Gaza teacher killed in Israel raid

[bemildred]

Israeli raids on Gaza have killed a teacher and six Palestinian fighters in an assault on the Hamas-controlled territory following a suicide bombing and rocket fire into Israel this week.

Hani Shaban Naim, 43, a father of five, was killed early on Thursday by an Israeli missile in his classroom in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun.

The Israeli army said the missile, which also wounded three students in the agricultural college, was aimed at a rocket-firing crew nearby.

During the raid, Palestinian fighters exchanged fire with Israeli soldiers as Israeli tanks drove several hundred metres into Gaza before dawn on Thursday.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A9239A00-5057-4F2E-875A-065987125470.htm

[subsuelo]

1. It's all so sad

I wonder how long until the excuses come in.

If this were an Israeli teacher killed, we would all roundly condemn the action. (if I'm wrong on that someone let me know)

But since it is a Palestinian teacher, we will hear plenty of excuses and lengthy cases being made in defense of the killers.

But those excuses are no longer valid. One cannot look at the current situation and rightly say "That side is the aggressor, and that other side is taking purely defensive measures." No. Both sides are the aggressors, both sides are equally vicious.

Both sides are guilty. Why can't we all see that?

[Vegasaurus]

2. I actually can see that

I get tired of the people who claim that the "poor, pitiful, victim Palestinians", have had no hand in the current conflict.

I have no trouble whatsoever acknowledging that Israel is very much at fault for some of the current situation. They are by no means the only aggressors, or the only side at fault.

Thank you for being one of the few posters on the forum to make such a comment. Most of the time, it is very one-sided.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. I don't think you do...

I have no trouble whatsoever acknowledging that Israel is very much at fault for some of the current situation. They are by no means the only aggressors, or the only side at fault.

I've never seen you saying anything about Israel being at fault for some of the current situation. Maybe you could give a few examples of where you think Israel does hold some fault for the current situation?

[KatzManDu]

3. Here's the other half of the story...

Hamas was holding up and firing rockets from a school. Which, IIRC, is a war-crime. But that doesn't matter, does it?

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080207/D8ULJVA80.html

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Got it. The teacher's death is acceptable coz a rocket MIGHT have been fired from school grounds n/t

[Vegasaurus]

7. Firing from schools, or places where children gather

is usual for Hamas. Disgusting that they would put children and teachers at risk like that, but it's become expected that children and teachers are not their concern.

[azurnoir]

9. It is usual for Hamas?

To choose places where children gather? I thought that according to you Palestinians "celebrated" their children's deaths

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x199519#199539

So if that's true, really why the "surprise"

[Vegasaurus]

10. I'm not surprised

This behavior is expected from terrorists who don't care about human life, even that of their children.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. And firing at schools and hospitals is usual for the IDF...

Not surprisingly, yr *outrage* is nonexistant when it comes to anything but what Hamas does...

btw, I see you didn't answer the question I asked you in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=199739&mesg_id=199786

So until you actually do express in at least one or two posts here criticism of Israeli policy, it's safe to say yr posts are in the one-sided camp you were complaining about...

[bemildred]

6. If firing rockets from the school is a war crime, then shooting rockets AT the school

is a war crime too. N'est ce pas?

[pelsar]

12. actually its not...

the onus is on those who are shooting from the school...not the fire that is returned to the firing position.

[bemildred]

13. So why the hell are you not supposed to shoot from the school?

If it's not to protect the school? If you are fired on in a crowd, are you allowed to spray the crowd?

[pelsar]

14. thems just the "rules"....

one is allowed to shoot back. if the shooter is in a hospital, in a crowd, in a school. The idea is to "discourage" the use of human shields as a methodology.

you ask if your allowed to "spray the crowd"....i would call that an individual judgement call. If the shooter just killed 50 people and he is surrounded by 5 people, and hes busy killing more, then i would go with a yes

[bemildred]

15. You guys are killing about three times as many of them as they get of you.

So they are "shooting back" too. If it's OK for you to shoot back, then it's OK for them to shoot back. Make up your mind which way you want it, because you don't get more lenient rules than they do. And don't give me any self-serving horseshit about they target children and we don't. If you shoot up a school, you are targeting children.

[Dick Dastardly]

17. "You guys are killing about three times as many of them as they get of you."

