Israeli Air Strike

[Meat]

don't do what we did, do what we say

[Elvis]

Exactly. After all, we also enslaved a whole group of people. I guess if the Zionists began enslaving the Palestinians they could use the same rhetoric to passive-aggressively respond to attempts of American mediation.

[Kuya]

I bet that would go well.

[Correction]

Exactly. After all, we also enslaved a whole group of people. I guess if the Zionists began enslaving the Palestinians they could use the same rhetoric to passive-aggressively respond to attempts of American mediation.

I'm picturing Palestinian slaves building pyramids for Bibi and his high jew priests. I guffawed.

[Zimi]

They often do not even recognize the Palestinians as human beings or a people.

Really?
Is this the reason Israel was doing about everything humanly possible to avoid hurting innocent Palestinians in the last operation? I mean:
1. Thousand of telephone calls, SMSs and leaflet (drooped down by air planes) to Palestinian to inform them where the IAF (Israeli Air Force) will attack?
2. The use of extremely expensive, smart bombs and missiles to minimize collateral damage instead of using normal cheap weaponry?
3. In some cases Israel used this following method to avoid hitting people: They warned the population about where the IAF will attack and then the Hamas people (and other people they forced to come with them) would go up the roof of the buildings the IAF was about to take down. In such cases the IAF used a precise missile that hit the corner of the roof but didn't hit the people and obviously this was enough to scare the people away and save their lives.
4. According to reports the IDF released a few months ago "only" 1/3 of the people killed where not terrorist related. Now, I'm not talking about some estimated number. They took a list (of the killed people) the Palestinian provided them and checked every single name there.
1/3 innocent people killed is pretty much amazing in modern-werefare perspective (you can compere it to other recent confilcts if you want).

Why would Israel bother so much if it didn't care about the Palestinian? (And there are more actions that were taken that I probably forgot).

More so, if Israel didn't care about the Palestinian why it is supplying them with water? with 65% of the electricity they got? why they send engineers into Gaza to fix their power plant when it breaks?
Why in 1971 Israel started a building project to resettle the Palestinian refugees, and after 8 thousand Palestinians got their brand new, electricity-powered and water-connected houses it was the PLO and the UN that told Israel to stop!? So who's really trying to help the Palestinian? (CAMERA: Why Palestinians Still Live in Refugee Camps).

If anything, it's the UN (UNRWA) that keeps the Palestinians from advancing.
Why do the UN define a Palestinian refugee different then any other refugee?
The normal definition of refugee is:

Owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country.

BUT:

The major exception is the 4,300,000 Palestinian refugees under the authority of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), who are the only group to be granted refugee status to the descendants of refugees according to the above definition.

So basically, the UN "keep" the Palestinian under refugee status for decades.
This is stupid and ridicules in so many ways... Am I a refugee from Hungary because my grandfather and grandmother lost everything they had during the holocaust? NO! I'm not a refugee, and I SHOULDN'T be considered as one! For god sakes, by this logic you say that something like half (if not more) of Israel population are refugees from Europe. This is ridicules.

That simply creating Israel was cause for morning - without mention of the suffering of the Palestinians. But obviously they are morning their ethnic cleansing. This is their tragedy (and your triumph).

So Nakba Day is not about Israel's birth. It's about Israel's birth which led to the defeat of the Arab armies/ethnic cleansing of Palestine/beginning of their suffering for decades on end.

If Israel really wanted an ethnic cleansing you wouldn't have Arabs sitting in the Knesset (Israel Parliament), working in governmental positions and serve in the IDF...
If Israel really wanted an ethnic cleansing it wouldn't have a special Arabic education system that teaches about Islam (or Druze) instead of Judaism.
If Israel really wanted an ethnic cleansing Arabic wouldn't have been a formal language in Israel.
*If you have knowledge about the different type of democratic, and the different aproches to "group rights" read the following too:
If Israel really wanted an ethnic cleansing it wouldn't use a democratic approaches that recognize group right (aka minority rights).
It could have been like France and take the "extreme liberal" approach that suppress any kind of ethnic pluralism.
Or it could have been like the UK and take the "liberal" approach that does not suppress ethnic pluralism but also not encourage it (meaning they won't make laws about minority rights and fund special minority services such as separated education system).
NO! Israel takes the approach of RECOLONIZING group rights, it makes special laws that defend minority, it fund the minority education system and other services, it helps the minority preserve it's unique ethnic identity!

Got the point?

[Elvis]

Really?
Is this the reason Israel was doing about everything humanly possible to avoid hurting innocent Palestinians in the last operation? I mean:
1. Thousand of telephone calls, SMSs and leaflet (drooped down by air planes) to Palestinian to inform them where the IAF (Israeli Air Force) will attack?
2. The use of extremely expensive, smart bombs and missiles to minimize collateral damage instead of using normal cheap weaponry?
3. In some cases Israel used this following method to avoid hitting people: They warned the population about where the IAF will attack and then the Hamas people (and other people they forced to come with them) would go up the roof of the buildings the IAF was about to take down. In such cases the IAF used a precise missile that hit the corner of the roof but didn't hit the people and obviously this was enough to scare the people away and save their lives.
4. According to reports the IDF released a few months ago "only" 1/3 of the people killed where not terrorist related. Now, I'm not talking about some estimated number. They took a list (of the killed people) the Palestinian provided them and checked every single name there.
1/3 innocent people killed is pretty much amazing in modern-werefare perspective (you can compere it to other recent confilcts if you want).

Why would Israel bother so much if it didn't care about the Palestinian? (And there are more actions that were taken that I probably forgot).

