Government to review '07 IDF assassinations in Gaza, W. Bank

[bemildred]

The government is working on guidelines for establishing committees to review army assassinations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that killed civilians in the past year.

---

One of Aharon Barak's final verdicts as Supreme Court president, in which Israel's "assassination policy" was sanctioned, stipulates, "Preventive activity by the army that causes the death of nearby innocent civilians requires a retroactive examination of the army's conduct, and this examination must be objective." Following this ruling, the IDF agreed to review the assassination of Salah Shehadeh, in July 2002. Shehadeh was killed by a one-ton bomb dropped on an apartment building in Gaza, along with 14 civilians.

---

"There is no room to accede to your sweeping request," Montel was informed by Mazuz's deputy for special affairs, Shai Nitzan. "The MAG examines every matter according to its circumstances and when a criminal investigation is justified, he orders one."

---

A statement from the IDF Spokesman's Office said: "As part of implementing the High Court ruling, inter-office preparatory work is in the process of nearing an end, to formulate the guidelines according to which targeted assassination operations will be examined retroactively. Once the preparatory work is finished, there will be reviews of the targeted assassination operations that were carried out after the date of the court ruling. It has also been decided, as an exception, to establish a review committee to examine the targeted assassination of senior Hamas member Salah Shehadeh. The events mentioned in the letter from human rights groups were checked, and of these, some of the operations occured before the ruling was handed down, and some do not constitute targeted assassinations at all, and the High Court ruling does not apply to them."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/946320.html

[msmcghee]

1. Meanwhile, Hamas and Islamic Jihad . .

. . are holding hearings to discuss several attacks last year that failed to yield sufficient civilian deaths.

[oberliner]

2. Do you support the targeted assassination policy?

It seems that bystanders are often killed accidentally in these operations. Sometimes with the targets themselves escaping unharmed.

Would that the Palestinians and Israelis were able to work together in ensuring that those who would engage (or have engaged) in violence against civilians are arrested.

It feels like that day is a long way off unfortunately.

[msmcghee]

3. As you know I am careful to point out that protecting Israel's . .

. . citizens is Israel's job and moral duty. It is the first reason all states are created - but this is especially true in Israel's case. I would not second guess any democratic state engaged in protecting its citizens from attack. So my answer here is only an observation that carries no weight.

I generally give great latitude to any state (or person) engaged in self-defense. They are the party whose life and limb are involuntarily placed at risk by the aggressive party. They are the party forced to act - not the party that chose to attack them. That carries a lot of weight with me.

I generally feel that the defending party in a conflict is morally justified in using whatever amount of force is required to quell the attack and also to assure that additional attacks are not likely. Defending parties seldom have a complete range of defensive options. In fact aggressors usually choose to attack when and in such a way that their target's defensive options are most limited. That means that defenders often have to use methods not ideally matched to the task.

At the same time I would not support gratuitous violence (revenge or retaliation) that resulted in injuries to civilians who were not part of - and not supportive of the aggression. Still, regimes generally require the support of their population - especially when engaged in war. So, to the extent that a regime (engaged in aggression) derives support for their attacks from their population, and to the extent that that support is necessary to the war effort, that population can be a legitimate target in some cases.

Despite that it seems that Israel is extra careful to avoid civilian casualties and they should be commended for that. I think targeted assassinations are probably the most effective defense that Israel could provide and also the least dangerous for Palestinian civilians. While it's true that some bystanders will probably be killed - I suspect that the effectiveness of disrupting the attacks on Israel by killing the leadership of Hamas - compared with the amount of civilian damage caused - is a much higher ratio than is available to Israel by any other means.

I think any other western power in a similar situation would be dropping precision bombs from high altitude on any known or suspected launch sites or rocket assembly houses. They would continue until the rockets stopped - possibly leveling large parts of the northern Gaza strip and killing hundreds of civilians in the process. And if it was any western country other than Israel the UN or anyone else would say nothing about it. It would be seen as proportional self defense. The proof of that is Iraq where we've killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and did not even have a clear case for self defense.

I know targeted assassinations are much more difficult to pull off but they result in fewer civilian casualties than other methods - and probably much greater fear in the leadership that organizes the rocket attacks.

My experience in life has shown me that people who attack the weak (such as the innocent civilians of Sderot) and justify it as some grand military campaign - are cowards of the worst sort. They would be unlikely to worry too much about the deprivation of their own citizens caused by their actions. They obviously worry about the lives of their population much less than Israel does. But I'm sure they do worry if they think that one of those Israeli missiles has their name on it. And I suspect that will make their job more difficult until an Israel drone does find them in the open some day.