Not many arguments marry baseless logic and absurdity so magically as the one that says Israel must be in the wrong because more Palestinians are dying than Israelis, its completely inverted baseless moral logic. Germany lost more people in World War II than America did. Does that mean America was wrong and Germany was right? The South lost more than the North in the Civil War does that mean the South and slavery was right? Cops kill more criminals than vice versa,I myself am not confused who are the good guys and who are bad. Are you saying the criminals are in the right? Might may not make right, but that doesn't mean lack of might makes right either. I can always tell the mantra chanters on either side of the argument when this type or style of ridiculous argument is used with absolute belief in it.



"So they are "shooting back" too. If it's OK for you to shoot back, then it's OK for them to shoot back. Make up your mind which way you want it, because you don't get more lenient rules than they do."

That is a twisting of the facts.It is not more "lenient rules" to be able to defend and target your attacker who uses human shields, schools etc to attack you from. The attacker has no legitimate right to initiate hostilities from there or to shoot back if he has initiated hostilities from there and was in response attacked because of it. The attacker is the one who is fully culpable for any deaths or injuries to those he chose to use as shields and put in danger when he initiated an attack. The defender is fully within his rights to respond in a reasonable manner so as to stop the attacks. Carpet bombing all of Gaza would not be reasonable but shooting back as they did where the attack came from would be.

on a note
I have been lurking for some time and it amazes me the level of absurd illogical arguments(not directed at you) I see from both sides here. That said I will say that I do see more of it from the pro Palestinian side especially when it comes to defense/hostility matters. I also see a lot of double standards, unrealistic standards, exaggeration and naivety of the actual pressures of the situation.

[bemildred]

20. Oh bullshit.

You aren't selling that bullshit to me or anyone else with an open mind. You start with a non sequitur, "refuting" an argument I didn't make and then proceed to blather on in your own mind about what I did not say. And palestinians don't use human shields any more than the IDF does, they just have inferior weapons and no place to go. I'm sure you have command of all the dishonest "talking points", but I don't need to hear them again.

[Dick Dastardly]

22. Wow, I am impressed with your lame diversionary attempt

because of your lack of ability to refute an argument:rofl: Nice to meet you too. I like to be civil but I guess you like diversion and fallacious arguments rather than civil debate. Thats ok with me, it makes it easier.
You claim you made no argument, gee whiz I thought that is what we do on internet forums. Are you telling me that you are one of those special geniuses that just state irrefutable cold hard facts so they are inarguable hence what you post is not an argument. I am truly honored to meet you then. :yourock:

Back to your cold hard fact that is not an argument

"You guys are killing about three times as many of them as they get of you."

Please explain the logic in why this makes the Palestinians in the right?



And palestinians don't use human shields any more than the IDF does, they just have inferior weapons and no place to go.

So you are saying that that they have no choice but to fire rockets from a school, a backyard, with civilians and kids right next to them arms length. They have no choice but to send kids to retrieve the rocket launchers (I could go on with the tactics I am describing but you get my gist). No choice, is this what you are telling me? Can you explain this because I dont understand.

Are you also stating that their inferior weapons gives them a free pass and that since it has inferior weapons they are in the right? Can you explain this, I dont understand?



I have dozens of articles, videos and pictures from a wide variety of sources from left to right on Palestinian use of children and civilians as human shields. If you would like me to post them I will, just let me know. It shows a disgusting disregard for the lives of these innocent kids, using them as pawns in their twisted games. I am sure you have seen some of it before. I am frankly quite shocked at your casual dismissal of such revolting use of kids in war which even Human rights NGOs acknowledge is a horrible problem

Palestinians Again Use Children for Terror Against Israel
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/palestinianterrorismchildren120314.html





The terrorists themselves do not care about the lives of innocent Palestinians, which is why they are not hesitant to use them as shields. This behavior is a violation of international law. Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Conventions specifically prohibits the use of human shields:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objects from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations

Thus, the Palestinian terrorists are ultimately responsible for noncombatants who are inadvertently killed or wounded as a result of the terrorists' practice of hiding among civilians to use them as shields.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Bemildred never said it made the Palestinians right...

Yet yr insisting that he did make that argument...

Since we're talking about human shields and you've expressed yr revulsion for it, do you hold revulsion for when Israel's used Palestinians (including children) as human shields?

[bemildred]

28. Don't bother.

It's kind of obvious he's been studying all the "point making" techniques.
Where the heck is Msmcghee lately anyway?

[Dick Dastardly]

39. "point making"

Is that what you call presenting an argument with evidence to back it up.

At least I have an argument,a point as well as try to present it civily rather than ad homs, diversion and fallacious arguments as you do. My first post here was civil but you immediatly attacked, others here have disagreed with me but maintain civility. Attacks are a sign of a lack of argument and desperation.

