Was Israel justified in attacking a target on Syrian soil? Poll

[dArKeR]

Was Israel justified in attacking a target on Syrian soil?
Yes
1695 votes (25 %)
No
4954 votes (75 %)

Total Votes: 6649

http://theglobeandmail.com/ top right side

[wakfs]

1. How many Israelis must be killed

before Israel is "justified" in striking back?

What's the number? Just curious.

[Flying_Pig]

2. As it now stands that approx. three Palestinians have been killed

for every Israeli, the question could be asked in reverse as well.

[Fozzledick]

18. So now you blame Israel

for the Palestinians killed by Palestinians?

Besides, hasn't Arafat called for a million "martyrs".

How dare those Israelis defend themselves! How dare they survive!!

[bluesoul]

19. What?

What do you mean Palestinians killed by Palestinians? You know very well he's talking about those killed by the IDF (check BTselem.org for more detailed info) So now those killed by the Israelis are actually killed by Palestinians themselves!? Where has this world gone? I should pinch myself to realize whether I am still on DU or some other forum. Oh....:(

[Fozzledick]

20. No, he's counting ALL Palestinian deaths

That includes not only the suicide bombers and the many Palestinians they've killed in their terrorist attacks on the general Israeli population, but also those killed while attacking Israeli forces (I know, it's the Israeli's fault for defending themselves), as well as those lynched for cooporating with the Israeli authorities to try to prevent terrorist attacks (as required under the Helsinki accords).

Moreover, it strikes me as blatently disingenuous as well as grossly hypocritical to claim victimhood and complain about casualties after embarking on a terrorist campaign against civilians based on suicide bombings and martyrdom ideology.

[bluesoul]

21. Main point

Good try, but it doesn't work. Those killed by the IDF and other Israelis are clearly specified and not related to the deaths caused by their own people. As I said check BTSelem.org for details. You will clearly see the distinctions, even to the detail of whether the victims were killed by soldiers or civilians (Israeli or Palestinian). Basically he is right. IDF killed 3 times as many CIVILIANS (Not counting any members of various military groups or those killed by Palestinians) then the Palestinians. To some that may not mean much, to others it may mean a lot. Sorry

[Fozzledick]

22. What it means to me

Is that the Palestinian terrorist groups backed by the confrontation state's intelligence services have chosen to use their own people as cannon fodder.
:puke:

[bluesoul]

24. jeezus

Oh yes, that's an argument to bring. I am sure the FR folks would love to accept such reasoning...

[ermoore]

26. Ok, but . . .

Sure the IDF has killed three times as many Palestinian civilians, but take a closer look at who is being killed. 80% (or maybe it's 85%) of the Palestinians are men between the ages of 15 and 40. On the other hand, the Israeli casualties are much more balanced between men and women and among various age groups. Of course this reflects the fact that the vast majority of Israelis who are killed are civilians doing civilian things (like going to the market, riding a bus, eating in a restaurant, etc.), while the vast majority of Palestinians killed are "civilians" doing "terrorist" things (like blowing themselves up, attacking the IDF, etc., all in order to maximize the murdering of Israeli men, women, and children).

Look, the point is that whatever you say about other Israeli policies (i.e. the wall, the settlements, etc.), the IDF goes out of it's way to not kill Palestinian "civilians-who-aren't-trying-to-destroy-Israel." Unfortunately, innocents are inevitably killed (especially considering the fact that the terrorists chose to engage IDF forces in civilian areas.

[ermoore]

27. Follow up.

Waited too long to add as an edit. I got my stats from a hardcopy of a magazine, which I don't have with me, but Gimel was kind enough to have posted a pretty good link that backs up what I said (as does Blue Soul's link, but Gimel's is easier to read). Gimel's site also has an in depth summary (which we should all read). http://www.ict.org.il/ Anyways, my numbers in my first post were a little off. It's actually the case that more than 95% of the Palestinian deaths so far have been male (90.4% of the "noncombatant" deaths, "noncombatant" being a term I use loosely). The Israeli figures are about 70/30 male to female (about 60/40 when you knock out the IDF deaths). I said I use the term "noncombatant" loosely when referring to Palestinians because of the fact that . . . well, look, just read the study. I'll paste a chunk of the conclusion at the bottom, but it's worth it to read it on your own. It's not that long.