Unless I learn more about it than I know now - I'd say that targeted assassinations are a very good way for Israel to defend its citizens from attack. Effective for Israel. Less deadly for Palestinian civilians.

[oberliner]

4. But just looking at it from a strategic standpoint

The policy seems to have the effect of pushing more Palestinians to embrace a violent ideology vis-a-vis Israel, rather than one of peaceful co-existence and reconciliation.

At this point, though, I do not see what action Israel could take to stop the Qassam fire.

Has the current policy been effective? It seems as if the capabilities of Hamas have actually increased.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[azurnoir]

8. So you are basing

who you support for US president on his or her support of Israel? Lovely, I will have to bookmark this one

I do that by examining the positions of the various Dem candidates vis a vis Israel - and supporting the one that comes closest to that position.

LOL

[LeftishBrit]

9. Well..

'If Israel ended the occupation, allowed unlimited right of return and paid billions in compensation - I suspect there would be fewer Palestinians trying to kill Jews'

I think these things would be good in themselves, but might NOT, if done unilaterally, lead to fewer Palestinians killing Jews. Unlimited right of return is probably not practicable at all, at least for a long, long time, because it would lead to more violence. An end to the occupation is desirable in itself, but needs to be done through multilateral negotiations rather than unilaterally- otherwise Israel may end up sacrificing land for more war rather than peace. Not something that any country can be expected to do.

As regards the infection metaphor - (a) I hope you mean that terrorism is an infection, not that Palestinians are?; (b) if you do mean that terrorism is an infection, I think that targeted killing of terrorists is justifiable (much more so than 'collective punishment') *if it works*; if it just leads to more escalation, then it becomes less justifiable; (c) there is such a thing as the immune mechanism ending up harming the host body - this often happens literally, and it also often happens metaphorically when a country or a region stays too long in war mode - another reason for negotiations for peace long-term.

'Still, it is Israel's call. It is their future and their citizens' lives at stake. I think they understand what they are doing and will change their tactics and strategy as needed.'

That is generally true of any country. One can make suggestions, but ultimately it's usually THEIR decision what to do.


'I do that by examining the positions of the various Dem candidates vis a vis Israel - and supporting the one that comes closest to that position'

Who is this candidate - if you've made a decision and don't mind saying so? And do you mean that this would be your MAIN criterion for supporting a candidate - even if they were very bad in other ways (in fact, I don't think that any of the current Dem candidates *is* very bad; but it could happen)? And when you say 'supporting' Israel, do you mean financially or in what way?


I am sure you will disagree with me on almost everything I've said. My final point is something with which you may be more likely to agree. In general, a lot of violence in neighbourhoods is averted when people feel that if an injustice is done to them, the solution is not to use their fists or stronger weapons, or to form a vigilante gang, but to go to the police and rely on the rule of law. In the case of world conflict, the 'police' are the UN; and if they did their job properly, and with less bias, some of these problems might become less extreme. One suggestion that I made some time ago here is that in UN votes, countries that are currently involved in conflict with another country, or are actively seeking regime change in that country, or deny its right to exist, should be able to make complaints about that country, but should be excluded from votes about it. Just as an individual should not serve on a jury trying a neighbour with whom (s)he has a feud.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. That infection metaphor is just a bit disturbing...

Given that there are some people who get very confused and refer to terrorists when they're talking about an entire population, and what in the past that sort of language has played a part in leading to, I don't think it's acceptable even if it was meant to be used in reference to people who actually carry out attacks on civilians, and not the entire population...

The language of infection and comparing humans to vermin (I saw a post in this forum yesterday that portrayed Palestinians in Gaza as cockroaches) is the language of dehumanisation, and it's one of the eight stages of genocide, which is why imo it should be avoided when discussing issues of complexity and sensitivity like some aspects of the I/P conflict...

3. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm

To give some idea as to why the sort of language in the post you replied to is unacceptable, here's two statements. One was in the post you replied to, and the other was made by the leader of a country that committed the 20th century's biggest genocide. The similarities in language are disturbing...

"If Israel ended the occupation, allowed unlimited right of return and paid billions in compensation - I suspect there would be fewer Palestinians trying to kill Jews. Ridding a body of an infection can be painful. From the standpoint of the infection the idea is to destroy the body. Eventually, one will win and one will lose."

and

"For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus."