[Jim Sagle]

49. Aw, you miss her. Ain't that sweet.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Yeah, all the same talking points are there...

Same nonsense. Different day. Different name :)

[bemildred]

56. Well, I meant the "point scoring" crap, but whatever ...

When you take the trouble to write something, and you get responses that make it CLEAR that no attention has been paid to what you said, and they ramble off about something else that just torques their jaws, then there is no point in trying to respond, unless you desire frustration and abuse. The situation is already programmed and nothing you say is going to mean squat.

[Vegasaurus]

59. And the exact same is true for the folks on the other side

in case you hadn't noticed. Talk about a "situation already programmed and nothing you say is going to mean squat"!

:)

[bemildred]

60. Yeah, and you all are welcome to each other. nt

[Dick Dastardly]

37. Yes he did

There is no other reason for the statement, "You guys are killing about three times as many of them as they get of you.", except as some type of moralistic equivocation.


Since we're talking about human shields and you've expressed yr revulsion for it, do you hold revulsion for when Israel's used Palestinians (including children) as human shields?

I most certainly do and those who do it should be prosecuted. That said it is not policy of the IDF and it is not common to them to use human shields as with the Palestinian groups.

Can you give me some specific instances of the Israelis keeping civilians around them when firing or firing from schools and such as the Palestinians do? Maybe some pics of it too, I can give you many of the Palestinians doing it

[breakaleg]

38. There was the time they handcuffed a child to the hood of their car so they wouldn't be shot at.

There are pictures out there. Does that count?

[Dick Dastardly]

48. It most certainly does count

If true the filthy bastard should be prosecuted. Do you have the story I can read?

Crimes happen with all militaries no matter how well trained and moralistic they try to be with their policies and rules of engagement. The difference is it is policy,accepted behavior and a common occurance with the Palestinian militants where it is not with the IDF.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Here's a link to the story. Let the excuses and justifications flow...

Oh, I see they've already started...

Israel to investigate claims officer used boy to shield vehicle

Jersualem: The Israeli authorities are investigating allegations a paramilitary border officer tied a 12-year-old Palestinian boy to the bonnet of his four-wheel drive to protect it against stone-throwing protesters.

A picture of boy tied to a vehicle was taken last week by an Italian journalist from the Alternative Information Centre and released on the internet.

Rabbi Arik Ascherman, leader of an Israeli group called Rabbis for Human Rights, claims he saw the incident, and said that when he attempted to intervene he was beaten and arrested.

He said the child, Mohammed Badwan, was tied to the police car's windshield by one arm and was shivering with cold or fear.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/23/1082616331713.html

[Violet_Crumble]

51. No, yr creating an argument out of something that wasn't said...

Nowhere did Bemildred say or even imply that it made the Palestinians right. In fact, anyone who'd been here for more than five minutes and wasn't immersed in the trusty old *my side is right and the other is wrong* mindset would have come to the conclusion that more than anything the opinion expressed would indicate that both the Palestinians and Israel are wrong in their actions....

You honestly haven't heard of the IDF using Palestinian civilians as human shields? Can't help you out with pics, and as they're not allowed in the forum and don't tend to prove or disprove anything most of the time, I'll stick with highly credible human rights organisations...

B'Tselem's initial investigation indicates that, during an incursion by Israeli forces into Beit Hanun, in the northern Gaza Strip, on 17 July 2006, soldiers seized control of two buildings in the town and used residents as human shield.

After seizing control of the buildings, the soldiers held six residents, two of them minors, on the staircases of the two buildings, at the entrance to rooms in which the soldiers positioned themselves, for some twelve hours. During this time, there were intense exchanges of gunfire between the soldiers and armed Palestinians. The soldiers also demanded that one of the occupants walk in front of them during a search of all the apartments in one of the buildings, after which they released her.

International humanitarian law forbids using civilians as human shields by placing them next to soldiers or next to military facilities, with the intention of gaining immunity from attack, or by forcing the civilians to carry out dangerous military assignments.

B'Tselem has demanded that the Judge Advocate General immediately order a Military Police investigation into the matter and prosecute the soldiers responsible for the action.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp

[bemildred]

57. Yep, they take hostages too, but don't call them that.

You'll get in trouble just like me. You have to call them "detainees" or "militants" or the like.

[pelsar]

19. same rules apply to both ...

if the IDF shoots from a school or hospital then the Jihadniki have every right to target that school during the battle....whats the problem?

