Israel kills woman in W Bank raid

[cali]

Israeli soldiers have killed a Palestinian woman during a raid in the West Bank town of Tulkarm.
Eitas Zalat, 41, died and her two daughters were slightly wounded as Israeli troops opened fire during the arrest of an alleged militant.

<snip>

The spokesman said the army was very sorry "when innocent people are hurt", and promised a full investigation.

<snip>

The Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, estimates that 78 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza so far in 2006.

<snip>

Approximately 27 of these, B'Tselem says, were civilians. The remainder were Palestinians involved in hostilities at the time they were killed or Palestinians wanted by Israel in connection with alleged militant activity.

<snip>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4961706.stm

[TomClash]

1. What a surprise!

1) Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians since the intifada began - 233 in the occupied territories and 462 in Israel.

2) Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces since the intifada began - 3377 in the occupied territories and 58 in Israel. I'm sure they were all "terrorists." :sarcasm:


http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties.asp

[cali]

4. The death toll is indeed lopsided

with far more Palestinian fatalities than Israeli ones, but I noticed that you counted only Israeli civilian deaths, whereas you counted all Palestinian deaths, including those who were terrorists. You omitted the 225 members of the security forces who were killed. Count the terrorists, then you should count the security force deaths.

[Englander]

5. The figures don't include terrorwists.

Try reading the footnotes from B'Tselem;

'Notes:

1. The data may change due to ongoing research, which produces new information about the events .
2. The figures do not include :

* Palestinians who died after medical treatment was delayed due to restrictions of movement .
* Palestinians killed by an explosive device that they set or was on their person . '

[cali]

6. Baloney.

I read the footnotes. Are you honestly maintaining that the only people who could possibly designated as terrrorists, are the ones who blow themselves up? People who plan suicide bombings or other activiites such as launching rockets, shouldn't be counted as terrorists? Your definition strains credulity. If you're asserting that every last one of the Palestinians who were killed were innocent civilians, your bias is propelling you into straining at a gnat territory.

Oddly enough, the statistics are plenty damning without trying to stretch them so they're even more so. I'll never figure out this sort of petty dishonesty.

[Englander]

7. Grotesque strawman.

I suppose I should expect better, but since yer abusing language by claiming that those who are
engaged in a legitimate fight against an occupation, by targeting the military, or non-civilian
targets are 'terrorwists', then it's no surprises, there.

Do you think that the militants who target the settlements, or the occupying military should be
defined as terrorists, or summarily executed, in a extra-judicial assassination, because I don't.

B'Tselem are using the definition that those who deliberately target civilians shouldn't be
included in the casualty list, & I think that's correct, since they'd be correctly labelled as
terrowists. Those included in the B'Tselem list are not.

[cali]

8. heh, you seem unable to

answer the question about whether those engaged in planning suicide attacks and firing rockets into Israel, are terrorists. Instead you twist my words. No surprise at all.

No, I don't want to summary executions, but yes, attacking settlers, who are civilians, is indeed a terrorist activity. Interesting that you think settlers are legitimate targets and deserve to be classified as enemy combatants and summarily executed as such, when your so adament about how wrong it is of Israel to target those they designate as terrorists. Prime example of a logical fallacy.

I understand the reasoning behind attacking Israeli military forces. I think you can make a case that they're legitimate targets, but that wasn't my point in including them in the death toll. It's simple. Some of the Palestinians included in the statistics are terrorists. They plan attacks on civilians. Those deaths are included in the statistics, just as the military deaths are included in B'Tselem's statistics. What the organization doesn't do in their tables, is separate the deaths of known or suspected terrorists from the list of civilians Yes, it's troublesome that the Israelis are the ones doing the designating, but some instances are pretty damn clear.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Phx_Dem]

25. Moral Disengagement

Englander wrote:

"As in targeting the *military* not individual soldiers. The settlements & the occupying military are legitimate targets, individual settlers or soldiers aren't, what's difficult to understand about that?"

Type 3: Minimization or ignoring.

Bonnie Cordes (1987): "Debates over the justification of violence, the types of targets, and the issue of indiscriminate versus discriminate killing are endemic to a terrorist group."

