Hamas official: Israeli settlers are a legitimate military target

[oberliner]

Israeli settlers in the West Bank are legitimate targets since they are an army in every sense of the word, a senior Hamas official told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday, adding that Palestinians were still committed to an armed struggle against Israel.

The comment by Ezzat al-Rashk, a member of Hamas's political office, came in the wake of recent attacks against Israeli citizens in the West Bank.

On Tuesday, four Israelis were killed when unknown assailants opened fire at a vehicle they were traveling in near the West Bank city of Hebron. The following night, two Israelis were wounded in a similar shooting attack at the Rimonim Junction near the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Earlier Thursday, Palestinian sources told Haaretz that the Palestinian security forces had apprehended two Hamas-affiliated Hebron residents suspected to have been involved in the deadly shooting attack on Tuesday.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-official-israeli-settlers-are-a-legitimate-military-target-1.312108

[USArmyParatrooper]

1. How about this pregnant woman they targeted? Was she a legit target?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100831/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_talks

JERUSALEM – Palestinian gunmen opened fire Tuesday on an Israeli car in the West Bank and killed four passengers on the eve of a new round of Mideast peace talks in Washington. The Islamic militant group Hamas claimed responsibility.

Assailants firing from a passing car riddled the vehicle with bullets as it traveled near Hebron — a volatile city that has been a flash point of violence in the past. Some 500 ultranationalist Jewish settlers live in heavily fortified enclaves in the city amid more than 100,000 Palestinians.

One of the victims was pregnant, said police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld. Israel's national rescue service said the victims were two men and two women, and Israeli media said everyone in the car was killed.

[Crunchy Frog]

93. When I was pregnant I studiously avoided placing myself

in violent combat zones. I also tried to stay out of places where my presence was illegal.

[hayu_lol]

2. I note from the article(link)that HAMAS fired...

another of their Mickey Mouse rockets at Israel. Hit someplace in the deserted Negev without damage.

Oh those peaceful Palestinians. Claiming civilians are a prime 'military' target. Wonder what the outcry would be here on this thread if Israel started to fire unaimed rockets into Gaza or the West Bank?

You kinder and gentler folk here who really admire the cowards of the Palestinian organizations ought to put up an outcry at your team for a change.

[parkia00]

5. First of all...

Hamas ain't MY team.

Second, I don't see anywhere in the recent days where any DU member who supports the right of Palestinian civilians have opened up there arms and applauded actions of Hamas. Where did you see that?

Thirdly, when Hamas or any Palestinian militant groups do some outrage such as this they are routinely condemned here on DU. I'm surprised you didn't see it. Maybe you somehow missed it. Or glanced past it.

Fourthly, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Thus there list of "approved" targets are very wide. Basically anything they feel like. The IDF is not a terrorist organization. Thus they are generally expected to follow certain "rules" of engagement as being the most moral army in the world and all that. The IDF can easily change their rules of engagement to match Hamas if they want but they better not expect to use their most moral army in the world singing point anymore.

And the fifth. Don't start equating all the Palestinians under one banner. "Oh those peaceful Palestinians" Not all Gazans are fanatical Hamas followers ready to throw themselves at Israel at a moments notice. Many normal Palestinians just want to live their lives the best they can. ANd you know that. Yet...

Finally the sixth. This is just another reminder of how important it is to try to achieve peace there. For that to happen both sides better start to learn to love their children more than they hate their enemies. Without that, all attempts at peace will be futile.

On a side note. I have noticed when some fanatical group from Israel does something to the Palestinians; like say attack Palestinians villages and uprooting olive trees and the like, there is hardly a squeak from the people on one side. Maybe both sides of the equation "ought to put up an outcry at your team for a change" Yes?

[whosinpower]

3. They are sounding desperate

I say it again - if, by some miracle (and it would take a miracle) Abbas and Netanyahu managed to find a solution that provided both parties with success - then Hamas power base is greatly hampered.

The more they ratchet up the violent attacks, the more desperate they become - not for the rights of palistinians - but for their own legitimacy. Politically, on the world stage, they have just isolated themselves. And, if the Arab Quartet normalize all relations with Israel - Hamas will either have to change radically to survive, or disappear from illegitimacy....without support of any Arab states - they are finished.

[sellitman]

4. As long as Hamas is in charge there will be no peace

They don't want a State next to Israel. They won't settle for anything but the complete destruction of the Jewish State ever.

[hayu_lol]

6. HAMAS was elected...

not self-appointed.

[shira]

7. Hamas self-appointed themselves rulers of Gaza....they were never elected for that role.

They won a parliamentary majority, not the dictatorship of all Gaza.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Their role in Gaza was determined by AK-47, not the ballot

They have remained in power there the same way.

[Recursion]

39. But they did win the election

And Fatah tried seize power, and Hamas ejected them from Gaza (and remember, Fatah more or less ejected Hamas from the West Bank at the same time). How that gets spun as Hamas staging a "coup" -- when they won the election -- is beyond me.

[shira]

60. So? The PA was in charge of security and had every right to disarm Hamas. n/t

[Chulanowa]

43. Not quite correct

Hamas won the elections.
Fatah staged a violent coup attempt.
Hamas kicked their asses.
They remain in power because it's not an election year yet.

[shira]

61. No, Hamas winning parliamentary majority doesn't give them the right to rule militarily. n/t

[Chulanowa]

65. That has fuck all to do with anything I said, I'm afraid

[shira]

68. Actually it does. Even if Hamas loses in elections, they will continue to rule Gaza by gun....

...and you'll somehow find justification for that too.

[Chulanowa]

77. They very well might do that. And I'm worried that they will

And you'll be quite wrong about my response if that's how it goes down.

What will your response be if they actually win? Or if they lose, and withdraw for the winners peacefully? Hey, it could happen.

[shira]

79. My response....

There won't be another election.

If by some remote chance there was one and they lost, there's no way they'd give up their power in Gaza and allow Fatah to go medieval against them. Hamas and Fatah hate each other almost as much as they hate their common enemy.

[Chulanowa]

95. Well, let's hope we're both pleasantly surprised n/t

[oberliner]

71. You seriously believe that Fatah staged a violent coup attempt?

This is beyond even what the vaunted Vanity Fair article says - which is that they were planning to stage a coup but it was pre-empted by Hamas before it could ever be attempted.

[Recursion]

84. So it was like the 6 day war

If you know the other guy is going to attack, you attack him first.

[oberliner]

85. Well, I don't entirely buy the Hamas/Vanity Fair version of what happened

Just as I am sure there are some people out there who don't entirely buy the Israeli version of what happened in the lead up to the Six-Day War.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

108. They remain in power because the US, Israel and Fatah don't want elections.

Pretty simple.

[sellitman]

14. Hamas is the reason Gaza suffers.

Believe what you want about the so called election. If the Palestinians want peace they need to understand Hamas is an impediment to a better life.