More so, if Israel didn't care about the Palestinian why it is supplying them with water? with 65% of the electricity they got? why they send engineers into Gaza to fix their power plant when it breaks?
Why in 1971 Israel started a building project to resettle the Palestinian refugees, and after 8 thousand Palestinians got their brand new, electricity-powered and water-connected houses it was the PLO and the UN that told Israel to stop!? So who's really trying to help the Palestinian? (CAMERA: Why Palestinians Still Live in Refugee Camps).

If anything, it's the UN (UNRWA) that keeps the Palestinians from advancing.
Why do the UN define a Palestinian refugee different then any other refugee?
The normal definition of refugee is:

BUT:

So basically, the UN "keep" the Palestinian under refugee status for decades.
This is stupid and ridicules in so many ways... Am I a refugee from Hungary because my grandfather and grandmother lost everything they had during the holocaust? NO! I'm not a refugee, and I SHOULDN'T be considered as one! For god sakes, by this logic you say that something like half (if not more) of Israel population are refugees from Europe. This is ridicules.



If Israel really wanted an ethnic cleansing you wouldn't have Arabs sitting in the Knesset (Israel Parliament), working in governmental positions and serve in the IDF...
If Israel really wanted an ethnic cleansing it wouldn't have a special Arabic education system that teaches about Islam (or Druze) instead of Judaism.
If Israel really wanted an ethnic cleansing Arabic wouldn't have been a formal language in Israel.
*If you have knowledge about the different type of democratic, and the different aproches to "group rights" read the following too:
If Israel really wanted an ethnic cleansing it wouldn't use a democratic approaches that recognize group right (aka minority rights).
It could have been like France and take the "extreme liberal" approach that suppress any kind of ethnic pluralism.
Or it could have been like the UK and take the "liberal" approach that does not suppress ethnic pluralism but also not encourage it (meaning they won't make laws about minority rights and fund special minority services such as separated education system).
NO! Israel takes the approach of RECOLONIZING group rights, it makes special laws that defend minority, it fund the minority education system and other services, it helps the minority preserve it's unique ethnic identity!

Got the point?

Bullshit. Almost everything you wrote.

Read the past few pages. I went through water distribution in the OT.

The IDF casualty report is bogus just as their war crimes investigation was bogus. All the atrocities have been documented by various human rights groups. HRW is now conducting a report on the Gaza massacre as we speak.

And if Israel cared so much about avoiding civilian casualties, why did they bomb the Gazan Police graduations? Are the Police enemy combatants? This was planned in advance as well. I wrote about it on page 20-23ish I think.

Here's a list of all the civilian casualties:

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR.../2008/list.pdf

Israel seems to be counting all adult males as Hamas militants. How convenient.

To clarify, this is the Palestinian Center for Human Rights - NOT the Gaza Ministry.

The notion that Israel cares about civilian casualties of it's enemies is fucking insulting.

Do you recall Lebanon 2006? 1000 civilians dead. People are still dying from the cluster bombs. What was Israel's excuse back then? Same as always - human shields.

The US Army War College report refuted this hasbara nonsense and so did HRW. There's also some other strategic studies reports directly from our government that came to different conclusions than Israel.

There are Israeli military leaders always referring to the 'Dahiya' strategy. And Arial Sharon's comments about 'deterrence capacity' - instilling FEAR in the Arab world of Israel.

Your comments about the refugees are interesting. Are you implying it didn't happen? Or that it wasn't intended? Even the IDF concedes it happened and it was their fault in the declassified documents released in the 80s. Just because not ALL Palestinians were ethnically cleansed doesn't mean 800,000 weren't.

Great logic though.

Oh and I'm sure there were plenty of White racists talking about how well Blacks were doing in the US after slavery was abolished.

Zionism institutionalizes racism towards Arabs (not just Palestinians). I posted a document by Adalah, which goes through the many manifestations of this institutionalized racism.

(I'm being lazy with my replies, I'll get back to you with sources but I swear, I've written in response to this stuff already 20 pages back.)

[Kuya]

Wasn't the IDF the one that absolved itself of responsibility in the Gaza attack, including the white phosphorous attacks on highly populated areas? While multiple international organizations claim what the IDF did is a vile disregard for human life? I don't know, am i going to believe the IDF or the multitude of reputable human rights organizations?

Also, how can one argue that the IDF cares for Palestinian human life taking into account everything it does, including the recent killing of a Palestinian protester? Are we supposed to buy the argument that if a man wounds you, and then gives you flowers, and then wounds you again, he cares for your well being? Absurd.

[Elvis]

As to the civilian casualties report from the IDF:

Israeli army must make public findings of its probe into Gaza conflict | Amnesty International

The Israeli army is being pressed to make public the full details of its probe into the conduct of its forces during the 22-day military offensive in Gaza which began on 27 December 2008. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) concluded that its forces had committed no human rights violations and made only rare mistakes, some of which may have resulted in the killing of Palestinian civilians.

"There is a strikingly large gap between the 'very small number' of mistakes referred to in the IDF’s briefing paper and the killing by Israeli forces of some 300 Palestinian children and hundreds of other unarmed civilians," said Donatella Rovera, Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories researcher at Amnesty International. "The army briefing does not even attempt to explain the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths nor the massive destruction caused to civilian buildings in Gaza."

A briefing paper, distributed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to journalists on Wednesday, which states that "All findings are to be used as background information to be attributed to the reporter only", lacks crucial details.

"The army briefing mostly repeats claims made by the army and the authorities many times since the early days of Operation Cast Lead, but without providing the necessary evidence to back up the allegations," said Donatella Rovera.

There's a bunch of Israeli military figures who concede that Israel purposefully target civilians. I'll have to find all this stuff. I just put all the Israel-Palestine links in w/ my general favorites and so it's all unorganized.

From RT:

[...]Reuters reports that the papers published by the UN Human Rights Council on Monday called for a full international investigation into the conflict.

One report by Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N. Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict stated that “civilian targets, particularly homes and their occupants, appear to have taken the brunt of the attacks, but schools and medical facilities have also been hit.”

