This pretty much sums it rather well. The Israelis defend their children while the PLO uses children for human shields and suicide bombers.

that's a childishly simplistic and incorrect view of the entire situation. Unfortunately Sixgun, the world just isn't as simple as that. Israel's armed forces have just killed a 14 year old schoolboy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3467987.stm) - was he being used as a shield? No. He was walking home from school when an Israeli missile struck. And members of Hamas have carried out similar atrocities against Israelis. I'm not siding with either side - they're both in the wrong.

and your point is?

I could go searching for a picture of the body of the 14 year old Palestinian boy who was killed by the Israeli missile, but I really can't see the point in playing a childish game of "this atrocity is worse than that one".

Both sides are killing innocent people. Both sides are commiting atrocities. I'm just not so stupid as to try and dumb it down into "goodies" and "baddies".

Since Israeli soldiers have deliberately shot and killed clearly marked neutral observers and shot missiles into residential areas regardless of the consequences (such as the incident above where the 14 year old boy was killed) then, yes, the Israelis also kill innocent people on purpose. Both sides are as bad as each other. I know it's politically expedient to divide the world into goodies and baddies, but the grown-up reality is seldom so clear.

Hows this do you...
the Israeli Army targeting Civilians...

Under the law of many countries you will find that if you kill someone because you knowingly disregard their safety, even if you don't specifically intend to kill them, then that is the same as murder. That's certainly true here in Scotlnd. In any western country you will still find that it is a very serious crime. The same principles apply.

Of course, this is all notwithstanding the fact that the Israelis 'struck the civilian population consciously, because they deserved it.' Your Manichean world view is wrong-headed and leads you to strange conclusions. Ditch it.

But not if you are a government taking military action against a military target and there is inevitable collateral damage. That is not murder because this is not a citizen against citizen context. This is the context of war.

Targetting any military unit among the civilian population is in direct violation of the Geneva Convetion.
It is a war crime.
ooooo ahhh

Also:
Latest estimates suggest that the Israeli army has killed 2,750 Palestinian civilians in the last three years. 892 Israeli civilians have died in suicide attacks. This represents a ratio of just over 3:1 in Palestinian deaths as compared to Israeli deaths. The Israeli leadership has repeatedly claimed that their actions against the Palestinians are part and parcel of the same "war on terror" being fought by the USA and the UK.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm

Oh please. That means that EVERY country that ever waged a war was in violation of the GC. When the PLO deliberately place their targets in civilian zones, who is to blame?

First, much of the Palestinian death toll is because the PLO hide among civilians and shoot from within crowds and don't wear military uniforms. They, the PLO, are causing much of the civilian deaths. The IDF goes out of its way to minimize civilian casualties, often taking casualties themselves to do so. Cf: Jenin. The suicide bombers deliberately target almost exclusively civilians.

Also:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=8792

Mis-reporting Palestinian Fatalities
By Tamar Sternthal
Camera.org | July 8, 2003

Misrepresenting civilian deaths in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, guest columnist Rashid Khalidi erroneously reported June 17 in the Los Angeles Times that “The U.S. media regularly fail to mention that three times as many Palestinians as Israelis–most on both sides civilians–have been killed since September 2000, when the second intifada began.” (“Can Hamas Cut a Deal for Peace?”)

Khalidi seriously overstated the percentage of Palestinian civilian casualties. According to the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, 2,329 Palestinians have died in the conflict between Sept. 2000 and June 15, 2003, and 785 have died on the Israeli side. On the Palestinian side, 867 were “non-combatants killed by the opposite side.” In contrast, on the Israeli side, 604 killed were non-combatants killed by the opposite side.” Thus, while it is true that at 76.9 percent, most Israelis killed were civilians, it is not true that most Palestinian fatalities were civilians. Only 37.2 percent of Palestinian fatalities were civilians. (See www.ict.org.il for details.)

In response to CAMERA’s requests for a correction, the Los Angeles Times wrote back that the editor, Nicholas Goldberg:

confirms the figures in the opinion piece. Rashid Khalidi gave as his source the statistics provided by B’Tselem. The B’Tselem site (www.btselem.org) says that since September 2000, there have been a total of 2,103 Palestinians killed (this is from the list of total Palestinians killed, which doesn’t break it down by civilian or non-civilian). Then, the month-to-month deaths shows that since September 2000, there have been 1,732 “Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli security forces.” The editor has told me that he finds that source a credible one to support the contention as stated in the essay that “most" killed on the Palestinian side have been civilian.

After reviewing B’Tselem’s detailed lists of month-by-month Palestinian casualties, it is easy to understand why their numbers are so different from ICT’s. B’Tselem has a very loose definition of the term “civilian,” (to say the least!) including countless Palestinians who were killed while they attacked Israelis, like opening fire at a bat mitzah celebration in Hadera, killing six and injuring 35, setting off bombs, infiltrating Israeli communities and killing or injuring residents, and fighting with Israeli troops.