[Chulanowa]

44. Channeling Madeline Albright, are we? n/t

[Ken Burch]

9. Actually, Hamas has indicated a willingness to consider a two-state approach

But it will be harder to get them to accept that for sure if the Israeli government keeps changing "Judea and Samaria" and keeps building settlements it KNOWS are illegal and inflammatory.

I think, or at least I hope, we can all agree that Netanyahu is wrong to want the Palestinian state to be as small as possible, since insisting on a small state will guarantee that any Palestinian leadership that accepts a too-small state will immediately and automatically be discredited in the eyes of rank-and-file Palestinians and immediately replaced by a more militant and less-cooperative Palestinian leadership(as the continued illegal settlement construction during Oslo inevitably caused Fatah to be discredited and replaced by Hamas in the first place).

[shira]

10. Hamas has called for a limited ceasefire based on 2 states with full RoR. n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

109. Oh the HORROR!!!! 2 states with R-o-R!!!! OMG!!!

That's about the size of it honey!

[sellitman]

15. Hamas has only claimed they want total destruction of the Zionist State

Where have you seen them show even the slightest inkling for a 2 state solution?

[Ken Burch]

8. I oppose what Hamas did to these people....

Nonetheless, its fair to ask if Israel hasn't blurred the lines about who is and isn't innocent through its insistence on conscripting everybody into the IDF and on its requirement that all settlers be armed.

Can we not hold the Israeli government at least somewhat responsible for what happens to these settlers, both through its insistence on militarizing every aspect of this situation and through its insistence on inventing the settler movement(as Sharon did when he was IDF chief-of-staff in the early 70's)and encouraging them to live in what that government knew would be a combat zone?

The victims themselves were innocent...but the government that put them in this situation may not be.

[issy98]

27. You should have stopped before

"Nonetheless"

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

33. Human shields are always morally problematic

Whether they're settlers or civilians in Gaza: politicians put them there to make it politically costly for the enemy to prosecute a war.

[shira]

35. "Human-shield". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. n/t

[Recursion]

37. It means exactly what I'm saying it means

Settlers were put into harm's way, deliberately, to make it more difficult for Palestinians to reclaim their land, and make any attempt to do so by force involve civilian casualties. It's the same exact logic by which Hizbullah puts its missile launchers near day care centers.

[oberliner]

51. Wouldn't all Israelis be "human sheilds" by that definition?

All of the Israelis living in Israel are there deliberately to make it more difficult for Palestinians to reclaim their land and make any attempt to do so by force involve civilian casualties.

How could the settlers be considered human shields while the Israelis living in Israel not?

[Recursion]

52. Only for the "into the sea" crowd

Of which I am not a member.

[oberliner]

54. I don't agree with your analysis here

See my post on your other human shield comment down thread.

I don't think the term works in this case.

I think that it is clear that these people who were killed were themselves the actual target.

I am not sure that you can point to another target that these human shields were somehow protecting.

[shaayecanaan]

73. Apparently all Palestinians are...

The "human shield" excuse is invoked pretty much any time that Israel kills Palestinian civilians. It is of course an alibi that is notoriously easy to invoke.

There are obvious problems with trotting out the old "human shield" excuse:-

1) first and foremost, the humans don't seem to have any shielding properties. Israel has proven time and time again that it is willing to kill civilians en route to whatever military objectives it is allegedly pursuing.

2) the phrase "human shield" conjures up images of Hamas shooting mortars from the middle of a playground whilst schoolchildren obligingly stand around ready to wave their half-severed limbs at BBC cameras. The problem is, short of physically strapping civilians to their backs, any attempt to use a "human shield" is dependent on the said humans hanging around in order to be used for that purpose. I can't imagine any sane Palestinian idly standing around a mortar pit, but apparently the hasbarados can.

On the other hand, I think their is a fair case that Israel cynically exploits the plight of Israelis in or near the occupied territories. The residents of Sderot requested to be evacuated during the Qassam strikes. Given that its a small town of 20 000 people it wouldnt have been logistically difficult to do so. On the other hand Israel preferred to have them under rocket fire for propaganda purposes, and every correspondent who applied for press certification was obligingly handed an inch-think wad of brochures depicting the poor residents of Sderot.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Shaktimaan]

104. except that it is very real.

You haven't heard of Palestinians using civilian shields to protect identified targets? It's a well known practice. Here...


Human shield deters Israel strike

The Israelis have called off a planned air attack on a house in Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza after hundreds of Palestinians formed a human shield.

Mohammedweil Baroud said he was warned by Israeli forces to leave his home. He instead ran to a mosque and summoned neighbours to help defend the house. Mr Baroud is a commander in the Popular Resistance Committees militant group.

The Israeli army often orders people out of homes ahead of attacks, saying it aims to avoid casualties. A Hamas commander at the scene said people had gathered to show that the demolition strategy of the Israelis could be defeated. An Israeli military spokesman confirmed to Reuters news agency that the raid had been called off because of the Palestinian action.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6162494.stm

Aside from that, ways human shields are usually used is by storing weapons inside of schools, mosques and residential homes. Places that are hard to bomb without incurring civilian casualties. As far as mortars go, a lot of the time the tubes are set up and test-fired for position, then mostly buried for a length of time, allowing militants to return and fire a few rounds easily from the protruding tube before leaving. It isn't like a reinforced position with sandbags and soldiers. Setting them up near schools and such isn't very difficult.

I would say that Israel actually takes a lot of precautions to try and avoid hurting civilians whenever it can. Jenin is a good example. It actually sent in soldiers to go from block to block there. If Israel really didn't care about civilian casualties they would have just bombed the place.

When did the residents of Sderot ask to be evacuated en masse?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveMuslim]

110. Let's be clear: the 1.3 million in Gaza weren't "put there" by Palestinian

leaders. In the most densely populated strip of land on the face of the earth, there is NO PLACE in Gaza that is free of civilians.

The situation in WB settlements is completely and utterly different. Those who live in settlements outside the bedroom communities choose to live there with full knowledge they they have no legal right to be there.

[Ken Burch]

50. Why is it so important to have people say

"Hamas did a bad thing and that's all that matters"?

Why is it unacceptable to point out that these things don't happen out of sheer irrationality?

Are you saying a person can't condemn something that Hamas does, do so sincerely, and then still point out that it isn't just about what happened at that particular moment?

And why is it inadmissable to point out that some choices made by the Israeli government have, in fact, increased(and possibly knowingly increased)the possibility of things like this happening?

It's not a simple "good vs. evil" situation. And the Israeli side is not entitled to morally condemn anybody, because it isn't morally superior(if it was, it wouldn't have constructed the settlements).

[shira]

28. self-delete. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

11. I don't think Hamas is right, but

I also don't think that Israeli civilians belong in the West Bank.

I wonder what would happen to Palestinians if they tried to "settle" on Israeli territory.