On edit: For the link, click on "Arab-Israeli Conflict" and then click "Statistical Report Summary." And thanks again Gimel for a worthy link. (And I now have more than 200 posts . . .)


"The statistics show that Israeli noncombatants over the last 23 months have been killed essentially at random, as Palestinian terrorists have chosen to attack whichever civilian targets were accessible. Palestinian fatalities, however, have been strongly concentrated within a particular population segment – teenaged boys and young men.

"Population segments like women or older people are not military targets; thus their higher prevalence among Israeli fatalities is an indication of the degree to which Palestinian terrorists have killed Israelis simply for the “crime” of being Israeli.

"In contrast, Palestinian noncombatant fatalities have been overwhelmingly young (but over the age of 11) and male. This pattern of Palestinian deaths completely contradicts accusations that Israel has “indiscriminately targeted women and children.” It is clear that the vast majority of the Palestinians killed did not die as the result of random Israeli attacks on inhabited areas, or on mixed-sex crowds at roadblocks and the like. There appears to be only one reasonable explanation of this pattern: that Palestinian men and boys engaged in behavior that brought them into conflict with Israeli armed forces. Certainly, at least after the first few days of the conflict, these Palestinian men and boys (or, in the case of the younger ones, their parents and teachers) have to have been aware that they were placing themselves in harm’s way.

"In fact, the highly specific pattern of Palestinian noncombatant fatalities suggests that many of these deaths have resulted from an active Palestinian indoctrination campaign glorifying “martyrdom” – effectively encouraging boys and young men to confront Israeli forces and risk death even when there was no real likelihood of causing material harm to Israelis."

[bluesoul]

28. BS

Teenage boys and "young" men that are civilians are not legitimate targets. You can twist it anyway you like and find any justifications you can think of, it doesn't change the facts. The IDF or Israel has no higher moral ground in the matter, far from it! That's why I will never support such policy and their actions, just as I don't support terrorist attacks. In the end the lives of the innocents are what matters. And there it's Israel that's leading the killings...Like it or not

[ermoore]

32. Think again.

No, teenage boys and "young" men are legitimate targets when they are attacking Israelis. An AK-47, grenade, or any other weapon is just as effective at killing Israeli citizens or soldiers whether it is in the hands of a 16 year old or a 21 year old. If Israel was just targeting innocent Palestinian youngsters then don't you figure that the number of children less than 12 yrs old and the number of women killed would be much higher? That's because the IDF are the good guys.

Do you think the Palestinians have the moral high ground? Remember back in Jenin (I think it was Jenin) more than a year or so ago, several Israeli soldiers were killed because they didn't shoot a young boy who approached them and just happened to be strapped with explosives. Yeah the people who did that . . . shit, there aren't words bad enough to even describe them . . .

[rini]

29. 2 out of 3

Palestinians who have been killed were terrorists. You make a mockery of of the deliberate murder of Israeli children and civilians.

[Darranar]

30. 1 out of 2...

is closer.

[bluesoul]

31. More of the neocon vocabulary

So all those children, minors, women, babies killed were terrorists? And if they weren't they would eventually become one since they are Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims? Give me a break!

[ermoore]

33. More ridiculous arguments.

No, all those children, minors, women, babies killed were what happens when gunfights break out in civilian populated areas.

Did you read that link, or did you just choose to remain ignorant? The point is that the number Palestinian "noncombatants" killed is remarkabely low, about 36%, or about 1 in 3 (compared with 78% Israeli "noncombatant" deaths, or more than 3 in 4). Of those the number who are women and children (less than age 12) is about 8% (compared with 35% for the Israelis).

In any case, Rini wasn't talking about the one-third of Palestinian casualties that the study declared to be "noncombatant," and in my opinion it looks like they were being to generous in declaring some to be "noncombatants." Rini was referring to the two-thirds (i.e. the vast majority) of Palestinian casualties that were with little to no doubt "combatant" deaths. You know, you may buy into that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" bullshit, but when someone's main goal is murder innocent civilians, for any cause, that person is a terrorist (and subsequently, a piece of excrement).

