BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 04:30 AM

"The Gatekeepers do not accuse Israel of terrorism,"
The film - still fresh in my memory - says exactly what I said it did - that Israel has become little better than Nazi Germany.
Perhaps you might like to tell us what you think it did say - you have seen it haven't you?
And as I said - you have less right than anybody else here to cry "thread drift" when you get into trouble - it is a constant practice of yours.
STOP ATTEMPTING TO MANIPULATE DISCUSSIONS.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 04:37 AM

By interviewing six former heads of the Shin Bet, Moreh strives to take this debate to a new level. Not only has he wheeled out some big guns, but he is prepared to use some loaded language as well: Avraham Shalom (career Shin Bet man, head of the agency from 1980 to 1986, pardoned by his political masters for ordering the extra-judicial execution of two Palestinian bus hijackers in 1983) tells Moreh that Israel's military has become "a brutal occupation force" and that Israel is treating the Palestinians in a manner similar to how the Germans treated the Dutch, Poles and others they occupied in World War II.
For many viewers the comparison will shock, and that is the point. It has to be said that throwing the 'Nazi' label around is not an uncommon tactic of Israeli political rhetoric, albeit an extreme one. Still, I suspect few who see the film will be shocked by the comparison to German occupation than one might expect, simply because The Gatekeepers prepares us almost too well for this conclusion. Using the interviews, extensive archival and drone footage, re-enactments, and still-photo diorama techniques, Moreh portrays a Shin Bet intelligence system so comprehensive, so intrusive and so long-lasting that by the time we reached the Shalom comparison to German occupation I was already reminded of a more recent Germany, an authoritarian one founded on Stasi secret service control (constant surveillance, pervasive use of informants, hundreds of thousands of arrests, targeted killing, etc).
http://www.opendemocracy.net/mark-taylor/israel-in-trouble-review-of-gatekeepers-by-dror-moreh

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 04:43 AM

I say it does not accuse Israel of terrorism.
Do you challenge that?
One of the Gatekeepers made a comparison to the Nazis in Poland, where millions were killed.

Steve,
Israel has the fourth biggest army in the world
I Google "biggest armies" and this was first hit.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-armies-map.html

Iran comes in at 6 but Israel is not in top ten.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 05:09 AM

This gives Iran at 9 and Egypt at 10.
Israel is not in the ten.
http://www.therichest.org/location/top-10-countries-with-the-biggest-armies-in-the-world/

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 06:32 AM

"I say it does not accuse Israel of terrorism."
If the Nazis were not carrying out terrorist acts in the countries mentioned by the Sin Beth head - how the **** would you describe it
I ask again HAVE YOU SEEN THE FILM?
No? - I thought not! It's not on general release in the UK
What has Iran and Egypt to do with this thread BTW?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 06:44 AM

Do any of the 6 accuse Israel of terrorism?
No.
They do say that in response to Palestinian terrorism, Israel should not use military methods.
A political solution would be preferable.

Iran was mentioned first, not by me, in relation to its nuclear aspirations.
Egypt was only mentioned in the OP.I just quoted it.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 07:26 AM

"Do any of the 6 accuse Israel of terrorism?"
Yes they ******* do - in the film they equate the behaviour of present-day Israel with that of the Nazis in the countries the conquered in Europe - Czechoslovakia and Poland springs immediately to mind ARE YOU REALLY SUGGESTING THAT LIDICE AND WARSAW WEREN'T ACTS OF TERRORISM
I ask again:
have you seen the film?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 07:39 AM

I know from reading many reviews that the six do not accuse Israel of terrorism, only criticising Israel's response to Plaestinian terrorism.
I read this for instance, by Alan Johnson.
I am not uncritical of the film. Moreh should certainly have left one exchange with Avraham Shalom, head of the Shin Bet from 1980 to 1986 on the cutting room floor. Shalom clumsily compares Israel's occupation of the West Bank to the Nazis' treatment of the Poles during World War Two. In fact, some 1.8 to 1.9 million ethnic Polish civilians were victims during the German occupation and a comparison of that genocide to the West Bank after 1967 is worse than ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 07:49 AM

This, by Jordan Mainzer, Huffington Post.