[Dick Dastardly]

12. No need to wonder, we know what has happened to

Palestinians/Arabs/non Jews who settled in Israeli territory. They became Israeli citizens, they vote, go to college, get social services, they serve in many areas in the Israeli government like MPs, cabinet posts, supreme court justices, judges and have also served in the IDF attaining top level ranks such as major general.
They have full equal rights and have vastly more freedom and civil rights than they would in any other Arab country. While there is certainly discrimination that exists in Israel as it does on some level in all countries, it has greatly improved over the years and continues to do so. Israel is a young country and when you compare the progress its made on discrimination in its short life to other liberal democracies like the US and those in Europe who have had more time to work it out, then we see Israel is not doing too bad. This is especially true when you consider the long term conflict Israel has been involved in that the US, Europe and others don't have to worry about.


On the other hand what happened to Jews who had settled in areas that came under Arab control? Many were killed and all were 100% ethnically cleansed from their homes such as in E Jerusalem which was majority Jewish since 1850 but were 100% ethnically cleansed in 1948.


Also what happened to Jews in other Arab countries? They faced harsh discrimination, had no civil rights, were legally second class citizens, were massacred in one riot after another or by government forces, faced pogroms, stripped of their possessions, brutally treated and faced many other mistreatment.


That said
The settlements municipal boundaries only occupy about 4-5% of the W Bank and about 90% of the settler population lives on settlements adjacent to the Green Line and will become part of Israel in any peace deal. I also believe only about 25% of the settlers are the religious nutters, the rest are there more for economic reasons.
The 25% are the ones who are putting up the illegal hilltop settlements that usually mostly consist of trailers. The 25% are the ones causing much of the problems that stems from settlers. They are the ones uprooting trees, destroy crops, harass Palestinians and engage in violence and terror against Palestinians.
Fuck them and the trailer they rode in on.

In order to stop them, limit the conflict of removing them and make a peace deal go smoother. The GOI should let them know if they continue to put up hilltop settlements they do so at their own risk because when a peace deal comes to pass they and those that refuse to vacate settlement areas that will become part of the new Palestinian state will become Palestinian citizens and or resident aliens in Palestine subject to Palestinian law. Whatever form it takes it will be something that will be negotiated into the peace deal. I would think that most would pull out before zero hour especially if some financial incentives were provided but I am sure a few will stay and that would be their choice. Doing something like this would avoid a lot of conflict and make it their choice.


Or we could put up a fence surrounding them, throw Hamas in there too and have a cage match on pay per view hosted by Mike Tyson and Don King. THE BRAWL AT THE WALL

[Chulanowa]

31. You make some bad arguments

Let's take this for example:

"and when you compare the progress its made on discrimination in its short life to other liberal democracies like the US and those in Europe who have had more time to work it out, then we see Israel is not doing too bad."

The United States started out two hundred years ago as a nation of monarchal slaveowners who regarded women and children as something akin to housepets and the native population as wild animals. They believed that only landed white males had any say at all in government affairs, and accusations of having some sort of "colored" ancestry (or beign a Catholic or jew...) was solid legal grounds for property confiscation.

The United Kingdom got its start shorty after the Roman occupation ended, and it was started by about thirty warring tribes of barbarians scattered across Albion and Cymru who's hobbies included raping the neighbor's women, stealing the neighbor's cows (or stealing the women and raping the cows) and using the neighbor's severed head as a home decoration. It was built on by successive invasions and conquests by mainland and Scandanavian hooligans, who introduced a continuous advancement of axe technology. it really got its wind when its king decided to stop taking off his old clothes and beheaded several women because his Y chromosome didn't want to work right, and then went about killing Catholics after splitting from their church.

Israel wasn't exactly founded by Picts, is what I'm getting at. Given where Israel started, it would appear to have actually moved backwards. if there is stil lan "Israel" in fifty years, I fully expect it to resemble Mali, at the rate it's backsliding.

[shaayecanaan]

74. So you consider Arab Israelis to be the settlers

when exactly did they "settle"?

[Chulanowa]

16. And?

What happens in the US, if I were to arm myself and start building a shantytown on someone else's property? I'd be a squatter, and the cops would come to drive me off. if the cops decided not to show up, the property owner is justified in doing so. No one is under any obligation to tolerate my theft. If I'm bringing my kids along for the confrontation, well, that just makes me an even bigger asshole, using them for human shields like that, now doesn't it?

I avoid this dangerous scenario through a simple method; I decide not to illegally occupy another person's property. if Israel followed the same methods, I imagine they'd fare a lot better.

[Shaktimaan]

17. let's follow your analogy more...

why is all of the OPT someone else's property? who decided that it's all palestinian land?

[Chulanowa]

21. Are you really asking this?

"Why is the OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES someone else's property?"

There are not enough facepalms on the internets to answer your question. I'm sorry.

[shira]

30. Some of that property over the 1949 armistice line was Jewish owned prior to 1949. That's why...

...it's commonly defined as disputed land. If Palestine were ever a sovereign country in that area, only then would it be occupied territory.

[Chulanowa]

41. well, that's an interesting stance for you to take, Shira.

Land claims prior to 1949 are valid? Do tell.

[shira]

62. What part of disputed land don't you understand? n/t

[Chulanowa]

66. I understand it just fine

I'm just baffled by you, of all people, using this argument, considering the can of worms it opens.

[Shaktimaan]

100. why?

Calling it the OPT is just a way of referring to it. It doesn't mean anything in real terms. I could call it 'disputed territory' or 'samaria and whatever' but that wouldn't change anything.

Now you can argue that the palestinians SHOULD get all of that land, and I would be inclined to agree with you for a whole host of reasons, but that's a very different thing than saying that it automatically belongs to them. Reason being that both Jews and Arabs have legitimate claims to different parts of that land. Jews have certainly been living there for an extremely long time, there's a strong religious and cultural connection to certain areas and there were communities of Jews living there, on land they owned, when they were expelled over the first half of last century. It is not as though the entire area had been strictly Arab for as far back as anyone can remember. Both nationalities have compelling and competing claims. Hence the term 'disputed' being generally preferred by Israel.

Now, the usual argument against this fact is to bring up the nakba and imply that if Israel can dispute ownership of land outside the green line then palestine should be able to dispute land inside the green line for the same reason. And while this argument has a certain poetic justice to it, that just isn't how things work. Thank God. Again, my issue with your comment is that you are making the assumption that the entire area BELONGS to the Palestinians. That it is theirs. And if your argument is that we should automatically consider it to be Palestinian, even though others may have legitimate claims, because the Arabs were treated unfairly by the Israelis regarding land, then you are heading down a very dangerous road. You are essentially saying that since Israel wronged the Palestinians it should be assumed legal for the Palestinians to do the same. No negotiations. No discussions. Because of the nakba Israel loses its right to dispute land issues with the Palestinians.

I mean, they certainly COULD try and do that. Hamas certainly does. But since Israel is a recognized country and the land in question is considered part of it, there just isn't much there. As a country, Israel could have even just seized all of that land and expelled the Palestinians and it still wouldn't make for a compelling argument in favor of splitting Israel up.