For example, out of the 31 Palestinians listed under B’Tselem’s category “Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories,” 13 were engaged in attacks at the time of their death. Fortunately, B’Tselem provides useful details about the attacks launched by these Palestinian “civilians.” Representative incidents include:

* Dec. 24, 2001: Jamil Mouhammad Abu ‘Adwan, killed by gunfire of an Israeli civilian whom he and two other Palestinians had shot and severely injured at Ramin Junction

* Feb. 22, 2002: Tawfiq a-Shimali, killed by an Israeli civilian’s gunfire, after having operated an explosive device in a supermarket in the settlement Efrat

* March 18, 2002: Muhammad ‘Awad, killed by Israeli civilian gunfire in Netzarim settlement, after he entered the settlement and shot a soldier to death

* May 17, 2002: ‘Ali Idris Hamdan, killed in the settlement of Beit El by the security officer of the settlement, after Hamdan entered the settlement and stabbed the security officer

Likewise, similar cases abound in the lists of “Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli security forces in Israel.”

* Jan. 17, 2002: ‘Abd a-Salam Sadeq Hasouna, killed by IDF gunfire after having fire at Israeli civilians in a Hadera banquet hall, killing 6 guests at a bat mitzvah

* Nov. 28, 2002: ‘Omar Mahmoud Abu Rub and Yusef Muhammad Abu Rub, killed by border police gunfure after they entered Beit She’an, opened fire, and killed six Israeli civilians

These cases are innumerable, thereby disqualifying B’Tselem as a source “credible to support the contention as stated in the essay that ‘most’ killed on the Palestinian side have been civilian.” CAMERA pointed out B’Tselem’s redefinition of the word “civilian” to the Times on July 3. Nevertheless, on July 7, Khalidi’s error still stands uncorrected, suggesting the Los Angeles Times may be no more credible than B’Tselem.

Thank you for that information dgg.

And when a country or organization attacks a military target that is near or surrounded by a civilian population(A civilian population is anything ranging from 1 civilian to an infinite amount) without using weapons capable of discerning between civilian and military targets(cluster bombs are unable to do that, napalm and so on and so forth) they are guilty of war crimes.

I have no life, so I know a little bit about the Geneva Convention

Again, your description includes every single country that ever waged a war, so it's not very useful.

Every single country that has waged a war AFTER 1948(or was it 49?).


It's also designed to help make it so that civilians are protected, although it has yet to work because actions such as finding someone guilty of War Crimes(Like Bush Sr.) have minimal to no real impact. If they made it so there was more impact on these things it'd be far better.

Every single country that has ever waged war from the cavemen to now.

Here on Planet Earth, there's always a trade-off: if a military target is important enough and the civilian collateral damage small enough, you make the strike. For example, when the IDF hears of a PLO terrorist hiding (as always) in a residental block, they may choose to launch a bomb, knowing that some civilians may die, BUT knowing that killing that terrorist will definitely save many more innocent Israeli civilians fom being atrociously slaughtered later.

Whose fault is this? The PLO thug, for a) being a terrorist and b) hiding among civilians.

Is it a grim choice? Yes. But is it mandatory? Yes.

ok sox gun and jlb, i do not have a problem with rational consevatism , in fact i find it a healthy balance and check to liberalism. But ......jesus , have'nt you guys heard of the scietific principle? or the weight of emperical evidence? NOTHING is black and white like that, NOTHING. And quite frankly no issue as serious as the middle east is simple in any way, you have to take into consideration a few certain factors- isreals invasion of lebanon, as well as egypt. The religious and cultural differences......and on and on and on. For once take a look at the damned facts and try to form some sort of cohesive pattern as to how these pieces might fit together ok? This is a serious issue that requires as any a broader and less prejudicial viewpoint.

Nothing is black or white, yet that is often used as an excuse to engage in moral relativism: since both sides are imperfect, they are therefore exactly the same.

But this is nonsense. If all we have are shades of grey, it's important to grasp the relative hues. Israel is an imperfect democracy and fundamentally decent. The PLO are murdering thugs. The PA is a corrupt gangster regime.

By any empirical measure, Israel is about 100x more decent than the PLO.

Actually every single country that has accepted the Geneva Conventions as the rules for blah blah and blah.

Also it isn't mandatory. You can move in with a small surgical strike team designed for urban attacks and take out the person that way, or a single assassin. Using a bomb is the lazy man's way of doing things.

And every single one that has been in a war has violated them.

I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about. When you get fleeting intel that your target is at this address, and will be for an hour or two, you can't always get specops troops to that location, unannounced, especially if it's not your country. And even if you could, the possibility always exists for collateral damage. Always.