Cordes, Bonnie. When Terrorists Do the Talking: Reflections on Terrorist Literature. Santa Monica, California: Rand, August 1987.

Bandura, Albert. "Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement." Walter Reich, ed., Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

27. the problem....

you asking to discuss the conflict by using "honest tools" and attempting to keep the facts as much as possible (interpretations will vary....)...and by using a similar yardstick for both the palestenians and israelis.....i'm not sure thats allowed.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Englander]

33. I don't believe the majority of that.

The attempts to claim to be fair & balanced (tm) are negated by the arguments, logic, language,
& invective used to support the view that the onus of responsibility is on the occupied to observe
the relevant laws, & that any posters who actually support the view that the occupation should end
are more likely to have their logic/comments challenged, or be the recipients of invective, than
those who are pro-occupation.

Sometimes I think your comments are very accurate & informed on various threads, but, & that's *but*,
the invective & condemnation aimed at any posters who are anti-occupation, is out of all proportion
to any perceived error on their part. Pro-occupation arguments get a free pass, any voices that
empathize with Palestine, tend to be the targets of extreme invective.

[eyl]

28. I can't recall any

attack on a settlement (except for some minor incidents of vandalism which I wouldn't dignify with the term "attack") that deliberately aimed to cause property damage rather than casualties, so your distinction is moot.

[pelsar]

30. i wonder....

so all those attacks on the settlers were really "plans that got screwed up?...the militants were only planning on destroying a couple of cars or a garage and got confused so they entered a house, were surprised that they're were people there and in their shock, opend up on them....?

[Englander]

34. No different than an eja, eh? n/t

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

12. Englanders definition....

Do you think that the militants who target the settlements, or the occupying military should be
defined as terrorists, or summarily executed, in a extra-judicial assassination, because I don't

that means palestenains who kill israeli settlers are justified. That means a palestenian is justified in stopping a car driven by a female settler, and then killing her (and her kids?)...that means a palestenain is justified in going to a settlers house, knocking on the door and when its opened, killing the occupants

....thats the conclusion i get from the above statement.

interesting view point, but at least its clarified now....and its about time. As it sure puts all of your arguments in their proper place.....killing "settlers" is perfectly "legal" in your opinon.

[ShalachEtAmi]

31. She was Pregnant too... NT

[Lithos]

35. ...

It is rather sad to see this commentary.

Targeting non-combatants such as children is morally rephrehensible and a crime against humanity. To use sloppy language which effectively condones the practice, be it in attacks against settlers or against terrorists is obscene and counter to the goals of developing a peaceful situation.

While it is true that the terrorists are paramilitaries and generally are recruited from the more radical elements of Palestinian society, the settlers too represent one of the most radical elements of Israeli society and contain many well-armed paramilitaries and shtarker disruptors who have shown a proclivity for criminal and sometimes violent activities designed to terrorize Palestinians and in many cases the Israeli government and society they claim to represent, but have purposefully segregated themselves from. Omitting the behavior of these settler paramilitaries and the terror they've also cultivated for their bigoted agenda is not helpful either.

L-

[eyl]

37. I didn't include the settlers' behavior

simply because it's irrelevant to the point being made.

There's no one (well, no one sane) who is attempting to explain those actions as "legitimate resistance". So long as that's true, the setllers involved remain civilians, with all the protections thereoff; and they're no more legitimate targets than any other criminal. I should note that to my knowledge, few or none of the settlers involved even claimed their actions were legitimate acts of war - normally, they try to ustify their actions on the grounds of self-defense, however stretched. OTOH, if Palestinians wish to assume the mantle of legitimate combatants - a necessary (though not necessarily sufficient) condition for their attacks against military targets to be considered legitimate*, they must also forfeit the protections given to noncombatants.

I realise there's a seeming inconsistency here, since above I supported assassinations of Palestinians involved in terrorism - by the definition I gave in this post, they would be criminals rather than combatants, and thus immune to extrajudicial killing. The circumstances here, however, are different.