Simply, the difference is between saying that this area SHOULD belong to Palestine and saying that it ALREADY DOES belong to Palestine. And if you are intimating the latter then I think it's reasonable to ask you "why?" Why do places like the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and Hebron and so on automatically belong to Palestine?

[Chulanowa]

101. The problem with your position is simple

You are saying that Jews have claim to disputed territory, but Arabs do not. You can make it as wordy as you want, but that's exactly what you are saying, when you claim that Jews have a valid claim on places they lived before the armistice, but that the Arabs do not have a valid claim to places they lived prior to the armistice. "Thank god," apparently.

You're also claiming that Israel has a right to claim land via conquest; the Geneva conventions would disagree with you. But since when has international law ever mattered when it comes to Israel, right?

Also, if you're going to base this silliness on "Israel is a country!" well, hate to tell you, but "statehood" is not a very concrete term. Ask Taiwan or Turkish Cyprus. Basically all Israel is is another violent band of middle eastern tribalists, one that just happens to have trade agreements with some powerful western states. If you're going to wishy-washy your way through this, you really need to consider everywhere you can wish-wash.

[Shaktimaan]

102. That isn't what I am saying at all.

I specifically said that BOTH sides have legitimate claims to the land in question. Nowhere did I ever say that the Palestinians' claim to the OPT isn't valid. Nor did I say that victims of the Nakba don't have valid claims to land they lost in what is now Israel. But that's an entirely different discussion. We aren't arguing over what the most equitable course of action should be... we are discussing what the current state of affairs actually IS.

You're also claiming that Israel has a right to claim land via conquest

Now that's funny. I submit the opposite. That this is really YOUR argument, not mine. That both Israel and Palestine have valid claims to the land in question is the core of my argument. (For historical, cultural, legal and religious reasons.) I never even listed occupation as one of the reasons. Nor did I imply that Israel's claim is strengthened by the settlements established since 1967. Had Israel never occupied this land it would have neither strengthened nor weakened the validity of their claim.

OTOH, you seem to be saying that the whole of the OPT belongs exclusively to the Palestinians... that it's Arab land. And why? Because that is the area Arab armies were able to grab and ethnically cleanse during the war they instigated in 1947 and 48? Jordan grabbed the west bank then, it certainly had no legitimate claim to it. It evicted the Jews and made the remaining inhabitants Jordanians.

Now, if the route of the armistice line was determined by a method other than war then I am thus far unaware of it. And this is the border delineating which exact property belongs to Palestine, right? So Jordan can start a war, throw all of the Jews out of the areas it occupied and ever since then it all inarguably belongs to the Arabs? That certainly sounds like gaining land via conquest to me. Exactly like it, in fact.

Now, aside from the above arguments, you have still neglected to address the key issue. Merely saying that Israel got land that should have been disputed isn't a very compelling argument for why different land is Palestinian property. The two things are unrelated. Remember, we aren't discussing what SHOULD happen or what the Palestinians deserve. It is about whether or not the OPT is exclusively Palestinian. (Did no other nationalities ever live there so who it belongs to is obvious? Was it awarded to them in a court case? Did they win it in a raffle? What's the story? Explain.)

You think that this land is Palestinian, that it belongs to the Arabs and no other valid claims exist. You have yet to explain why, (or when and how it happened.) East Jerusalem, (for example), was never part of the intended Palestinian state under the UN's plan. It contains Judaism's most sacred places and structures. It has a quarter that's actually NAMED after the Jews. And Jerusalem's population was majority Jewish since the 1850's. Yet according to you it is entirely Palestinian property. So obviously so in fact, that it is apparently not even worthy of a response other than expressing scorn and derision at my ignorance. But I still think it's a valid question.

So please explain... what makes East Jerusalem (and the rest of the OPT) Palestinian property?

[oberliner]

18. Do you agree with Hamas that Israeli settlers are legitimate targets for killing then?

The analogy you presented seems to indicate that you support the right of members of Hamas to attack (and potentially kill) Israeli settlers (including children?).

Or at the very least you do not seem particular surprised or disturbed that Hamas would feel they have a right to murder settlers, even if those settlers are simply going about their lives (driving in a car for example), because of your belief that those settlers have committed an intolerable theft.

Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your position in any way.

I would further note that Hamas members also believe that the Israelis living in Israel proper, not the settlements, have committed a similar theft of what they consider to be Palestinian property.

Would your position then be the same with respect to Hamas attempting to attack/kill Israelis living inside Israel (whom they would also view as outsider squatters who have stolen their property)?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[oberliner]

24. Stunning response

I had no idea that there were people on this board who were "not disturbed" by Hamas gunmen shooting and killing a young pregnant woman riding in a car.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[oberliner]

26. I don't have a "team" and I do not support the killing of civilians ever by anyone

Anyone who is "not in the least disturbed" by the murder of pregnant women who are Arabs is absolutely despicable as far as I am concerned.

Your comments with respect to the recent murder by Hamas of four Israeli settlers, including a pregnant woman, do surprise me. They seem to echo the sentiments of the Hamas spokesman who remarked that the attack was "a natural response by the Palestinian resistance to the enemy's crimes."

I did not think that people here viewed the killing of civilians that way, regardless of how strongly they felt about the occupation.

[Chulanowa]

38. Don't give me the feigned innocence shit, Oberliner

You're honestly no different from Shira or Aquart; you're just slightly better at logical argument. Which is a point in your favor, but you're still peddling the same canned shit.

Tell me then, what should the Palestinians do here? Their land is being stolen by these people, who are visiting violence upon the Palestinians around them with, to use the word, disturbing regularity. The Palestinians can't count on the Israeli government to handle this problem ,even though the culprits are Israelis. The Palestinians can't rely on their own government to do anything about it, since the Palestinian Authority is too busy bowing and scraping for the Israeli government. And even if the Palestinaisn could get close enough to a settlement without getting gunned down in order to ask the colonists to leave, those people would likely tell the Palestinians to fuck off.

So what are the options here, Oberliner? It seems to me that the Palestinians can either fight, or they can retreat. And my own people's experience tells me that retreat just means you'll be retreating next week when they build next to you again, and the week after that, and the week after that... Until you have nowhere else to go.

Of course this woman's death is tragic. It was also completely avoidable, from both sides. But so long as the governments refuse to respond to the crux of the problem - the theft of land and violence against Arabs - we're not going to be able to expect a better response.

[oberliner]

45. No idea what you mean by that comment

If you can point to any post that I've made which indicates anything other than total and complete disdain for the killing of any and all civilians, I invite you to do so.

I am very confident that no such post exists.

I think the Palestinians should renounce violence, vote out Hamas, and agree to adhere to past agreements made by the PA. Abbas and Fayyad have actually done quite a bit in that regard already. The schism between the leadership recognized in Gaza and the one recognized in the West Bank, however, makes entering into negotiations very tricky as there is a large segment of the Palestinian population who would not view any such negotiations as being valid. However, I believe the best thing the Palestinians could do would be to rally behind those who reject violence and support peace.