[...]The Sri Lankan human rights lawyer cited a series of accidents to back her allegations, saying the accounts are too numerous to list all. In one episode on January 15, Israeli soldiers forced an 11-year-old boy to walk in front of them for several hours and enter houses as they moved through the town of Tal al Hawa. Shots fired at them didn’t compel them to release the child.

I have to get around to giving my opinion on Zimi's first post since coming back to the forum and then the new stuff he posted but here is some context to his comments:

Flooding South Lebanon - Human Rights Watch (Report on Israel's 2006 War w/ Hezbollah)

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued a short statement on December 24, 2007, on the results of an internal inquiry into its controversial use of cluster munitions during the 34-day war with Hezbollah in July and August 2006. During that short conflict, the IDF rained an estimated 4 million submunitions on south Lebanon, the vast majority over the final three days when Israel knew a settlement was imminent. The inquiry was the second internal IDF investigation into the use of the weapon, and like its predecessor it exonerated the armed forces of violating international humanitarian law (IHL). Neither a detailed report nor the evidence supporting conclusions has been made public, however, making it impossible to assess whether the inquiry was carried out with rigor and impartiality, and whether it credibly addressed key issues about targeting and the lasting impact of cluster munition strikes on the civilian population.

Human Rights Watch's researchers were on the ground in Lebanon throughout the conflict and after, and our findings paint a quite different picture of the IDF's conduct. Research in more than 40 towns and villages found that the IDF's use of cluster munitions was both indiscriminate and disproportionate, in violation of IHL, and in some locations possibly a war crime. In dozens of towns and villages, Israel used cluster munitions containing submunitions with known high failure rates. These left behind homes, gardens, fields, and public spaces-including a hospital-littered with hundreds of thousands and possibly up to one million unexploded submunitions. By their nature, these dangerous, volatile submunitions cannot distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, foreseeably endangering civilians for months or years to come.

Israel continues to have a duty to investigate publicly, independently, impartially, and rigorously these extensive violations of international humanitarian law. Investigation should include a thorough examination of whether individual commanders bear responsibility for war crimes-that is, for intentionally or recklessly authorizing or conducting attacks that would indiscriminately or disproportionally harm civilians.

The continuing failure of the Government of Israel to mount a credible investigation one and a half years after the end of the 2006 conflict in Lebanon-and failure on the Lebanese side of the border to investigate Hezbollah's compliance with international humanitarian law-reaffirms the need for the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) to establish an International Commission of Inquiry to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law, including possible war crimes, committed by both sides during the conflict. The commission should formulate recommendations with a view to holding accountable those on both sides of the conflict who violated the law. [3] The findings of this report by Human Rights Watch indicate that Israel's use of cluster munitions should be part of the commission's mandate.

I'm real cynical (obviously) but based on past wars (and the numerous human rights abuses on a daily basis in the OT as well as so much information that is relevant but that which exists in the 'periphery' to the topic at hand), I see no evidence to trust Israel on the claim that they care about loss of civilian life. To be fair to Zimi, I think we have to wait until HRW/Amnesty/etc. get a report finalized on Gaza.

[Kuya]

I'm kind of shocked with the argument many zionists are responding to Obama's statement that the settlements need to stop. They are saying "Why can America have its chance to colonize and Israel can't?"... Do they realize they just admitted to trying to drive out a native population and take their land? I mean, wow.

[Zimi]

Bullshit. Almost everything you wrote.

Read the past few pages. I went through water distribution in the OT.

The IDF casualty report is bogus just as their war crimes investigation was bogus. All the atrocities have been documented by various human rights groups. HRW is now conducting a report on the Gaza massacre as we speak.

Call it bogus, it is well known that when Israel is conducting a self inspection/criticism it is very accurate and demanding (calling political/IDF officers to take resbosiblity over their action and resign).
I can do just the same by telling you that most of the human right organization are biased because they are caught with the simplistic victim-oppressor template instead of taking a real good look at things.

And if Israel cared so much about avoiding civilian casualties, why did they bomb the Gazan Police graduations? Are the Police enemy combatants? This was planned in advance as well. I wrote about it on page 20-23ish I think.

The IDF says 709 gunmen were killed in the fighting, of which Hamas has claimed 343 were innocent police officers.

But the independent Israeli 'Orient Research Group', hired by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to investigate the identities of those killed, has released a report challenging Hamas' claim.
The report says 286 of the 343 "police officers" killed were members of terror organizations, the vast majority of them belonging to Hamas' military wings.

GayandRight: Most 'police officers' killed in Gaza were terrorists....

Here's a list of all the civilian casualties:

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR.../2008/list.pdf

Israel seems to be counting all adult males as Hamas militants. How convenient.

To clarify, this is the Palestinian Center for Human Rights - NOT the Gaza Ministry.

Just a little note here, around 45% of Gaza population are children below the age of 14. So there is no reason to be surprised by the number of kids death, it makes sense that because they are 50% of the population they will take a hit.
Especially after seeing stuff like this:
YouTube - Israeli TV - 14 year old Suicide Bomber

The notion that Israel cares about civilian casualties of it's enemies is fucking insulting.

Do you recall Lebanon 2006? 1000 civilians dead. People are still dying from the cluster bombs. What was Israel's excuse back then? Same as always - human shields.

Don't compare Lebanon and Gaza.
After the Lebanon war Israel conducted a civilian investigation committee that resulted in many many high ranked people resignation including the minister of defense and the Chief of General Staff (highest military rank).
In the 3 years between Lebanon and Gaza the IDF went trough a tremendous upgrade. I'm talking about stuff like international lawyers being part of the IDF decision-making process to avoid breaking laws.

There are Israeli military leaders always referring to the 'Dahiya' strategy. And Arial Sharon's comments about 'deterrence capacity' - instilling FEAR in the Arab world of Israel.