According to Avraham Shalom, head of the Shin Bet from 1981-1986, the Israeli occupation of Palestine is "a brutal force, similar to the Germans in World War II." While pundits have grossly taken this statement out of context to the point where it sounds like Shalom is calling Israelis Nazis, what he really means, as he distinguishes in the film, is that the relationship between Israeli settlers and Palestinians is similar to that between the German army and, say, Poland, not similar to how Germans treated Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:15 AM

You are now telling me what a film that you haven't seen says and doesn't say.
Nobody has mentioned Jews and nobody has compared like-with-like as far as numbers are concerned - I have taken pains throughout all these discussions to say that in this respect there are no comparisons to be made.
Throughout, it talks about deliberate collateral damage, the incitement of the murder of a prime minister and then the refusal to charge those who incited that murder, the bombing of built up areas to kill one 'terrorist.... a whole host of deliberate acts of terrorism.
In essence, the whole film concludes with the accusation that Israel has become a terrorist state and the politicians have ruled out a peaceful solution =- and all this from six heads of the security service.
Produce your reviews, with links or stand exposed as a moronic liar.
Once more you have reverted to giving links to your claims - can't find any decent Zionist extremist quotes, no doubt!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:24 AM

I meant to write "giving no links to your claims", of course.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:35 AM

The six do not describe Israel as "terrorist."
Right?
That is your biased interpretation.
The reviewers obviously saw and studied the film.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alanjohnson/100213410/the-gatekeepers-is-an-important-film-friends-of-israel-must-not-dismiss-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-mainzer/is-occupation-sustainable_b_2945811.html

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:43 AM

it talks about deliberate collateral damage

"deliberate" ?
Are you claiming that the film accuses Israel of that?

"Collateral damage is damage to things that are incidental to the intended target. It is frequently used as a military term where it can refer to the incidental destruction of civilian property and non-combatant casualties"

If deliberate rather than incidental, that would be a crime.
No reviewer I have seen mentions that, and I have read lots.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 10:37 AM

"The six do not describe Israel as "terrorist.""
Yes they do Keith - the link you were given first does exactly that - your link to the Telegraph review says that the comparison to the Nazis in Europe "should have been left of the cutting room floor" - whatever way you paint it, these concern acknowledged accusations of terrorism.
The murder of Rabin was an act of terror, the incitement to murder by extremist Rabbis at rallies attended by thousands of people was an act of terror, the failure on the part of the Government to take action against those who incited that murder, both before and after the fact, was collusion in an act of terror, the sanctioning of the dropping of a bomb on an occupied area in order to kill a terrorist was and act of terror..... there are other such examples in the film (which you have not seen and have only offered 2 reviews from the "many" you have claimed to have read).
"Are you claiming that the film accuses Israel of that?"
The deliberate dropping of a bomb in the middle of a town, knowing there were bound to be many casualties was to sanction deliberate 'collateral damage'. Acts such as this have been repeated over and over again in Gaza right up to the last incursion - the killing of non combatants is now par for the course for the Israelis - you should know; you have defended it often enough.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/17/world/meast/israel-gaza-strike-report
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-says-november-gaza-strike-killed-12-civilians-171146644.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/17/world/meast/israel-gaza-strike-report
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 10:42 AM

Whoops - wrong one, should have been this
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=593863
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 02:38 PM

The deliberate dropping of a bomb in the middle of a town, knowing there were bound to be many casualties was to sanction deliberate 'collateral damage'.

No, unless Obama is a terrorist too.
The terrorists are legitimate targets and can be attacked if you make every effort to avoid or minimise collateral casualties.
Israel has always done that.