In doing so, they would thrust the ball completely into Israel's court - leaving the Israeli government with no further excuses to avoid entering into a real agreement along the lines of the Geneva Initiative that results in two states living side by side at peace with one another.

Similarly, Israel should immediately halt all settlement activity and take aggressive actions against those who would attempt to defy such a ban.

Violence of any kind by either side only serves to perpetuate the conflict and continues to result in the loss of innocent lives.

[Chulanowa]

47. Well, that's great

The Palestinians should renounce violence? That's a nice platitude, but it's never paired with a demand that Israelis renounce violence as well. NEVER. There is no "mutual cessation of hostilities" ever discussed by you, or the rest of your ilk. And of course, you and the rest of the slime molds are always eager to ooze out from under your rocks to declare the latest act of Israeli violence against Palestinians completely justified, because the Palestinians aren't sufficiently non-violent. A kid threw a rock. We think they might have weapons somewhere. They brought their deaths upon themselves and Israel's hands are clean!

Vote out Hamas? Seems set to happen with the next round of elections, actually. whether Hamas leaves power is something I would question. If Hamas chooses to ignore election results against them, then no doubt this is another reason to bomb Palestinian hospitals, water treatment plants, electrical stations, and civilian centers.

Agree and adhere to past agreements made by the Palestinian Authority? No problem; when is Israel going to do the same with its agreements, its treaties? Again, much as with cessation of violence, only ONE side is ever expected to do any of these things.Israel gets to do whatever, Palestinians have to follow the steps outlined by the Israelis, though.

Violence of any kind by either side does only perpetuate the conflict. But demanding only one side renounce violence and adhere to agreements doesn't halt the conflict. All it means is that side declares surrender and is subject to the whims of the victor.

[oberliner]

49. West Bank Violence: Hamas must prevent further attacks on Israeli citizens

Amnesty condemns all attacks targeting civilians, wherever, whenever and by whomever they are carried out and calls for those responsible to be held to account. Such attacks are prohibited absolutely under international law, regardless of the actions of other parties. The prohibition of deliberate attacks on civilians applies to everyone at all times, including to people under occupation who are engaged in armed struggle for self-determination.

Amnesty has repeatedly condemned the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. However, the unlawful status of Israeli settlements does not affect the civilian status of settlers, who only lose their protection from attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18981

That is the kind of response I would expect on a board like this to the incident in question.

Your comments, namely: "I'm not disturbed by violence against the colonists", seem to run counter to everything that Amnesty International and other similar organizations stand for.

Do you agree with Amnesty's statement that Hamas must prevent further attacks on Israeli citizens?

It would seem from your posts in this thread that you do not.

[Chulanowa]

57. Again with the platitudes

"Hamas must prevent further attacks on Israeli citizens" Amnesty says - I'll assume they meant the Palestinian Authority, rather than Just Hamas, but that's a niggle.

Okay, it's a good notion. Now, how are they do do this, exactly? What measures should be taken? Should the Palestinian Authority send folks out to these villages and tell the locals "Look, we know those people up on the hill are stealing your land, desecrating your graveyards, pirating your water, burning your fields, and shooting at your kids, but please don't shoot back or even talk about shooting back, okay?" Oh! Maybe the PA can go back to the Arafat days and start torturing and murdering people that Israel finds "questionable"? Maybe that's what Amnesty wants?

Further, who is protecting Palestinian civilians from attacks by the colonists? Israel isn't going to, obviously - they're the ones buying the guns! The Palestinian Authority doesn't actually have the authority; are they going to set up a perimeter and roadblock, search each Israeli who comes by for weapons, bombs, gasoline? It'd be a bit poetic, but it's not going to happen.

So what we're left with, again, is a vague demand that the Palestinians stop fighting, paired with total indifference towards Israeli violence against Palestinians.

So long as Israel keeps invading the West Bank, keeps inciting violence, keeps FUNDING the violence, and perpetually refuses to do anything about their own people's wrongdoing, then those people are going to get shot at and killed. The deaths are disturbing, but the situation itself is not; the situation is what anyone could rationally expect given the factors at hand.

If Israel wants its citizens to be safe (and I'm not convinced Israel actually has such an interest) then they need to withdraw the "Settlements." That's all there is to it. You can't go "Well, stop fighting us, start protecting our settlements, and let us build more of them, and then we'll talk about maybe stopping the settlers." It doesn't work that way, and believing that it does is surely the sign of a diseased mind.

[oberliner]

58. If the Israeli settlers will not leave voluntarily then Palestinians have the right to kill them?

Is that what you are saying? Again, I encourage you to correct me if I am misrepresenting your position.

Assuming the settlers are not withdrawn from the West Bank, are you arguing that, due to their very presence in the West Bank and the behavior you outlined in your post, Palestinians have every right to try to kill them?

[Chulanowa]

64. Not quite sp

Equal and peaceful coexistence is preferable
Barring that, voluntary removal is of course the preferable outcome.
Barring that, Israel herding the Israelis out of the west bank is preferable.
Barring that, the Palestinian Authority doing what it can to get them out is preferable.
Barring that... well, what options are left for the Palestinians who are being robbed and terrorized?

It is clear that the settlers have no intentions of living in peace with the Palestinians. It's clear that neither Israel or the Palestinian Authority will do anything about the situation. And it is clear that the Settlers aren't going to get bored and go back to Israel on their own.

By appearances, all possible peaceful or legal measures have failed or were never an option. So what should the Palestinians do here?

What would the Israelis do, if the situation were reversed? If faced with dozens of violent, separatist Arab enclaves within Eastern Israel, put there against all the laws on the books and funded and armed by the Palestinian Authority, how do you think Israel would respond? If there were Arab hoodlums who torched homes in Tel Aviv suburbs, or who took potshots at Israeli kids while speeding down the road at 80 mph, how would Israel respond? if it were these Arab neighborhoods draining the aquifers for expansive lawns and then letting the sewage spew down into Jewish towns and villages, how would Israel respond? If these Arab enclaves opened fire if an Israeli, regardless of age or intent comes anywhere near the place, how would Israel respond?

Israel blew the fuck out of Lebanon because Hezbollah killed eight Israeli soldiers. You were very supportive of Israel's "right" to massacre civilians in Beirut and Tyre under hte justification that Israel was "defending itself." After all, if Lebanon didn't want dead civilians, Hezbollah shouldn't have killed those soldiers (who, incidentally were often described as "kids")

So I think we know how this would look, if the situation were reversed; and I'm pretty certain what your response would be, as well.

[oberliner]

70. Human Rights Watch: Attacking civilians is never justified

West Bank/Israel: Hamas Must End Attacks on Civilians

(Jerusalem) - Hamas should be held accountable for two new attacks against Israeli civilians in the West Bank, and those who ordered and participated in the attacks should be prosecuted, Human Rights Watch said today.