"Dahiya"? wrong translation perhaps? You probably meant "Hartaa"?
Deterrence is extremely vital for Israel survival until it will reach peace. Why do you think Israel has nuclear facility? To bomb the hall out of people? If they wanted that they would have been developing ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear headwars, instead Israel is developing a defense missiles (missiles that take down other missile in the air:
Arrow missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iron Dome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).
Israel have nuclear facility to make it's enemies afraid and expect the worst.
Why do you think Egypt made peace with Israel? It saw it got no chance beating it in military aspect so they went on with Yom Hakipurim war, basically to return their honor (which they lost in the Six Days War) and to get more even position on the negotiation table.
Having you enemies fear you > have them not attack you + recognize your not something that gonna go away > buying their respect > get into the negotiation with them (after they realize you are a fact). Wonder how comes the peace with Egypt was signed when the Israeli government was from the right wing? (Likud was the leading party).

Your comments about the refugees are interesting. Are you implying it didn't happen? Or that it wasn't intended? Even the IDF concedes it happened and it was their fault in the declassified documents released in the 80s. Just because not ALL Palestinians were ethnically cleansed doesn't mean 800,000 weren't.

Where did I say it didn't happen?
Displacement did happen, it was apart of the war the Palestinian started in 29 of November 1947. There were Palestinian refugee, I never denied that.
I simply stated that the way UN define Palestinian refugees is ridiculous.
By now there should have been only few hundreds Palestinian refugee left, it shouldn't have grown from few hundred thousand to 4 million. The descendants of the refugee shouldn't be considered refugee. The definition of Palestinians refugee should have been the same like for everyone else refugees.
What the UN does is exactly the opposite of the saying:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Instead of telling the sons of the refugee to get a hold of their life they tell them "don't worry, we will keep your refugee status and feed you... your sons.... their sons... and on and on and on".

Zionism institutionalizes racism towards Arabs (not just Palestinians). I posted a document by Adalah, which goes through the many manifestations of this institutionalized racism.

Really don't have the power to prove you wrong about Zionism now. You obviously have no idea what your talking about here. You didn't study Zionism like I did. You take your info for Arabic documents (what do you expect? that they will nurture Zionism?). You probably think that the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were real -_-
I'll just quote you something a wise man once said:

Negating Zionism, by claiming that Zionism equals racism, denies the Jews the right to identify, understand and imagine themselves -- and consequently behave as -- a nation. Anti-Zionists deny Jews a right that they all too readily bestow on others, first of all Palestinians.

In short: Negating Zionism = denying Jewish right for self-determination, the very basic right US president Woodrow Wilson introduced the world over 80 years ago.

Wasn't the IDF the one that absolved itself of responsibility in the Gaza attack, including the white phosphorous attacks on highly populated areas? While multiple international organizations claim what the IDF did is a vile disregard for human life? I don't know, am i going to believe the IDF or the multitude of reputable human rights organizations?

The IDF didn't absolved it, they referred to it in one of their reports.
They said that after few days of using it, the order to stop using was sent from the higher ranks but was lost somewhere in the way of reaching the actual soldiers that was shooting it.
Stuff like this sometimes happen duo to chaos of war. It doesn't clean the IDF of the guilt in using it from that day on, but it does show they were aware of the problem in using it.
BTW, on the first days it was merely used as a smoke screen to allow a secret entrance for the Israeli ground troops, which is by the international law is ok. Only later on it was used in populated areas.

[Zimi]

I'm kind of shocked with the argument many zionists are responding to Obama's statement that the settlements need to stop. They are saying "Why can America have its chance to colonize and Israel can't?"... Do they realize they just admitted to trying to drive out a native population and take their land? I mean, wow.

Believe me, world-wide Jewish are far more extremist then Israeli Jewish.
My brother has friends that moved to Israel from the US and where they settled? in a damn settlement. I remember he made a comment about how American Jewish are extreme with their right-wing view.
Aside from that, Israel did left a large number of settlements (25) in the disengagement plan in 2005.
Add to that the fact that the party of the prime minister who led this plan won the next election, it pretty much shows that the Israeli population are willing to make territorial sacrifices.

Just a few more settlements to leave and I hope the world will leave Israel alone...

[Elvis]

The Lebanon and Gaza comparison IS relevant. I'm referring to IDF's internal investigations.

Just like in Lebanon, Israel absolved itself in it's own investigations. Yet, HRW found completely different findings.

And the human shield line that Israel uses regularly was refuted by the US Army War College study (as well as the HRW report).

And no, I am referring to the 'Dahiya' strategy. Named after a suburb in Beirut that was leveled by Israel.

Jeff Halper from ICHAD (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions) on the 'Dahiya' strategy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUCOl1RlJU

I need to find my sources. Show me proof those police men were terrorists. And I'm not talking about Jewish right to self-determination. I'm talking about RADICAL NATIONALISM.

This is actually a topic that could fill up another 30+ pages so I shouldn't go there as it will be a diversion. Zionism is just another form of volkish Nationalism. And the word I'm focusing on is 'institutionalization'. This is conceptual but there is 'enough' proof to get a first approximation on what I mean. (I'm not saying Zionism IS racism, but that it propagates it.)

Don't imply I'm a Nazi or a anti-semite. You disregard Arab human rights groups while asking me to believe the IDF's internal investigation? After HRW find's different results? HRW - which you could dismiss as 'Leftist'. But the US Army War College? Are they 'Leftist'? Are they biased against Israel?

Judith Weissman from Independent Jewish Voices on Zionism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx1eRkBgzcA

Although if I was going to find out how Arabs are treated in Israel I would ask an Arab! Big surprise! Hence, why I'm referring to ADALAH. (I'm sure you know them.)