A necessary precondition for police to be able to function is a certain level of nonhostility (for lack of a better word) on behalf of the population being policed. In the case of the Israeli police and Gaza (I'll reemphasize that since Defensive Shield, almost all assassinations have taken place in the Gaza strip, where Israel didn't reestablish full control, while in other areas arrests take place) they would not only have to fight the armed terrorists - they would also have to fight their way there, requiring such equipment and doctrine that the difference between them and a military force would be in name only. Which means that the alternatives are to either use military strikes, or else to let the terrorists act with impunity - and unlike your normal criminal, they will plot further wholesale murders. In this sense, assination is the lesser of two evils (if the PAlestinian police would arrest them - or could be trusted to keep them - the situation would be different, since unlike the Israeli police, it can function in Gaza).

While I won't expand on it in this post, I'll also point out that under some interpretations of international law, terrorists of this kind are combatants, albeit guilty of war crimes, and thus may be tried or killed, depending.

*Only combatants may legally attack other combatants - a civilians who attacks a combatant (except for the usual exceptions which apply in a civilian-civilian killing, such as direct self-defense) is still guilty of murder.

[eyl]

11. read more carefully, please

. The figures do not include :

* Palestinians who died after medical treatment was delayed due to restrictions of movement .
* Palestinians killed by an explosive device that they set or was on their person . '

IOW - the list includes any Palestinian terrorists killed in the course of an attack which is not a suicide bombing. This includes Qassam launch crews, perpetrators of shooting attacks, perpetrators on "non-suicide" bombings (except the ones who blew themselves up accidently), stabbers, etc.

Note also:

B’Tselem emphasizes that the listing of a person as a civilian, or having not participated in the fighting, or the inclusion of any other details regarding the cause of death, does not indicate that the person or entity that killed the individual violated the law, or that the deceased was innocent, or that any other legal or moral conclusion can be drawn from the facts.

______________________________________________________________

Do you think that the militants who target the settlements, or the occupying military should be defined as terrorists, or summarily executed, in a extra-judicial assassination, because I don't.

Do you think their actions are legitimate? Does that include shooting up kids inside a settlement? And if you do think their actions (or just attacks on the IDF) are legitimate, that makes them combatants - and the "extrajudicial assassinations" become strikes on a military target.

Not to mention that it doesn't matter. The Palestinians killed while attacking the IDF are still included in the count of Palestinian casualties you gave above, while IDF troops are not included in the tally of Israeli casualties in that post.

[Englander]

13. *Suspected* terrorists.

The eja's are strikes against *suspected* terrorists. Arrest them, charge, & convict, use the
laws & convict them in a court of law.

[eyl]

21. But if they're legitimate combatants

there's no need for a trial (and if they haven't attacked civilians they aren't guilty of anything) but they can be killed nonetheless. Make up your mind.

Besides, I've pointed out to you before that when possible, Israel does arrest. You have yet to answer me, however, how Israel is supposed to deal with cases where an arrest attempt, even if successful, would leave a lot more people (on both sides) dead, while inaction would mean continued attacks.

[Englander]

24. So, no trial for Mofaz, then? n/t

[Englander]

16. Oh, yeah, pack it in with the absurdist accusations.

Disguised in the form of rhetorical questions, please afford me the courtesy of not asking
grotesque 'questions', they do not do your argument any favours, they're unnecessary, & I would
not do the same.

[eyl]

22. Just pointing out what you said

And I asked it in all seriousness, albeit in a rather snarky fashion - do you consider attacks against the settlements legitimate? Even AI rejected the claim that the settlers aresomehow not considered civilians.

[Englander]

36. About the settlements;

Attacks against them should be classified as terrorism, I got it wrong before.

'B'Tselem;

Since the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada, there has been a sharp increase in the number of attacks perpetrated by Palestinian organizations against Israeli civilians. These attacks have killed hundreds of Israelis and wounded thousands, including many minors, inside Israel and in the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a “grave breach” of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that “all means are appropriate in fighting against a foreign occupation and to attain independence.” This argument is baseless. It is also contrary to the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law, whereby civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare. In attacking the other side, therefore, each party must discriminate in selecting its targets and attack only military objects. This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

B'Tselem strongly opposes the attempts to justify attacks against Israeli civilians by using distorted interpretations of international law. Furthermore, B'Tselem demands that the Palestinian Authority do everything within its power to prevent future attacks and to prosecute the individuals involved in past attacks.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Israeli%5FCivilians/

[eyl]

38. fair enough n/t

[pelsar]

39. makes more sense.....