The first attack, on August 31, 2010, killed four people and the second, on September 1, wounded two. Hamas's armed wing, Izz el-Din al-Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility and called the attacks part of "a series of operations."

"Hamas's deliberate attacks on civilians are egregious crimes," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Legitimate Palestinian grievances about illegal Israeli settlements do not justify the attacks. Attacking civilians is never justified. It should stop."

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/09/02/west-bankisrael-hamas-must-end-attacks-civilians

I encourage you to heed the words of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Attacking civilians is never justified.

[Chulanowa]

75. You seem unable to answer the question

I've posed it several times. Should I pose it again?

What should the Palestinians do? These colonists, at their very best, are thieves in an armed camp. At their worst they are vandals, murderers, and arsonists. They post a threat to the Palestinians in the West Bank. Not a "what if?" threat - they pose a real and tangible threat. The violence against the Palestinians from these people has been quite documented. it's been going on for decades now. Israel REFUSES to address the problem. While it refuses, it encourages more settlements, more settlers, provides funding, provides weapons, provides soldiers. In fact, if we strip away all the mumblemouth political speak, these settlements are nothing more than an armed invasion. Israel's not going to do anything about it. The Palestinian Authority can't do anything about it. And these hoodlums and thugs aren't going anywhere voluntarily.

So. What are the options, when one considers these facts, Oberliner? You can give me the platitudes that "attacking civilians is never justified" and that's well and good. The problem with that is, civilians are being attacked; Palestinian civilians. There are no repercussions for these attackers. They are given free reign to target civilians, to kill them, to assault their children, to burn their homes and kill their livestock and pipe raw sewage into their fields. And the "authorities" do nothing about it.

So again, I ask you to give me some notion of a solution for this problem. Are you capable of this? Given all these factors, what do you suggest? I don't like the notion of people killing other people any more than you do - but I know that's what happens when you have a situation like this, and nobody does anything about it.

[shira]

80. Simple - well not so simple but here's what they should do for peace...

Install a Palestinian government that is committed to the human/civil rights of Palestinians - a genuinely liberal government that doesn't incite murder against innocents or reward it. Declare the I/P conflict over and done with and move towards real peace. Short of that, install someone like Attaturk for a period of time to get on that track. Put some genuinely liberal Palestinians in charge. I'd be curious to know which Palestinian leaders you believe to be genuinely liberal and up to that task...

You can't expect real peace in that region if the Palestinian government refuses to protect its own citizens' human and civil rights. If they won't do that, how on earth do you expect them to forge a real peace with their enemy and keep it?

[Chulanowa]

97. You're right. That's not even remotely simple

And... Ataturk? Not to derail into Turkish history here, but Ataturk is the last thing the Palestinians or the Israelis need. I know he's praised for "liberalizing" Turkey... but that's the sort of praise that was given to Pinochet. Ataturk was a real fuck of a fucker.

[Shaktimaan]

105. You are right...

The extremist settlers pose a real threat to the health and safety of local Palestinians. And Israel doesn't do anything to protect them from marauding settlers or do much to discourage hilltop settlers from going out and grabbing land. But it falls far short of being an "armed invasion." The vast majority of settlers aren't these kipot shrugot, super extremist types who you are talking about. The reality is that there is very little violence in the way of Baruch Goldstein. So you can't argue in favor of killing them at random any more than you could argue the same against Palestinians in response to suicide bombings.

What should the Palestinians do? These colonists, at their very best, are thieves in an armed camp.

No. For the most part they are just normal civilians who live there for entirely non-ideological reasons. Living there does not make someone a thief. That kind of rationale leads to easy justifications for violence in almost any situation. (Are the Palestinians who moved into the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem in 1948 also thieves? How about Texans? What about me? I'm sitting in Brooklyn on what was once Indian land. Would it be fair to kill me?)

As far as what kind of options the Palestinians should consider, so far they have tried one thing. Violence, in one form or another. (Often regardless of whether the situation warranted it.) And so far it has worked horribly for them. Forget about whether they are justified in using violence against random settlers, (they aren't, but whatever.) It just doesn't work. The reality is that they have very few options available to them. Their only real chance at this point is to use non-violent means such as protest and negotiations.

The real hardships faced by the Palestinians in the WB are a result of policies like the security fence, roadblocks, closed borders resulting in less jobs and a crippled economy and similar stuff. Not from crazed settlers burning down their homes or attacking their kids. Not from new settlements being built over their farms and homes. And all of those policies are a direct result of terrorism. So the reality of the situation is that violence is a losing proposition for the Palestinians.

but I know that's what happens when you have a situation like this, and nobody does anything about it.

Weelllll... no. In this case those four people were killed because Hamas is trying to scuttle the peace talks. And Palestinian extremists have relied on violence against innocent civilians from the very beginning of this conflict, and consistently since then, regardless of what kind of policy Israel pursued. When Israel pulled out of Gaza Hamas' reaction was violence. When Israel instituted a settlement freeze Hamas' reaction was violence. And now... their reaction is violence. Big surprise.

It's not like there was all this pressure building up and Israel did nothing about it eventually culminating in an outbreak of violence. Hamas has always used violence. And they never cared about whether it was against settlers or other Israelis. They still don't.

Had Israel never occupied the OPT Hamas would still be trying to kill Israeli civilians.

[whosinpower]

92. There is another option

And it is pretty far fetched, but I will throw it out there anyways.

Abbas and Netanyahu negotiate that the border will be the 1967 line. Any settlements that are over the line become under palistinian rule. No settlers have to leave, but the land they reside on is subject to rent/lease agreements to the PA. Settlers who wish to stay will have to abide by palistinian law, and become palistinian citizens. The PA will be responsible for any violence between the two groups. Settlers who wish to return to Israel proper will be allowed to do so. They can sell their properties(homes, buildings, businesses) as they see fit, but cannot sell land that does not belong to them - it is the property of Palistine.

In this way, the settlers become a revenue stream for the PA. They pay for what they use. They don't have to leave, but it must be acknowledged that their safety will no longer be secured by the IDF, as the IDF will no longer be there. Any future growth of the settlement would have to be negotiated with the PA.

Israel maintains it's jewish roots, and Palistine becomes a reality. No settlers would be uprooted without their consent, but if they want to stay, they have to negotiate and pay. Both groups acknowledge their right to exist, both groups denounce all violence perpetrated against the other, and work together to fight extremism in all its forms - perhaps a bylateral organization that is funded, and trained by both nations to fight terrorism both in Israel and Palistine - not the IDF. The IDF's role would be external national threats abroad.

Right of return becomes the last sticking point.

[Violet_Crumble]

106. I found lots showing disdain for the killing of Israeli civilians, but when it comes to Palestinians

I can't recall you expressing similar outrage or opposition to the killing of Palestinian civilians. Maybe you can assist and give some links to the what must be many posts? It's just in a very recent thread in this forum, another poster advocates the killing of Palestinian civilians, and not one person has spoken out against what they said. Maybe you could start the ball rolling?