From their website:

Israel never sought to assimilate or integrate the Palestinian population, treating them as second-class citizens and excluding them from public life and the public sphere. The state practiced systematic and institutionalized discrimination in all areas, such as land dispossession and allocation, education, language, economics, culture, and political participation.

Successive Israeli governments maintained tight control over the community, attempting to suppress Palestinian/Arab identity and to divide the community within itself. To that end, Palestinians are not defined by the state as a national minority despite UN Resolution 181 calling for such; rather they are referred to as "Israeli Arabs," "non-Jews," or by religious affiliation.

Further attempts have been made to split the Palestinian community into "minorities within a minority" through separate educational curricula, disparate employment and academic opportunities, and the selective conscription of Druze and some Bedouin men to military service. Israeli discourse has legitimated the second-class status of Palestinian citizens on the basis that the minority population does not serve in the military; however, the selective conscription of Druze and some Bedouin has not prevented discrimination against them.

They aren't a Neo-Nazi terrorist group. Also, I would refer to studies like this one or this one or this one or this one or this one.

(Keyword once again is 'institutionalized')

I would refer to studies done on the IDF in the OT. Checkpoints would be a great start. The constant stream of abuse and humiliation the IDF inflicts on the Palestinians in the OT. Blah blah blah.

[Elvis]

In response to your comments on the ethnic cleansing:

From Survival of the fittest - Haaretz - Israel News

This is an interview with the Israeli historian, Prof. Benny Morris. He has written some of the best work on the conflict (although he draws conclusions I do not agree with). His work is objective most of the time IMO. There are things I agree w/ him about despite it not helping the Palestinian cause. (Overall, it's the moral and value judgments he applies that I disagree with, like when he thinks the ethnic cleansing didn't go 'far enough'.)

Question: According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?

"About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg."

Question: According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

Question: What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."

Question: Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."

Question: Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

This is the book I'll be referring to later:

http://www.amazon.com/Palestinian-Re.../dp/0521009677

[guartz]

There is a serious issue when a nation organizes under religious principles that include land-expansion and ethnocentrism.

Not saying Israel is the only country that does it, but it's the only country where it's deemed okay by the majority of the population and leaders.

[Elvis]

More about the Israel and attacking civilians (of course they do not care):

(From Philosophical Perspectives on the Israel-Palestine Conflict, bottom of page 107.)

Attacks on civilian populations by Israeli government forces were frequent during the early days of nation building. That this is a pattern of behavior evidenced up to the present was acknowledged by Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur in interviews with Israel's foremost military analyst, Ze'ev Schiff. In 1978 Schiff reported in the Israeli press:

In South Lebanon we struck the civilian population conciously, because they deserved it[...]the importance of Gur's remarks is the admission that the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and conciously[...]the Army, he said, has never distinguished civilian [from military]targets[...][but] purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck. (Al Hamishmar, May 10, 1978; Ha'aretz, May 15, 1978 )

Side-note:

More information in the 'periphery' of our main points of contention:

(From Secret memo shows Israel knew Six Day War was illegal - The Independent)

A senior legal official who secretly warned the government of Israel after the Six Day War of 1967 that it would be illegal to build Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories has said, for the first time, that he still believes that he was right.

The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.

The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank - one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was " sympathetic" to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers.

Despite the legal opinion, which was forwarded to Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, but not made public at the time, the Labour cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements. This paved the way to growth which has resulted in at least 240,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank today.

[Zimi]

The Lebanon and Gaza comparison IS relevant. I'm referring to IDF's internal investigations.

Just like in Lebanon, Israel absolved itself in it's own investigations. Yet, HRW found completely different findings.

And the human shield line that Israel uses regularly was refuted by the US Army War College study (as well as the HRW report).

Refuted by the US Army war College study?
Really?
YouTube - Weapons Horde in Gazan Mosque 13 Jan. 2009
YouTube - Hamas Booby Trapped School and Zoo 11 Jan. 2009
YouTube - Weapons in Gaza Mosque Struck by Israel Air Force 1 Jan. 2009
YouTube - IDF Captures Hamas Intelligence Map - Lt. Barak Raz - 10 Jan. 2009
If shooting from a school, using holy place as a weapon storage, booby-trapping a school and an entire neighborhood is not using human shield, I don't know what is.
And if you think the IDF acutely faked all this matiral, it's perty pathtic and shows how narrow minded you are. Plus, we already seen who won the "I fake stuff to backup my propaganda":
YouTube - Pallywood
Also, Remember Jenin story? Palestinian claimed hundreds were killed, and it went on the media, how vicious Israel is, later on it was discovered that to get the real number of dead you needed to divide the number the Palestinian said by 70 or so...
Same goes for organization such as the PCHR, the head of the legal affairs in the PCHR got Nasser picture in his office, that's kinda of a give-away to the political alignment of this organization.
Gamal Abdel Nasser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And where do you think HMW gets their information from? They don't deploy some kind of intelligence group, they ask people, sometimes, the same people you saw in the Pallywood video. And sometimes they don't even ask, those liars just send their "facts" to the HMW themselves.
And, your US file refer to Lebanese, not Gaza.

And no, I am referring to the 'Dahiya' strategy. Named after a suburb in Beirut that was leveled by Israel.

Jeff Halper from ICHAD (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions) on the 'Dahiya' strategy:

Ok, got it. well. the guy that gave the speech dosn't explain the concept behind it.
First lets clear something up: the 'Dahiya' strategy was NEVER USED, it was only "announced" (not really announced because it was talked about in an interview to a newspaper, not in a formal announcement) AFTER the Second Lebanon war.
Basically what it says is that up to now, the IDF made a distinction between Hezbollah man to normal Lebanese people. But now, Hezbollah has been recognized by the Lebanese government as a legal army force and gave it permission to use it's military power against Israel.
So now, Israel consider Hezbollah as a formal army of Lebanese and the civilian of Lebanese are no longer considered people that "didn't want the Hezbollah to be there", they are now considered people who choose the Hezbollah (because the leaders they choose to run the government permit Hezbollah). If Hezbollah will fuck with Israel, Israel will fight it back and consider it like if it was the Lebanese army itself.

