeli occupation. It does the opposite when calling for defensible, secure and recognized borders (due to land for peace).
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i represent nobody, but myself...in that i also have a basic respect for other cultures, whether or not i agree or disagree with them. Some i believe should be removed from the face of the earth (talibans for instance), but while they are here and existing i will respect their opinions as having a "truth to them.
clear you don't share that basic respect for other cultures as in hamas, the ruling government of gaza. They have clearly stated that they are not under an occupation.
they have stated in both word and deed, that they can import anything they want.
The have complete control over the population of gaza as per the events within the population (the "arab spring" was short lived in gaza).
bottom line? you just "diss" on the little people, the brown people...your facts maybe the same facts as hamas and israel have and they claim there is no occupation
guess who is more of the colonialist? telling the locals what they should believe....
________________________________________
and just for fun
we've all heard the mantra "that israel has the right to self-defense but..."
ok i'll buy that, perhaps you might want to be explicit what this "self defense looks like" when various missiles and mortars come flying out of gaza landing in israel?
what exactly is israel "allowed to do" today to defend itself? try being specific..no vague generalities that require "star wars" type technology
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)18 Jan. '12
Three years after Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli military's argument against independent investigation of its conduct during the operation has proven to be hollow. The military has completely failed to investigate itself, regarding both policy choices and the conduct of the forces in the field in particular cases.
From 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, the Israeli military carried out an offensive dubbed Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. The resulting damage to the civilian population in Gaza was colossal: Israeli security forces killed 1,391 Palestinians, at least 759 of whom (including 318 minors under age 18) were civilians who had not been taking part in the hostilities. More than 5,300 Palestinians were injured, at least 350 of them seriously. The operation also caused extensive damage to homes, industrial plants and the agricultural sector, in addition to the electricity, sanitation, water, and health infrastructure that had already been on the brink of collapse due to Israel's siege on Gaza. According to UN estimates, the military destroyed more than 3,500 homes, leaving some 20,000 persons homeless.
After the operation ended, B'Tselem and other human rights organizations wrote to the attorney general, demanding that he establish an independent body for investigating the military’s actions during the operation. The attorney general rejected the demand, stating that the military had acted in accordance with international humanitarian law. In addition, he stated that military units were holding operational inquiries into incidents in which civilians had been harmed, and that the findings would be forwarded to the military advocate general and to the attorney general for a decision whether to pursuer further action in each case. The attorney general added that organizations holding concrete information on incidents in which civilians had been harmed could send the details to the relevant officials, who would examine their claims.
The demand was rejected a second time when the organizations wrote again, in March 2009.
B'Tselem’s complaints to the Military Advocate General Corps
Following the attorney general’s response, B'Tselem wrote to the MAG Corps demanding that he order criminal investigations into 20 cases in which the organization's research indicated suspected breaches of international humanitarian law. In total, these cases involved the killing of 92 Palestinians and the use of three Palestinian civilians as human shields.
No substantive reply was received. However, the Military Police Investigation Unit (MPIU) contacted B'Tselem to request assistance in advancing its investigations. It was only through these requests that B'Tselem learned that MPIU investigations had been opened in nine of the 20 cases, and that another investigation had been opened into a case published on the organization’s website but not sent to the MAG.
http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20120118_3_years_after_cast_lead
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it was more than 3 years ago the 'facts' along with for the most part part that it even happened have been long shuffled off into the dust bin memory for most, yet we keep seeing it brought up again and again by Israel's defenders whom seem to almost have a compulsion to declare innocence of an event that has been forgotten by most
the question is why?