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=331463&mesg_id=331473

[Cannafield]

82. What does stolen/stealing mean?

Umm. I'm in Israel right now and have been for the past 10 months. And I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that the Arabs can't even approach the "colonists" to ask them to leave. When I was in Hebron, I saw guards smoking cigarettes with Palestinians and even the Palestinians walking down the street. There's only one road in Hebron basically, and there's two Arab shops on it and it's not a big road. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about at all.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with your statement as to whether it is/was stolen simply for the use of vein dialectic. So, I'll ask you this relatively straightforward just for arguments sake and to clarify your position. If the land is stolen by the Israelis, will the land still be stolen in 100 years from now? Or 300? 400? 2000 years? How do you measure stolen?What legally and qualatively defines stolen in your eyes and for how long is it consisted stolen?

[shira]

32. Chuli - do you have a problem with the PA and Hamas inciting Palestinians to murder settlers?

The PA and Hamas celebrate these murders and name streets, schools, and buildings after the culprits.

Does this disgust you?

[Recursion]

34. Something needs to be done to make the settlements costly enough for Israel to abandon them

In fact, if the 2nd intifada had stuck with just targeting settlers and not striking within the green line, they would have kept a lot of the moral authority they lost.

[shira]

36. If you've seen pictures of the highlands in Jerusalem, you'd know that Palestinians are doing...

....exactly the opposite of what you think needs to be done.

Those highlands hugging the 1967 line would give sharpshooters and other terrorists with big nasty weapons clear shooting down into the city.

[issy98]

59. Yes people tend to forget that Israel stilll needs and

will likely continue to need security precautions unless there is a massive sea change among Palestinian attitudes towards violence as a viable option.

[Chulanowa]

40. Israel awards terrorists with state funerals and makes them Prime Ministers

and names airports and high schools after them, and lets these terrorists urge Israelis to put their own lives and the lives of their children in danger, telling them to "take every hilltop" - not just Sharon in the 70's, but all the way up to Peres in the 90's. These terrorists fund and arm land thieves and squatters, knowing full well that those hoodlums are conducting violence against their neighbors. Terrorists who murder those who seek peace (even if those peacemakers are themselves former terrorists!) are regaled as heroes.

I'm not going to ask if this disgusts you. I know that it does not.

[Ken Burch]

56. "Israel awards terrorists with state funerals and makes them Prime Ministers"...well...

...it wouldn't be so bad...if they did it in THAT order...

[shira]

63. Why didn't you answer whether Hamas/PLO disgusts you? n/t

[Chulanowa]

67. Allow me to explain to you, via anecdote

I personally find abortion to be disgusting. I'm not going to try to strip women's right to it or anything, it's just that the notion makes me a little queasy.
I talk to this arch-conservative fucker on occasion. He was all smiles when Dr. Tiller was murdered in his church. Complete support for this act of murder, and expressing hopes that others follow suit.
We argued a bit, he asked me what my opinion of abortion was.
Do you suppose I said "yeah, I agree with you, abortion is terrible"?

Why would I tell you that I find Hamas and PLO's actions disgusting, when I know that you praise and endorse Israel doing the same thing, only more flagrantly? The issue isn't how I view these gestures by the PLO and Hamas. The issue is simply that I am not going to lock arms with someone who is, for all intents and purposes, only thirty bullets shy of being Baruch Goldstein

[shira]

69. I can only assume none of that disgusts you as you've never once articulated that...

...to anyone else here.

[Chulanowa]

76. Well, I've given it a little more thought

I claim membership in a political party founded by a man who committed ethnic cleansing against my people Literally, my people, and he did it personally. I frequently handle money that is emblazoned with his image. Many of my relatives live in a city named after this man. My nation's capitol city is named after another genocidal murderer, and I happen to live in a state named after him as well, and handle coins and bills with his likeness more often than the other guy! Monuments, streets, libraries, schools, foundations, all sorts of things around this country bear the names, likeness, and dedication to genociders, rapists, slaveowners, and warmongers. Ever driven down a Truman Street? He annihilated what, two hundred thousand people with nuclear weapons, almost all of them civilians; contrary to Oberliner's posts, that seems to be completely justified (I guess it's always justified to kill "their" civilians, just never "our" civilians?.

At this point, all I see is a chunk of concrete, a strip of asphalt, a piece of money or a coin. So no, I can't say I'm terribly disgusted that someone in another part of the world does the same damn thing. Isn't there like an Idi Amin national Airport? Aren't there still about five hundred "Saddam Streets" in Iraq? Pol Pot, Mao, and Cromwell all have shit named after them. I think only Hitler, Pinochet, and Ceausescu have been scrubbed from the public square (and I'm not sure about Romania, there.)

So no. A thing with a poor choice of name isn't particularly egregious to me. What puzzles me is that you're pissed when Palestinians do it, but not when Israel does it. Are you pissed at Saddam Street but not Truman Street, too?

[shira]

81. To be clear...

When incitement to violence against innocents is state-sanctioned and rewarded, or when children are brainwashed to be hateful racist monsters you can't really say that disgusts you?

[Chulanowa]

98. I think I've already answered your question

And I can't help but notice, again, your double standard here. You find this stuff disgusting when Palestinians do it, but rush to defend it when Israelis do it. I presume you're indifferent when the US does it. Or Russia? South Africa? Tajikistan? China? Mexico?

Every nation in the world does these things to some degree. Many are worse than the one lonely group that inspires disgust in you. Many are better (Say, New Zealand). Some are worse or better in different ways (The Vatican, for instance).

Spending my time in perpetual disgust, for no reason other than to score points on the internet, doesn't really do it for me. if it did, I'd be with the rest of DU, shitting my pants and screaming about what garbage the president is for not picking the dog I wanted him to, or for eating a meat hot dog, or for not eating a meat hot dog, or whatever.

[issy98]

46. Scary such posters exist here.

It does not bode well for the forum.

[Chulanowa]

48. Years of watching the gentlemen across the aisle cheer for the deaths of Arabs

has left me more than a little unperturbed by their starry-eyed pearl-clutching. Especially when so many of them love using Jewish corpses as wardrums (thankfully Oberliner doesn't fall into that latter category, another point for him)

[LTX]

94. Strange.

I haven't seen anyone "cheer for the deaths of Arabs." An actual example of that would be helpful.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[elias7]

19. Your fallacy is in assuming that property lines and ownership are established

First, these are not shantytowns...perhaps you've never seen in person or pictures of these developments. Second, you've made big assumptions regarding property ownership here, which may undermine the basis of your understanding of the Jewish-Arab conflict in general.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveMajority]

111. Well said! Also, the Settlers poison wells and kill Palistineans...

These settlers are an extreme and detestable people. They are quite often armed, have their own private security forces and are therefore an army in any sense of the word (an army that happens to have children around). If these were right wing militias in the US running around with guns and building illegal structures we would be right to confront them. But somehow, because it's the Israelis doing it, they get a pass.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x90213

^^ Settlers have even been known to poison wells to drive out the Palestinians.