I need to find my sources. Show me proof those police men were terrorists.

I gave you, it is you that need to counter it (I gave you both IDF and a none-governmental investigation).

And I'm not talking about Jewish right to self-determination. I'm talking about RADICAL NATIONALISM.

Prove it, prove that the Zionist = RADICAL NATIONALISM.
You already linked here to an article that "prove" it but I posted back showing about 5 places where the document was mistaken (and I didn't even went trough it all).
Just the way you look at Zionism as one single thing already show how little you know about it. Zionism was (and "is") divided into 6 or 7 different faction with the main faction being "political Zionism" led by Herzel. This faction CONDEMNED the first and second waves of Jewish immigration to Israel because they said it will only be okey to immigrate after they will get an agreement from the nation that controlled the land, this agreement came in the form of:
Balfour Declaration of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is much more information about Zionism that proves it's by no way radical, so don't bullshit me about Zionism being radical because I personally STUDIED the subject and doesn't rely on some doubtful sites.

Judith Weissman from Independent Jewish Voices on Zionism

Well, excuse me for the phrase, but this women is an idiot. It's perfectly ok to be a Jewish and not be a Zionist, but lie like this?
Zionism started because of repeatedly growing antisemitism in Europe, every year there were pogroms against Jews and made-up blood libel. And we all know they were right in sicking for a solution, and we all know that the solution of a state for Jewish was the right one because we all know what happened in during the WW2, and we all know that not only the Nazi killed Jews but also soldiers from foreign countries that helped them and we know that even after the holocaust their were pogroms against Jews, for example:
Kielce pogrom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If not Israel, where did you accept the Jewish people to go? Stay in Europe after being slaughtered there? You just read what happened to those who tried. So? Where? Returning to their homeland was only LOGICAL.
Calling Zionism radical is ignoring the history of the Jewish people in Europe (talking about the 19 century, not the 20's).

Although if I was going to find out how Arabs are treated in Israel I would ask an Arab! Big surprise! Hence, why I'm referring to ADALAH. (I'm sure you know them.)

From their website:



They aren't a Neo-Nazi terrorist group. Also, I would refer to studies like this one or this one or this one or this one or this one.

(Keyword once again is 'institutionalized')

I would refer to studies done on the IDF in the OT. Checkpoints would be a great start. The constant stream of abuse and humiliation the IDF inflicts on the Palestinians in the OT. Blah blah blah.

So you are surprised to see Israelis becoming increasingly racist toward Arabs after close to 100 years of fighting? Wow! Shocking <.<
The Point the Israelis admit that their society is becoming racist is already a sign that they view this as a wrong phenomena. But when did you see Palestinians take any responsibility for their actions?

This adalah quote is full of bullshit. They take all the things Israel do in favor of Arabs and then show it as a bad thing...
For example the eduction curricula. First you need to understand how the graduation "document" is built in Israel:
You got a few subjects that everyone has learn and test on:
History.
Hebrew.
Hebrew Literature.
English.
Math.
Bible (old testimony).
Citizenship (study democracy and such).
and then you got subjects you can choose:
Physics
Biology
Chemistry.
Media.
Arts.
Computer-Science.
Electronics.
and the list go on and on....
The Only thing different for minorities is:
History (instead of learning Jewish history they learn their own people history).
Hebrew (they learn Hebrew on a lower level and got Arabic instead)
Hebrew Literature (same with History).
Bible (same with History).
The rest, they learn like everyone else. The separated curricula is there to let the minorities learn subject that relevant to them and not Jewish stuff.
The list of optional subjects is the same for them.
It's fury me to see how adalah uses this very pluralistic approach and turn it into a bad thing.
If you don't believe the information I gave you go the the Israeli Eduction ministry website or something to read for yourself.
"disparate employment and academic opportunities"?
Go visit the universities in Israel and look how many Arabic learn there with your own eyes instead of reading words that may or may not be true for all you know.
And just for you information "Affirmative action" in Israel is much less controversial in Israel then in the US for example.

This is a 2 way street:
40% of Israeli Arabs: Holocaust never happened - Israel News, Ynetnews

And to end: suddenly it's ok to use IDF internal investigation? When it suit your opinion it's cool but when it not is bogus right?
At least I believe the IDF investigation for bad or good.
FYI, IDF has an ongoing investigation against one of it's highest ranks for allowing use of too much power when dealing with Palestinians.
But wait! You think it's bogus lol, because you cant get into your mind that the IDF is trying to minimize the suffer for Palestinians...

This is an interview with the Israeli historian, Prof. Benny Morris. He has written some of the best work on the conflict (although he draws conclusions I do not agree with). His work is objective most of the time IMO. There are things I agree w/ him about despite it not helping the Palestinian cause. (Overall, it's the moral and value judgments he applies that I disagree with, like when he thinks the ethnic cleansing didn't go 'far enough'.)

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant ethnic cleansing like in killing not like in driving out people.
Well, yea, there were ethnic cleansing. Even in Israeli history books (from the eduction curricula, yea?) it is recognized that 600,000 Palestinians were displaced.
But it also talks about the 6 main reasons it happened (one of them the Israeli forces), I'm sure you'd be surprised to hear the other 5 because they include a FORMAL request by the Arab leaders from the Palestinian to leave the area to allow the 5 attacking armies a more free use of power without worrying about hitting Arabs. The 4 other reasons are shocking as well.