The murder of Rabin was not terrorism and nothing to do with the government of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 13 - 03:00 PM

"The murder of Rabin was not terrorism and nothing to do with the government of Israel."
The murder of Rabin was carried out by an Israeli terrorist - an act of terrorism.
It was deliberately provoked by mass meetings called by Extremist Rabbis and supported by thousands - an open incitement to terrorism.
Not one of those who organised or spoke at those meetings have been arrested or called to answer the crime that they were actually filmed at - State collusion in terrorism.
"No, unless Obama is a terrorist too."
A moot point - the US at Falujah, Afghanistan and Viet-Nam (and name any state where the CIA has operated) regularly used terror tactics.
The imprisonment and torture of suspects, keeping them in cages for years on end and failing to charge them with any crime are all acts of terror and are recognised as such.
The dropping of a bomb on a crowded town in order to kill a terrorist suspected of living there IS AN ACT OF TERROR
The sanctioning of the murder of two kidnappers (one of them was kicked to death by soldiers) is an act of terror.
This is a bizarre defence of terrorist atrocities, even by your standards.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 13 - 03:22 PM

The dropping of a bomb on a crowded town in order to kill a terrorist suspected of living there IS AN ACT OF TERROR
No. It is not.
The six say that it is counter-productive for Israel.
You and I might think they are right, but it is not terrorism.
Terrorism is what the Palestinians do- killing civilians deliberately and for no other reason than to terrorise civilians.

The Boston bombs were planted by Americans.
It would be misleading to call that American terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:17 PM

Terrorism is violence causing death and injury to civilians with the aim of affecting the way they behave and the way they think. One of the motives for bombing a civilian district where an adversary is believed to be present is likely be to make people less willing to accept the presence among them of such people. Insofar as this motive is present it means that the bombing is an act of terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 13 - 02:45 AM

No. It is not.

If a person is "willing" to be used to allow terrorists commit murder with impunity, they make terrorists of themselves.
In reality of course, the terrorists care not if the human shields are "willing" or not, and in any case, who can give consent on behalf of a child?

In spite of all that, in the last Gaza operation, the IDF achieved less collateral harm than has ever been achieved in urban warfare before.

The six may say that it did not improve Israel's security, and we might believe them, but they were not accusing themselves of terrorism.
They were responding to Palestinian terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 13 - 04:20 AM

"" -snip- the relationship between Israeli settlers and Palestinians is similar to that between the German army and, say, Poland, not similar to how Germans treated Jews. -snip- ""

When the German occupying forces killed one hundred Poles for any one German soldier killed?

Yes, that seems a fair description of the connection.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 13 - 06:56 AM

"If a person is "willing" to be used to allow terrorists commit murder with impunity, they make terrorists of themselves."

I am afraid that is precisely the argument that has been used to justify attacks aimed at civilian targets in all kinds of conflicts, including most relevantly here, Israeli civilians in buses or cafés. "Since you do not oppose the actions of your government, you are legitimate targets".

In the final analyses this seeks to justify any and every action by parties in a conflict. It amounts to a licence for war criminals.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 13 - 07:19 AM

"Yes, that seems a fair description of the connection."

You just can't help yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:04 AM

"I am afraid that is precisely the argument that has been used to justify attacks aimed at civilian targets"
It was exactly the excuse that the Nazis gave for the Lidice massacre following the assassination of Heydrich.
Keith has regularly accused Hamas of using human shields and hiding in occupied area - seems that his argument here is a movable feast to be applied as it suits his argument.
He has also stridently denied that he is in favour of killing hostages - which he appears now to be supporting.
"The six say that it is counter-productive for Israel."
Yet they also say that this is what was being done.
You have yet to respond to the fact that this is now regular practice by the Israelis, particulsarly during the last Gaza incursion (or are the links you have been given also "lies"?)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:10 AM

In the final analyses this seeks to justify any and every action by parties in a conflict. It amounts to a licence for war criminals.

No. International law is quite clear on this.
Collective punishment is not allowed.
Targeting civilians is not allowed.
You may target an enemy illegally operating in a civilian area if you make all reasonable efforts to avoid or minimise civilian casualties.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 May 13 - 09:29 AM

Yes International law condemns Israel for punishing collectively Palestinians. Rachel Corrie was targeted for defending the destruction of Palestinian homes.