EDIT: By the way, I'm not saying Hamas is right to attack children. But they have every right to fight back against the militant settler movement and if settlers insist on putting their children in harms way it can't be too surprising that they will be injured. The Israels constantly say Hamas is using human shields and they therefore cannot be held responsible for civilian deaths. Hamas ought to be held to the same standard.

[Recursion]

23. I think "human shield" is a better term

It's tough to say whether a human shield is a valid target or not. I mean, it's not them you're really targeting, but they're being put where the war is.

[oberliner]

53. What was the actual target in this case that these humans were shielding?

What target did the Palestinians who killed these settlers mean to be attacking that forced them to kill these (apparently unsuccessful) human shields?

What were they meant to be shielding?

[Recursion]

55. I could slime out of this and say "the actual target was Israel's sense of collective security"

But, yes, clearly the actual target here were those killed, and I take your point.

EDIT: I don't completely abandon my claim, though: I think they were put there, deliberately, to make Palestinian attacks on the occupation involve civilian casualties.

[oberliner]

72. With respect to your edit

What would be the way for Palestinians to attack the occupation that would not involve civilian casualties? Do you mean attacking soldiers?

If so, how does the presence of settlers shield that from happening?

These particular settlers who were killed were just driving in a car.

If Palestinians wanted to attack soldiers, I am not sure I understand how the presence of settlers serves as a shield to protect soldiers from such an attack.

This target of this attack certainly does not seem to have been anything other than the settlers themselves.

[Recursion]

83. Attacking soldiers vs. civilians

Well, first off, as long as settlers continue to attack Palestinians and their property, their status as "civilians" is dubious.

If Palestinians wanted to attack soldiers, I am not sure I understand how the presence of settlers serves as a shield to protect soldiers from such an attack.

Whether or not they "want" to attack soldiers, they can't do so effectively. Israel has deliberately put soft targets into a zone of conflict; that's why I call them "human shields". But they also regularly destroy Palestinian property and attack Palestinians, which, again, makes it hard to call them "civilians". When people like that aren't US allies they're usually called "militia" or "paramilitary" (or, God forbid, "unlawful combatants").

[oberliner]

86. Did these particular settelers attack Palestinians and their property?

If not, it seems like collective punishment for the actions of some but not all settlers.

I would note that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch has no problem calling them civilians - and they have been extremely critical of their illegal presence in the West Bank (and many of their various actions).

From Human Rights Watch:

Israel's settlements are unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into the occupied territory. However, settlers maintain their civilian status and are protected against attack unless they take a direct part in hostilities. Deliberate attacks against civilians violate the laws of war, and persons who carried out or ordered such attacks are liable for war crimes and should be prosecuted.

From Amnesty International:

Amnesty condemns all attacks targeting civilians, wherever, whenever and by whomever they are carried out and calls for those responsible to be held to account. Such attacks are prohibited absolutely under international law, regardless of the actions of other parties. The prohibition of deliberate attacks on civilians applies to everyone at all times, including to people under occupation who are engaged in armed struggle for self-determination.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18981

[Recursion]

87. How were the shooters supposed to know?

Was that car heading to work in some town, or heading to burn down olive groves and beat Palestinians with pipes?

How are the Palestinians supposed to know?

[oberliner]

88. They don't know - which is why they shouldn't kill them

That is the point.

On the one hand you seemed to be suggesting the settlers were inadvertent human shields, now, however, you seem to be suggesting that the shooters are killing the settlers deliberately because those settlers might possibly be planning to beat Palestinians with pipes.

What is your argument here? That the Palestinians are justified in killing a group of settlers because of the violent actions that some settlers have engaged in against Palestinians?

That seems to run contrary to the human shield argument you were making earlier.

[Recursion]

89. That was a separate argument

The establishment of settlements was the deliberate placements of human shields in a war zone, so that the inevitable civilian casualties would turn "war" into "terrorism". What they're "shielding" is the land itself.

The particular justification a Palestinian shooter might use for shooting a car full of Israelis is similar to the justification anyone (IDF soldier, US Marine, People's Liberation Army soldier, etc.) might use: I don't know if they're about to hurt me or not, plenty of similar people have tried to hurt me in the past, and I don't have the luxury of giving these people the benefit of the doubt.

[oberliner]

90. That justfication can be used for just about anyone to kill anyone else

I cannot believe that you do not agree with the basic fundamental principles with respect to killing civilians that are so well articulated by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Stunning to me that you and others would appear to attempt to justify what I thought would be roundly condemned murders.

[Recursion]

91. Civilians die in war. Always.

That's a big reason I hate war. I don't see where you get the idea that I think this was "right" or a good thing to do. But this is what's so awful about violence by civilians (be they in kefiyas or kippahs): it makes people afraid of civilians, and target them.

[Shaktimaan]

103. But was this why these people were shot?

Or was it a direct response to the current peace talks? The irony of Hamas declaring that settlers are legit targets is the fact that they never seemed to care whether the Israelis they kill are settlers living beyond the green line or peace activists living in Tel Aviv.

Case in point: The comments by the two Hamas strongmen came as a Qassam rocket was fired by militants from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, exploding in an open field in the western Negev.

[Violet_Crumble]

107. There's no confusion about these settlers...they were ones from Hebron...

I don't really care about what Hamas thinks, but I see a huge difference between an Israeli living in Israel and the extremist settlers in Hebron...

[Shaktimaan]

112. That's not how human shields work.

An example of HS would be if a militant decided to launch mortars at a military installation and chose a local school as his location to fire from. The opposing army couldn't fire back without risk of killing innocent children.

In this case no one want to kill the land. The settlers aren't shielding something/someone that could potentially harm the people who shot them, like a munitions factory or an army troop. Because the area in question isn't a war zone, it is civilian. And there isn't a real army attacking them, it actually IS terrorists.

The particular justification a Palestinian shooter might use for shooting a car full of Israelis is similar to the justification anyone (IDF soldier, US Marine, People's Liberation Army soldier, etc.) might use: I don't know if they're about to hurt me or not, plenty of similar people have tried to hurt me in the past, and I don't have the luxury of giving these people the benefit of the doubt.

But why would they think that these folks might hurt them, as opposed to any of the other random Israelis? Were these Israelis doing something that made them look threatening or overly suspicious?

Otherwise you are making an argument that could be used to justify the shooting of every Arab that attempts to board a bus. Or is wearing a coat. Or is walking down the street towards a cafe. It's a crazy argument.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. That doesn't justify murdering them, though.

Israel's settlers are a legitimate target for a variety of actions (e.g. the destruction of property, forcible expulsion etc), but not for cold-blooded murder. Massacring unarmed, offduty soldiers is usually viewed as a warcrime, (I believe? I'm not certain on that one, but killing prisoners certainly is) and the same is true of killing unarmed settlers - they are entitled to similar protections as soldiers who have surrendered, I think.