And what the hall did you except? The Jewish announced their country like the UN said and FIVE Arab armies attacked them, what you would do? ask the Arabic leaders to join you with a cup of tea and discuss how they want to kill you? The Arabic intention was clear, crystal clear, destroy the state of Israel. Israel merely reacted the same way.
And you talk about it like the events in the 1947-1949 Israel - Arabs war was a first, you should read some:
1920 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jaffa riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More about the Israel and attacking civilians (of course they do not care):

(From Philosophical Perspectives on the Israel-Palestine Conflict, bottom of page 107.)

Mordechai Gur only talks about the 1947-1949 Israel - Arabs war and I know this because he was only a part of 4 wars, and the only one where Lebanese was a part of it is the 1947-1949 Israel - Arabs war. The lines I wrote up there about the 1947-1949 Israel - Arabs war apply here too.

To the last part- So? I already said the settlements in the west bank are illegal.

Not saying Israel is the only country that does it, but it's the only country where it's deemed okay by the majority of the population and leaders.

Just a few post earlier I wrote:

Aside from that, Israel did left a large number of settlements (25) in the disengagement plan in 2005.
Add to that the fact that the party of the prime minister who led this plan won the next election, it pretty much shows that the Israeli population are willing to make territorial sacrifices.

And you come up with this?

I'm done discussing in this thread, feels like talking to a wall. Open you mind to the possibility that both side are wrong. There is no pure evil and no pure good! The world doesn't work that way.
Personally I hope Obama will tell Israel to dismantle the settlements and if they wont US will drop their support, and then he'll tell the Palestinian that that's what they gona get, and better be satisfied with it and if they don't the US will allow Israel to retake the territories.
Just need to force some stuff and were good =p

[Plow]

If what the Israelis claim about the atrocities committed against them were entirely true, Israel would've been wiped off the map by now.

If what the Palestinians claim about the atrocities committed against them were entirely true, the entire Arab world would've been wiped off the map by now.


Both sides are full of shit, the question is which is less so, and which is being more reasonable when you actually look at reality, instead of each side's claims.

[Correction]

I'm done discussing in this thread

Usually when you say this you don't follow it with 'you aren't willing to listen to me!'

Because, y'know...it's dumb.

[Elvis]

I'll reply to your post in parts.

First: The YouTube videos.

Those do not constitute a STUDY. I presented a video of a Jewish woman and former Zionists speaking out against Zionism.

(Only within the context of the comments you made to me, implying that I was a Nazi or antisemitic:

You probably think that the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were real -_-

I was merely trying to demonstrate that there are Jews who were once Zionists and are now critical of Israel. Thus, it's foolish to assume a goy can't be critical of Israel. The lady used some harsh language - much harsher than myself and she has more superficial credibility by being Jewish. That's the context of MY usage of YouTube videos. I'm not trying to imply that the videos I post are definitive proof - as you clearly are. Those videos as 'proof' are WEAK, like your argument.)

However, I'm talking about reports/studies/investigations.

You're showing me incidents (that's all they are, unless we can establish a reliable pattern w/ context and analysis -> a study).

So let's deal with Israel's abysmal human rights record. My comments should be understood within the context that we are always presented an image of Israel as being a champion against terrorism of Islamo-fascists who are trying to destroy the Jewish State just out of pure irrational Jew-hatred.

Let's deal with some various wars and cross-State conflicts. We can look into these wars further if you like, but for sake of time and tl;dr I'll pick recent stuff.

From We Were Caught Unprepared: The 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War, by Matt M. Mathews - The US Army Combined Arms Center; Combat Studies Institute Press.

Although the IDF defeated the PLO, it still faced a large Lebanese population who were not at all happy with the Israeli occupation. Many who had initially greeted the IDF as liberators now turned against their Israeli occupiers. Of all Israel’s enemies, none proved more problematic than the Shiite faction Hezbollah. Created in response to Israel’s continued occupation of Lebanon, this militia force was trained, armed, and equipped by Iran and Syria.

[...]The next major clash between Hezbollah and Israel came in 1996. When Hezbollah rockets wounded 38 civilians in northern Israel, the IDF unleashed Operation GRAPES OF WRATH. Once again, the IDF generally resorted to standoff-based precision firepower or what Amir Kulick called a “fire-intense effort.” The new IDF campaign targeted not only Hezbollah but also civilian infrastructure targets and civilian population centers in southern Lebanon. Israel expected to cause a mass exodus of civilians from southern Lebanon, forcing the Lebanese and Syrian governments to take action against Hezbollah. Clearly, the operation was designed to force the hand of the Lebanese and Syrian governments and not to destroy Hezbollah’s military capabilities. Not surprisingly, Operation GRAPES OF WRATH failed miserably and served only to further alienate scores of Lebanese people and produce widespread international scorn.

The author speaks in a very unorthodox way at some points. The tone/etc. is favorable to Israel and is not presented in an antiseptic manner BUT it does concede some well-known points - such as the 'deterrence capacity'. Inflicting damage on the civilian infrastructure (as well as inducing an ethnic cleansing) to achieve a political goal (convincing the Lebanese civilians to stop supporting Hezbollah). That's textbook terrorism.

Now, on the flip-side - Hezbollah to carries out acts of terrorism. However, Hezbollah was a RESPONSE to the Israeli Occupation of South Lebanon. Even this pro-Israel/American Army writer acknowledges this.

A justification for the killing of Israeli civilians? No. However, you can weigh injustices and when you apply context for the actions, it's no longer a simplistic game of rhetorical 'point-scoring' which is what you have been doing with those YouTube videos (as a replacement for analysis).

From The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy, by Stephen Biddle and Jefferey A. Friedman, Strategic Studies Institute, Funded by the US Army War College External Research Associates Program.