[bemildred]

21. Well, first off, the jihadis aim is not so good, so saying they are targeting anything

smaller than S. Israel or the Negev Desert is stretching it.

And secondly, people get hysterical all the time here about what the rockets do hit, as though the jihadis were not "shooting back" but the IDF was. If we can dispense with any claims to holding the moral high ground by either side, I can hold my tongue on the subject.

[Dick Dastardly]

41. Well, first off, the jihadis aim is not so good, so saying they are targeting anything.....

And that right there makes it illegal. Shooting unguided ordinance into a population is illegal. The population is their target. The Jihadis have no moral ground but Israel does. There is no need to hold your tongue except for the fact you have no legitimate argument.

[bemildred]

16. Hey, never mind, I know it's not you.

It's not like living in the USA gives you a lot of room to be proud.

[Lithos]

23. The standard

Is an judicious application of force. You might use a sniper or rifle as opposed to an artillery round if someone is in the middle of a crowd, you would use smart weaponry instead of dumb ordnance when targeting a rocket crew inside/near a hospital. While the defender is allowed to respond back, they must use appropriate judgment in how they respond so as to minimize civilian casualties.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Who decides if the response is or isn't trying to minimise civilian casualties?

Is it up to whatever country it is that's responding to make that call?

[bemildred]

29. Well, that is the critical issue.

If the perpetrator gets to decide, then the rules mean doodle, and one ought to stop complaining about infringements of the rules by either side until some teeth are put into them, until some "disinterested" 3rd party makes the judgement of facts, like a jury does, and that judgement is made to stand. Right now various NGOs attempt to serve that end, but they are ignored as much as possible.

But I don't actually disagree with Lithos, as far as what he says, I mainly object to arguments along the lines of "I was threatened by so and so and that justifies such and such". I think you have to have a series of other conditions before your actions are justified, and the sort of actions that might be justified depend on the real nature of any threat and the results of the actions you take (which seems to be Lithos' point). I find the notion that one is ever justified in shooting up a school with teachers and children in it because you are threatened ridiculous. You can tell it's ridiculous by the nature of the pretexts dredged up to support it.

And I look forward now to the arguments proposed as to why one might be justified in shooting up a school with kids and teachers in it, if you think it might prevent so and so ...

[pelsar]

33. sometimes the remarks out so "out in space"

I find the notion that one is ever justified in shooting up a school with teachers and children in it because you are threatened ridiculous.

guess you've never been shot at from a school.....its amazing how that kind of thing tends to affects one opinion and ones action

[bemildred]

34. Would you shoot at a school full of Israeli kids, in that situation? nt

[pelsar]

35. probably not....

and that would mean a "maalot situation" where they are being held hostage.....where the terrorists cant go anywhere and where we can take our time to get them out.

being in enemy territory as in gaza and being shot at from a school where the IDF is not in total control of the environment is a very different situation.....one does not have "time to make strategic decisions and wait them out......in fact one has but seconds to react

its the environment....there is a reason that when judging a combat soldier for his actions the army requires only combat soldiers to be on the jury.......your posts are good examples of that.

[bemildred]

36. In other words, this is not the "laws of war", this is your private rules.

My point is that it is not consistent to expect the jihadis to respect the "laws of war" while stipulating that you do not and will not. Or alternatively, if you get to have your own private rules, then so do the jihadis. For that matter, so do I. If you can demand to be judged by your peers, so may the jihadis.

I must admit that my private rules don't offer much to people that feel it is OK to shoot up a school for the sake of military expediency. One of my objections to war, as a general thing, it that it makes everybodies life cheap, it is sort of a premise of war that all moral and ethical considerations are thrown out the window, and all matters are reduced to military expediency. That is one reason politicians are so fond of it.

My posts are a good example of the fact that some people do not accept the idea that only the military may judge itself. If the military has any purpose at all, it is first to serve the citizenry as a whole, those that pay for it, and therefore it is appropriate that it be judged by them. If it is not accountable to the public and the law, then it is little more than an armed gang, a self-serving bunch of mercenaries, or a military government, as the case may be.

[Lithos]

43. You read my comments correctly

Actions should be measured and appropriate and dictated by the specific situation.

L-

[bemildred]

46. Yeah, but it'so time consuming to do that.

:-)

[Lithos]

47. LOL

So true. There are two parts to this.

First, in the military, such behavior is a double edged sword. It provides the flexibility necessary to effectively wage war, but it also results in mistakes. So, the rocket attack on a military asset is probably a measured response, an over-reaction at a check point where someone calls in, or uses, excessive force maybe a mistake.