Whose to say what is legal in targeting an "enemy" in a civilian area? And there is no
attempt to avoid or minimize Palestinian casualties. This is not true.

The small hope for Israel has to do with the people of Israel who still have a conscience and they are there protesting the brutal tactics of Netanyahu and the Israeli military.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 13 - 10:16 AM

As I said, they achieved an extraordinarily and historically low number of civilian casualties, and some of those, like the BBC man's child, transpired to be from Palestinian missiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 13 - 10:55 AM

"You may target an enemy illegally operating in a civilian area if you make all reasonable efforts to avoid or minimise civilian casualties."
Can you show us how they cases here "took reasonable efforts" to avoid or minimise casualties while dropping a bomb on a block of flats (also those that were dropped during the incursion)
How do you define "illegally operating" - as the targets discussed were not "operating", but living there?
"As I said, they achieved an extraordinarily and historically low number of civilian casualties,"
Utter crap - where is your evidence to back this up?
"The head of the Shin Bet reported to the Israeli Cabinet that of the 810 Palestinians killed in Gaza in 2006 and 2007, 200 were civilians (a ratio of approximately 1:3). Haaretz assessed this to be an underestimation of civilian casualties. Using B'tselem's figures they calculated that 816 Palestinians had been killed in Gaza during the two-year period, 360 of whom were civilians.[25] 1,010 Israelis were killed between September 29, 2000 and January 1, 2005. Of these, 773 were civilians killed in Palestinian attacks, resulting in a ratio of approximately 5:1.[26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict
Are we to take it that you no longer oppose the killing of civilians?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 13 - 11:13 AM

The point I was making is where civilians are killed in order to deter the civilian population from cooperating with the other side, or to punish it for doing so, that is in itself an act of terrorism. It is in fact an extreme form of hostage taking.

The Boston Marathon bombing would appear to fall into this category of terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:17 PM

Incidentally - none of this "international law" invention is in any way relevant to any of this.
These were ASSASSINATIONS - no combat involved asn acts of terror in their own right.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 13 - 04:44 PM

Can you show us how they cases here "took reasonable efforts" to avoid or minimise casualties
Yes.
In accordance with the law, warning were issued before the strikes, and highly accurate munitions used near civilian homes.

How do you define "illegally operating"
Firing indiscriminate missiles loaded with explosives and fragments at civilians.

"As I said, they achieved an extraordinarily and historically low number of civilian casualties,"
Utter crap - where is your evidence to back this up?
How selective your memory is Jim!
We have discussed this all before.
I think it was Bobad who first posted the statistics with comparisons to recent similar actions like the NATO airstrikes in Yugoslavia.


Incidentally - none of this "international law" invention is in any way relevant to any of this.
Yes it is.
The IDF action was in response to the rain of anti-personnel missiles on its people.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 13 - 05:43 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 08:14 AM

Don, they hit about 1500 targets in a heavily populated area and only killed about 100 civilians.

That means either that they are total incompetents at killing civilians, or they are brilliant at missing them.


Israel issued written warnings and made thousands of phone calls to Gaza residents, advising them to stay far away
from terrorist installations that would be targeted in air strikes.
Only 25 percent of those killed during NATO's operations in Kosovo were combatants, and that was a much less densely populated than Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:33 PM

Of 167 Palestinians killed in the last Gaza "war" 69 were identified by Israel as combatants. A fifth of the civilians killed were children under 12.

True enough if Israel had been aiming to maximise killing they could have killed a great many more, as they had demonstrated back in 2009 when well over a thousand were killed, most of them civilians and hundredsof those being children.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 13 - 02:50 AM

AS I pointed out, this was not legitimate combat - it was an assassination where rules of combat do not apply.
To carry out such an assassination on the homes of civilians IS YET ANOTHER ISRAELI WAR CRIME
"
Israel issued written warnings and made thousands of phone calls to Gaza residents, advising them to stay far away "
It was a secret operation - no advance warning was given.
Assuming you are deliberately avoiding the assassination and talking about the last incursion:
"phone calls to Gaza residents, advising them to stay far away "
Where do you suggest that the entire population of Gaza should have evacuated themselves to - are you seriously suggesting that the Israelis announced which homes were to be bombed in order to kill terrorists, in advance?
CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE LINKS TO ALL THESE CLAIMS OR DO YOU INTEND TO CONTINUE MAKING UP THIS INFORMATION AS YOU GO ALONG?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 13 - 03:02 AM