Intro of sorts - Use of concealment; Conventional armies versus Guerrilla forces:

A distinguishing feature of post-1914 conventional warfare has been the “empty battlefield” that resulted from the widespread adoption of cover and concealment in modern high intensity combat; soldiers in such wars commonly develop an instinctive suspicion of conditions that “seem too quiet” precisely because conventional defenders are commonly invisible to attackers much of the time. Of course, there are differences in the way conventional armies and guerrilla forces obtain the needed concealment—although both use the natural complexity of the terrain to conceal themselves (indeed guerrillas classically exploit mountains, jungles, or other unusually complex terrain for this purpose), guerrillas also typically try to conceal themselves via intermingling with an indistinguishable civilian population.

Classical guerrilla tactics assume either that the government will be loathe to harm apparently innocent civilians, or that the government will suffer politically from doing so. Hence many guerrillas wear civilian clothing and live, train, and fight among civilian populations as a means of rendering themselves as difficult as possible to distinguish from those civilians.

Conventional armies, by contrast, wear distinguishing uniforms, occupy distinct bases, and often fight in rural areas away from civilian population centers. But even here, the difference is often less clear than it seems. Urban warfare has long been a major feature of even conventional warfare (Stalingrad, Berlin, Caen, and Aachen were among the many cities destroyed by ground combat in World War II); villages and other built-up areas are traditionally exploited as favorable defensive ground in conventional warfare precisely because of the superior concealment and cover they offer; civilians are often killed in greater number than uniformed soldiers in conventional combat because even the use of uniforms does not always enable combatants to distinguish or discriminate from a distance or in the heat of battle; and all of this is becoming increasingly characteristic of conventional warfare as cities grow and economies urbanize around the world.

So this report illustrates some common sense: that in urban warfare - civilians die. It's a fact of life. It's not 100% unavoidable but it's not 100% avoidable either. It's just not an exact science. So there is some slack for interpreting Israel's high civilian casualty rate.

Now on to the point of contention:

Hezbollah is often described as having used civilians as shields in 2006, and, in fact, they made extensive use of civilian homes as direct fire combat positions and to conceal launchers for rocket fire into Israel. Yet the villages Hezbollah used to anchor its defensive system in southern Lebanon were largely evacuated by the time Israeli ground forces crossed the border on July 18. As a result, the key battlefields in the land campaign south of the Litani River were mostly devoid of civilians, and IDF participants consistently report little or no meaningful intermingling of Hezbollah fighters and noncombatants. Nor is there any systematic reporting of Hezbollah using civilians in the combat zone as shields.

The fighting in southern Lebanon was chiefly urban, in the built-up areas of the small to medium-size villages and towns typical of the region. But it was not significantly intermingled with a civilian population that had fled by the time the ground fighting began.

Hezbollah made very effective use of local cover and concealment (see below), but this was obtained almost entirely from the terrain—both natural and man-made.

Quick additional point. The issue is not SIMPLY whether Israel's enemies uses 'human shields'. Israel itself uses human shields (I've already gone through this so search through the thread using the appropriate terms or Google for 'BBC', 'Israel', 'IDF', 'human shields'). So that can't possibly be the issue.

The next FILTER to the claim of human shields is the ONLY logical one:

Is [insert whoever Israel is calling Hitler/Nazi/Amalek at the moment]'s use of human shields the reason for such high civilian casualties?


Obviously if both sides are using these tactics then when ONE side throws the claim at the OTHER side it is either:

A) To demonize/demoralize the enemy in the eyes of the 'audience'.

B) In response to accusations of intentional targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. Or in response to criticism of the campaign/lack of support for the campaign.

It's about extent. Degree. Frequency. And how MUCH these actions contribute to the civilian casualties.

We can all agree that these tactics are happening (I just wanted proof) but the PERTINENT question is not simply whether human shields are being used.

The concern is certainly human shields - but the greater concern is the civilian death toll (on both sides). We want to know WHY 1000+ Lebanese civilians died in the 2006 War. We want to know WHY 1300+ Palestinians (mostly civilians) died in the 2008-2009 Gaza incursion/massacre (depending on your perspective).

Furthermore, Zimi, you posted a bunch of YouTube videos. I can easily counter by posting what will APPEAR to be a bunch of isolated incidents on tape. It's not compelling (unless you cannot think critically).

You have to show a pattern of behavior with context. That's analysis.

So I don't doubt that these groups use human shields but I want to know:

A) How often.

B) Details.

C) Is THIS the reason for such high civilian deaths?

And from the reports findings, the answer is no, Israel has no leg to stand on with it's human shield argument.

Israel USES the human shield argument IN RESPONSE to the criticism it gets after tons of civilians die. SO OBVIOUSLY, the context in which Israel is using said argument is in reference to the high civilian death toll.

More in a sec.

[Elvis]

More from The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy, by Stephen Biddle and Jefferey A. Friedman, Strategic Studies Institute, Funded by the US Army War College External Research Associates Program:

Classical conventional militaries use uniforms or other distinguishing marks to differentiate combatants from noncombatants; classical guerrillas seek to blend in with civilians rather than to distinguish themselves from them, and hence often wear versions of typical civilian clothing. Hence the greater the incidence of uniformed combatants, the greater the degree to which the actor’s methods approximate the conventional extreme.

In 2006, the great majority of Hezbollah’s fighters wore uniforms. In fact, their equipment and clothing were remarkably similar to many state militaries’— desert or green fatigues, helmets, web vests, body armor, dog tags, and rank insignia.

So we understand that

A) In urban warfare, even with a conventional army, civilians die.

B) Hezbollah did not meaningfully intermingle with the civilian population of South Lebanon.

C) Most of Hezbollah wore uniforms to distinguish themselves from non-combatants.

D) No systematic use of human shields was found. The chief battles took place away from civilians. The civilians had fled by the time the fighting started. Etc.

SO, where did 1000+ dead Lebanese civilians come from? More in a sec.