Second, most people in the military making these types of decisions are generally very young and/or reacting under extremely stressful circumstances. Their training probably did not cover the situation they are in. And in the case of paramilitaries, you know that before anyone was given a gun, the legal liabilities/responsibilities of being a soldier were fully explained.


Not everything is a planned decision, sort of plays havoc with the NWO thinking.

[subsuelo]

53. Another way of looking at it

Is to observe that it's called "terrorism" when the other side does it to us, but it's just "war-time misfortunes" (or something along those lines) when we do it to them.

[Lithos]

54. I'm afraid I disagree

While I understand such things do happen, terrorism implies intent while war-time misfortune does not.

The reason why I differentiate is to not create an automatic blanket of denial or a situation of contrariness just to try to categorically deny one side just "because".

Look the US in Iraq. There are cases where the US has essentially engaged in terrorism, while there are others where the US applied appropriate force only to see it go awry. Sometimes hard to see and differentiate, especially if you were on the receiving end of a "mistake".

L-

[subsuelo]

55. precisely

my point was an observation of the way things tend to be characterized (or excused), not an endorsement of that approach.

[bemildred]

58. The primary issue, to me, is the misuse of language to blacken ones foes,

and to dissemble one's own offenses. I am not in any sense trying to exonerate anyone. That would be a much murkier subject.

[Dick Dastardly]

40. Yes it is

but they are responsible for their decision and if they use excessive force they are liable. It would be ridiculous and insane to think that a military is going to call up court to get an approval for every action. Its similar to the police making a decision to do some raid, they are responsible to use the appropriate force.

[Lithos]

42. That is the rub

And the obvious answer is probably not going to satisfy you, it is the court of public opinion.

L-

[Tom Joad]

32. Some people would call off an illegal occupation that has been oppressing people

for decades. The occupation itself being a very violent, brutal and unnecessary act.

Every Israeli-imposed restriction, every checkpoint, every invasion into the life of Palestinians is an act of violence, every home demolished, every farm plowed under, every child that has to wait for the Israeli soldier to allow them to go to school, every farmer who cannot access his farmland, every woman in labor who cannot go through a checkpoint on her way to a hospital, every Israeli settlement that takes that much more land forever from Palestinians, every Palestinian child that is greeted by a shower of rocks on his/her way to school, all this adds up to an unspeakable Act of Violence. Of "Penning in Palestinians", that for some very strange reason was attacked on this board by the very people who support this occupation that has been penning in Palestinians for decades, and in the case of Gaza, not only penning them in, like some vast prison system, but also deliberately, with purpose and forethought, keeping even the smallest of them hungry and on the edge of survival. So merely "penning them in" is really a "moderate" stance compared to actual Israeli policy.

There might be a positive response to actually ending the violence of the occupation. This would actually be a breakthrough. Unlike when Gaza settlers were relocated to the West Bank, this would actually mean a change of attitude on Israel's part, that has not been seen for a very long time.

The occupation itself is aimed on destroying a whole society, it is totally indiscriminate in its application, the Occupation's victims include every one in the West Bank and Gaza. I don't think the size of the bombs used to keep it going are what matter. The occupation is the overarching violence, and until that is ended, all this other violence will feed off of it, to the detriment of Palestine, Israel and the rest of the planet.

[pelsar]

44. i sometimes wonder...

when you write...do you ever do any research and check out before you write...or is it pretty much just a reaction....meaning facts and accuracy arent really as important as the message.

sort of: the ends justifys the means...and the famous: your are either for us or against us......kind of theory

[Englander]

18. What's "Elder of Ziyon"?

[Lithos]

24. ?

You mean as in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

Wiki it if you don't know.

L-

[Englander]

27. I mean the place that's included in katz' blogroll.

http://vote4katz.com/

Please, do keep up.

[bemildred]

30. Come, come this is the web, spelling does not matter.

That site is a hoot, I'll have to read some.

[Tom Joad]

31. oh, you mean that anti-Arab/Muslim ProWar whacky website?

The people who love Little Green Footballs, and Victor David Hanson and Israel Insider?
The one who swears by Joan Peter's discredited book "From Time Immemorial"?

The one that rips Olmert for his "restraint"?

That website? you must be mistaken.

[Englander]

45. What was odd, is that reading the craziness at that place -

after reading the stuff that appears here, I had the strongest sense of deja vu! Great minds, & all
that.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. FCOL, it's not like they're human beings! They're all MILITANTS! nt