McG, some estimates of those casualties are given here.
IDF did target Hamas Police, regarding them as combatants.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War

Jim I was referring to Pillar of Cloud operation.
Are you talking about something else?
Please be specific re what you think need verifying.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 13 - 05:46 AM

"Jim I was referring to Pillar of Cloud operation."
I don't give a **** what you were referring to - the discussion was about a bomb being dropped on an apartment block in order to kill a claimed terrorist - that was the thread of the discussion which arose from the statements by the Shin Beth heads.
If what they say was accurate this is a war crime despite your claims that killing civilians in order to carry out an assassination is acceptable - and before you claim you never said such a thing:
"The dropping of a bomb on a crowded town in order to kill a terrorist suspected of living there IS AN ACT OF TERROR"
No. It is not.
You and I might think they are right, but it is not terrorism."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 13 - 05:56 AM

And by the way - I specified exactly what I was referring to, I made several point on the contradictions in your claims and asked a specific question - I also requested that you provided linked evidence to your claims - please respond to all of these.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 13 - 06:10 AM

It is legitimate to target an enemy combatant, uniformed or terrorist.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 13 - 07:20 AM

The quote of mine you quoted, you also edited Jim.
Actual quote,
"The dropping of a bomb on a crowded town in order to kill a terrorist suspected of living there IS AN ACT OF TERROR
No. It is not.
The six say that it is counter-productive for Israel.
You and I might think they are right, but it is not terrorism.
Terrorism is what the Palestinians do- killing civilians deliberately and for no other reason than to terrorise civilians."

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 13 - 08:29 AM

That is not "editing anything Keith - do not accuse me of what you did persistently once upon a time before you stopped supplying links in order to disclose that your "quotes" were from Zionist hate sites or were made up by you.
I selected the line that was relevant - that you are claiming that dropping bombs on an apartment block in order to assassinate a claimed and untried "terrorist" is a war crime.
You are now attempting to evade the consequences of that statement with a diversion.
DELIBERATELY DROPPING A BOMB ON AN OCCUPIED APARTMENT BLOCK IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT AN ASSASSINATION IS AN ACT OF TERROR AND A WAR CRIME - IF YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE PRODUCE (LINKED) PROOF THAT IT IS NOT.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 13 - 08:50 AM

Some context for all this - death toll since 2,000
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 May 13 - 09:14 AM

Police officers are not legitimate military targets. They are of course a very common target in many conflicts, and such attacks are generally recognised as terrorist acts, whoever carries them out.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 13 - 10:20 AM