B'Tselem strongly opposes the attempts to justify attacks against Israeli civilians by using distorted interpretations of international law.

____

and btw in one of your deleted posts you claim i am "for the settlements"...thats actually not true. What I am against is the establishment of a palestenain state before the palestenian authority has full controll, which means it will have the political/military will and the ability to be able to control attacks upon israel, thereby avoiding a situation that we see in gaza today, where israel either has to enter to defend its own citizens or lob artillery shells)..and more so it will have the understanding that it alone is responsable for the palestenain people...unlike the situation in gaza today....where they are now going through the birthing motions of either a failed state or perhaps a modern society.

[TomClash]

40. I was not trying to be disingenuous

In fact, I took the numbers exactly from the website. And if I knew the number of "terrorists" was actually included (I don't think it was) and I had that number I would have subtracted it from the 3377 Palestinian deaths.

As for the security forces, I would not include them. My point concerned the deaths of civilians - everyone treats the death of Palestinian civilians as less morally outrageous because Israel supposedly does not target them - they are "collateral damage." Suicide bombers are supposedly much worse - even though the IDF kills far more civilians than suicide bombers do. So I would not include suicide bomber or IDF casualties.

[Englander]

2. Question -

How many of those 27 civilians killed, how many investigations were launched in those incidents?
The spokesbot has promised a full investigation, which should be supported, whenever civilians are
killed in these cases by security forces there should be an investigation, & if appropriate, censure,
& even, a trial of those responsible for the slaying.

So, my question is, how many 'full investigations' have been carried out, & when was the last time
an investigation resulted in any measures being taken against those responsible for the deaths?

[pelsar]

3. there are always investigations....

everytime an IDF solider is involved in a gun battle.......and the investigators can go as high as the defense minister.

it happens no matter who is killed.

since you've raised the question....do you feel Hamas should have the same responsability towards its own? (answering the question can be as simple as a yes or no...can you do it?)

[Englander]

15. B'Tselem;

1 May 2006: Apologies aren't enough – the IDF must investigate those responsible for the death in Tulkarm

The circumstances under which 'Itaf Zalat, a 44-year old woman, was killed in Tulkarem last night, raise the grave suspicion that Israeli security forces acted as if they were conducting an assassination rather than an arrest operation. Such behavior constitutes a blatant violation of the principles of International Humanitarian Law.

B'Tselem has yet to complete its investigation into the incident. However, its initial findings indicate a clear similarity between the security forces' behavior in this incident and those in past arrest operations in which innocent civilians were killed. In past cases investigated by B'Tselem, and documented in the organizations 2005 report Take No Prisoners, soldiers used lethal force without being in any life threatening situation, demonstrating a pattern of indifference to the safety of Palestinian civilians.

Between January 2004 and May 1, 2006, 157 Palestinians were killed in what the IDF terms arrest operations in the West Bank . Of these, at least 35 were civilians, whom the military admits were mere bystanders to the operation. An additional 54 of those killed were defined as wanted by the military. However, they were either unarmed or did not attempt to use their weapons at the time they were killed.

B'Tselem emphasizes that the military's expressions of regret and the promise to conduct a field debriefing are insignificant. The Judge Advocate General must immediately order a military police investigation of the incident.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20060501.asp

[pelsar]

17. IDF has internal investigations...

for every incident....btselem is not privy to them

[40ozDonkey]

19. As always....

investigations occur everytime an IDF solider is involved in a gun battle.......and the investigators can go as high as the defense minister.

it happens no matter who is killed.

since you've raised the question....do you feel Hamas should have the same responsability towards its own? (answering the question can be as simple as a yes or no...can you do it?)

What a shock, there's no reply.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.