[msmcghee]

12. Now that's creative. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

22. What's creative about pointing out the language of dehumanisation?

Can you not see what's wrong with using infection metaphors given their past use?

You claim in other posts in this thread that you've clearly explained what you meant when you used this metaphor, but all I've seen is you go on yet again how everyone calls you a bigot (which btw I haven't) and I haven't seen any explanation as to what you actually meant or *who* the infection was. I have seen you say you always try to explain yrself clearly, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to explain that particular comment...

[msmcghee]

23. To see a clear use of the host/infection metaphor . .

. . see post #15 below. I know how sensitive you are to these things.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. How about you explain what *you* meant when you used it...

That's what I asked you to do....

btw, you didn't answer my question. Do you see what's wrong with using that sort of language aimed at any people, given its past uses?

[msmcghee]

26. How about you do some reading. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

27. If you'd already explained it I wouldn't be asking n/t

[msmcghee]

13. You are sure I will disagree with you on everything you said?

I hadn't found much to disagree with until I read that - so I went back and checked again. If you read my posts on targeted killings you will see numerous caveats. I made it clear I was just speculating as a third party. I wasn't on any campaign to prove I was right about it. I was responding reluctantly but as best I could to a request for my opinion. So, I can hardly be miffed if you come to a different conclusion - although I don't think you do.

I am a bit disappointed that you would even consider the possibility that I would refer to Palestinians as an "infection". I expect others here to twist such things to damage me but not you. We disagree on many things but I've always thought you did so honorably.

Regarding the Dem candidates, I am pretty impressed by all of them and I'll happily vote for whichever one gets the nomination. I'd rather not get into my specific leanings. I don't think my ability to judge politicians is very good anyway. However, their ideological support for Israel as a democracy in the ME is important to me. I don't have any financial benchmarks that I would apply. I'm simply looking for a general and honest sympathy for a beleaguered peaceful nation of people defending themselves from angry aggressors out to destroy them. I feel the same about all other conflicts in the world and consistently support defenders from aggression.

Of course I generally agree with your last paragraph.

[LeftishBrit]

17. I like all the Dem candidates for now, but don't know what they'll be like eventually!

Except that they'd be better than any of the Republicans.

And I don't think I ever twist things - from you or from anyone. I may misunderstand things. You've got to admit that you do occasionally express yourself in quite strong and rather unusual ways - which can doubtless be misunderstood. And we don't know each other personally; nor do we have the nonverbal cues on a message-board that we do in real life. I also can be misunderstood, to some degree because of subtle cultural differences in expression between the UK and US. In fact, we all can.

I thought you might disagree with me, in that I tend to be far more in favour of looking at things in terms of negotiations between the two sides, rather than the justice being entirely or mainly on one side, than you do - or than a few of the pro-Palestinian posters do.

[msmcghee]

18. Yes, this is a difficult medium.

That's one reason why I really try hard to communicate precisely what I mean to say. You'll have a hard time finding any posts from me that are not punctuated pretty well, spell checked - and usually revised several times within the 60 minute alloted period - to make my meaning more easily understood. (Although I do make errors.)

You know that I am frequently accused of bigotry and racism here. Also, that I have taken pains to explain several times in great detail exactly what my honest beliefs are regarding racism and bigotry. If my beliefs violate any liberal norms - as defined by the moderators - then they are welcome to ts me. It would be repugnant to me to lie about my beliefs so I would not get banned. I would voluntarily leave if I thought the DU standards regarding racism were much different from my own.

So yes, I was a bit concerned when you stated that depending on how one took my statement - it could be seen as racist. What you said was,

As regards the infection metaphor - (a) I hope you mean that terrorism is an infection, not that Palestinians are?; (b) if you do mean that terrorism is an infection, I think that targeted killing of terrorists is justifiable (much more so than 'collective punishment') *if it works*; if it just leads to more escalation, then it becomes less justifiable; (c) there is such a thing as the immune mechanism ending up harming the host body - this often happens literally, and it also often happens metaphorically when a country or a region stays too long in war mode - another reason for negotiations for peace long-term.

I would have been more pleased if you had followed that with something like - "But I know you are not a racist so there's only one reasonable way to take your statement".

Aside from my sensitivities, I much prefer negotiations over violence, which I have restated many times in this forum. I have also pointed out that there is a large moral chasm between aggressive violence, attacking someone to get what you want - and defensive violence, defending people from those attacks. Negotiations can prevent both kinds of violence. But I think that treating both kinds as equivalent is a serious error. It's an error that will result in more violence when the aggressor realizes that there's no downside to attacking his neighbor, that the worst that can happen is that his target gets punished equally for what he started. Or when the aggressor realizes that by attacking his neighbor's state and failing, the worst that will happen is his target will will be forced to share the land the aggressor wanted to take by force.