McG, that is an opinion.
An alternative opinion, "Human Rights Watch stated that police are presumptively civilians but are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participate in the hostilities.[35] The IDF made clear that it regards police under the control of Hamas in Gaza to be inherently equivalent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count.[31] The PCHR representative argued however that Israel wrongly classified 255 police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants,[36] explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians.[31] Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) compiled a report saying that during Gaza War many supposedly civil policemen were at the same time operatives in Hamas's military wing.[37] ITIC stated that Hamas' military wing recruits police officers for military operations and that police forces were drafted to fight Israel during the war in January 2009.[38] One of ITIC bulletins also presented supposed evidence of Hamas policy to hide details of Hamas men who got killed or injured in the fighting.[39]
B'Tselem in its fatalities' figures report wrote that it knew many police officers in the Gaza Strip are also members of the military wings of Palestinian armed groups, and might have taken part in hostilities against Israel. At the same time, the NGO did not possess concrete information on integration of police officers in the combat forces of Hamas and was unable to determine whether all the police officers were legitimate targets or whether the Palestinian police in Gaza, as an institution, is part of the combat forces of Hamas, all of whose members carry out a continuous combat function. For these reasons, police officers that were killed in an attack aimed at police or police stations, were listed by B'Tselem in a separate category.[24]
The controversial Goldstone Report concluded that while there were many individual Gaza policemen who were members of militant groups, the Gaza police forces were a civilian police force and "cannot be said to have been taking a direct part in hostilities and thus did not lose their civilian immunity from direct attack as civilians".[40] The report did not "rule out the possibility that there might be individuals in the police force who retain their links to the armed groups" but finds no evidence that the police were part of the Gaza armed forces and that it "could not verify the allegations of membership of armed groups of policemen."[40] NGO UN Watch noted that the Goldstone Report relies on the testimony of the Gaza police spokesperson Islam Shahwan and accepts the interpretation of his own words "face the enemy" as meaning "distributing food stuffs".[41] In the initial response to the fact-finding mission's report, issued on September 24, 2009, the Israeli Government further added that "in seeking to support its assertion" that the police in Gaza were a civilian police force, not only did the committee reinterpret some of the evidence, but also ignored other explicit statements of the police officials, e.g. the alleged admission by Hamas police chief Jamal al-Jarrah that "the police took part in the fighting alongside the resistance".[42]
The ICT said that many of those listed by PCHR as civilians, including civil policemen, were in fact hailed as militant martyrs by Hamas.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 13 - 10:25 AM

guidelines of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) published in June 2009. The ICRC opined that anyone who fulfills a "continuous combat function" should be considered a combatant even if he is not taking a direct part in hostilities at the moment he is killed and a person who does not fulfill a continuous combat function, but is killed when directly participating in hostilities, is also considered a combatant;

This from the page I linked to earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 13 - 10:55 AM

'Police officers are not legitimate military targets. They are of course a very common target in many conflicts, and such attacks are generally recognised as terrorist acts, whoever carries them out'.

Moot point. The Royal Irish Constabulary (and, after 1922, the Royal Ulster Constabulary) were constituted as a centrally-controlled armed force, outside of the nominal local, civilian control which governed policing in the rest of the UK (apart from the Met, which falls under the Home Office). Indeed, the RUC was the only UK police force whose budget and establishment were included in the United Kingdom Statememt of Defence Estimates (the annual publication which outlines British military spending for the upcoming year). Not that I'm condoning or advocating killing coppers, but in the case of Northern Ireland the distinction between the military and civilian security apparatuses (apparati?) is (or was) something of a false one. That is, I would think, even more so in heavily-militarised parts of the world like the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 13 - 03:15 AM

My last was in reply to, "DELIBERATELY DROPPING A BOMB ON AN OCCUPIED APARTMENT BLOCK IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT AN ASSASSINATION IS AN ACT OF TERROR AND A WAR CRIME - IF YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE PRODUCE (LINKED) PROOF THAT IT IS NOT."

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 13 - 04:29 AM

Refresh, awaiting Jim's return.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 13 - 09:32 AM

Jim is back but avoiding the thread he himself restarted just a few days ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 May 13 - 10:44 AM

""Are we to take it that you no longer oppose the killing of civilians?""

He never did! He just denied all evidence relating to it except when an Israeli died.

I should have thought you would have picked up on the fact that he considers frightening Israelis to be a far worse crime than killing Arab men women and children who have the misfortune to be in the blast radius of a bomb aimed at one "terrorist", identified as such, of course, only by the Israelis.

Look back at his posts about Israelis cowering in fear in their shelters, while Gaza civilians have no shelters because Israel won't allow the materials to build them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Small hope for Israel/Palestine
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 May 13 - 11:08 AM

There can be no justification for violence on either Israeli or Palestinian sides. But the egregious attitude is to ignore one side in favor of the other, to excuse Israeli military violence for any reason and to ignore the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli military.

This kind of idolatry is symptomatic of a "true believer" who will accept no other way of looking at the issue.

Fortunately, there are many Jews, and their number is growing, that see the perversion of the Zionist movement by Netanyhu and his henchmen.

Israel has become a theocracy and has extinguished its earlier socialist movement.