[bluesoul]

34. Low?!?

36% is low to you? More important then the percentage is the TOTAL number of killed civilians, which is 3 times higher as far as Israels crimes are concerned. No wonder you would want to twist those numbers. Not even mentioning the illegal occupation, illegal settlements, destruction of property,agriculuture, water reservates, daily raids, and making the normal life of an average Palestinian impossible. You just see one side. You don't even try to see whats on the other....

[Darranar]

35. That 36% statistic i s likely wrong...

50% is closer.

[rooboy]

3. Can you please post some stats...

on the number of Israelis killed and also on the number of Palestinians killed? I'm curious too.

[elduderino]

6. not sure on numbers, but the ratio is -

for every israeli killed approx four palestinians are killed...

[Flying_Pig]

7. I'll have to look for them. I've seen them many times though...

usually posted by Resistance, and/or, Indiana Green. All were from credible sources.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

8. Todays WaPo gives some stats

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49085-2003Oct5.html

"... the second intifada, which has continued almost uninterrupted for three years, leading to the deaths of more than 2,800 Palestinians and 800 Israelis, according to the United Nations."

Odds are 7:2. Howzat for stat?

[wakfs]

11. Given those odds...

...The Palestinian terrorist organizations' strategy of killing Israelis would seem to be a monumental failure then.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

15. A strategy of killing

Both sides seem to have such a strategy. A strategy that includes killing is a colossal moral failure. Blame can be spread all around. Nobody gets MY sympathy.

If the Palestinians have a strategy, it seems to be martyrdom with collateral damage. It is incomprehensible to westerners and Israelis, but it plays pretty well to the target audience, other Muslims. It certainly isn't winning the hearts and minds of Israelis or their supporters. This strategy has no morality. The nicest thing you can say about it is that it's stupid.

The Israeli strategy seems to be massive brute force retaliation, to kill 3.5 Palestinians in for every Israeli killed. I suppose this plays pretty well to people who don't believe a Palestinian life has as much value as an Israeli life. This isn't "justice" though, and only justice (or fair play if you will) will win the hearts and minds of Palestinians. Because Israel is so much more incredibly powerful, this strategy is morally equivalent to shooting fish in a barrel. Granted, some of the fish may be sharks, but they're in a barrel nevertheless. The nicest thing you can say about this strategy is that it puts points on the board.

[wakfs]

17. I tend to agree

But I also think that both sides, propelled by the emotions of hatred and vengeance and not by intellect or logic, will continue playing this horrific game ad nauseum. And as a nonpracticing Jew, I also fall victim to this cycle (well, they attacked us first, they had their chance for a country back in 1948, Arafat is the original terrorist, etc.). It is an awful situation to be sure.

It would take an incredibly courageous leader on either side to stop the madness. Seems to me that if both peoples live side by side peacefully, everybody will benefit.

How sad.

[bluesoul]

12. Statistics

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/index.asp

Israeli site

[Gimel]

25. No category for "own side"

B'Tselem site is not complete or the selections fail to show.

The better source for numbers is:

http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm

[Scurrilous]

4. How does....

....'striking back' solve anything? Just curious.

[Fozzledick]

23. By destroying the aggressor's ability to attack

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[wakfs]

9. Now now

I never said that. I was just asking a question.

No need to jump to conclusions. Like many people, I too would like to see peace in the Middle East.

[Brucey]

10. There is no such number.

Killing is wrong.

[Evil_Dewers]

13. C'mon...

The US only kills terrorists and Israel only targets senior Hamas leaders. The 'collateral damage' is what Rummy would refer to as "unfortuate." ;)

I don't understand the Israel apologists here. Maybe they only get their news about Israel and Palestine from the pro-Israel US media.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. Neither the US or Israel needs justification to attack any country

Any resistance or opposition to Israel or the US is terrorism.

[Evil_Dewers]

16. Of course it is terrorism... ;-)

Anyone who believes US and Israel are not terrorist countries who have terrorized the Afghani and Iraqi and Palestinian and Syrian people is a fool.