I think I understand where you are coming from. I think many liberals have a very ambiguous and irrational view of violence, a view that causes many independents and centrists who seem to have a better grasp of human nature, to vote for the right when there is any risk of violence being directed against one's own society - as in the aftermath of 9/11 or the London tube bombings. That effect is largely why GWB won his second term. Kerry was smeared as a weak liberal peacenik - who shared Jane Fonda's views and wore fake purple hearts. Even though that was completely unfounded, many independents (and probably some centrists and even Dems) who couldn't think for themselves - didn't want to take a chance that it was true.

My point is not that the RW is right on this. It's that some liberals are wrong on it and it damages liberalism and creates more violence in the world. As a liberal I'm against violence - so I'm doing what I can to argue my position using reason.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. There's no 'subtle cultural differences' when it comes to the language of dehumanisation...

And it's not about misunderstanding someone else. I explained why the use of infection metaphors is unacceptable, no matter who it's aimed at. I didn't say anything about the intent of anyone in this forum using that sort of language. If someone from Eastern Europe were to use language similar to that the Nazis used about Jews and trot out some language of dehumanisation regarding Jews, would anyone be sitting around wondering if they misunderstood them and maybe it's down to subtle cultural differences? Of course not, because there are some things where the intent matters far less than the fact this language is being echoed by people nowadays...

[Name removed]

11. 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.

[Lerkfish]

15. but referring to them as "infections" is okeydokey in your book?

especially since the host/infection metaphor works better in the opposite direction, considering who was actually invaded.

[msmcghee]

16. Response . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=197387&mesg_id=197820

Re-reading these exchanges and . .

. . giving your argument as much weight as possible, the sentence preceding the one you say is racist was,

"If Israel ended the occupation, allowed unlimited right of return and paid billions in compensation - I suspect there would be fewer Palestinians trying to kill Jews."

If I had been more careful I would inserted a paragraph break there. But, that sentence was in response to oberliner's previous statement,

"The policy seems to have the effect of pushing more Palestinians to embrace a violent ideology vis-a-vis Israel, rather than one of peaceful co-existence and reconciliation."

I think if you look at it again you will see that is obviously my intention. Without the para break and without the context I can see how someone could see a possibility for bigotry in there - so your point is not entirely unfounded.

Oberliner raised two questions. I answered them in one paragraph. I was careless.

For the record, I will state here categorically that my intention was not to refer to Palestinians as an infection.

Now if you notice, I have done everything I possibly can to disavow any implication that I intended to say that Palestinians are an infection.

And if you notice, you have just said specifically that there is justification for saying that Jews are an infection on the Palestinians.

. . specially since the host/infection metaphor works better in the opposite direction, considering who was actually invaded.

There is no ambiguity here, no possibility of misunderstanding what you said. I wonder why there are not several posters calling you a racist and a Nazi right now.

[Lerkfish]

19. ummm...riiiiiiiiight.

you keep on with that. alerted. twice now.
what a chickenshit bullshit trap to set for people.

first, you sling an outrageous racist comment, and when I call you on it, you attack ME for being racist.


how pathetic. you DID misunderstand my point completely, but that's okay for a kneejerk reactionary.

[LeftishBrit]

20. How about not using that metaphor at all, given that it's now established that it's easy to

misunderstand?

And are you implying that all of Israel is an 'invasion', or just the occupation?

[Lerkfish]

21. the occupation

I agree, the term is wrong, which is WHY I OBJECTED TO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

calling someone a racist does not make one a racist.

[Vegasaurus]

6. That's true

Hamas has grown exponentially more powerful, with more powerful weapons, supplied by Iran, smuggled through our ally, Egypt. Hamas is very clear in its intentions, and intends to follow through on them.

The only thing that will end this 60 years of violence is for the Jews to literally be driven out, for them to pack up and leave Israel. Then the Arabs can smugly say, "game/match"; however, their problems won't end there, because Jews and Israel are only a scapegoat for their own sectarian and gang struggles.

However, Israel won't go anywhere without a fight, so I expect things to get worse, if that is possible.

[eyl]

7. Depends in what respect

You'll note the drastic drop in suicide attacks (which are much more lethal than Qassams) - especially inside Israel - a drop which began well before the much-touted Hamas "cease-fire".