One Attack Thwarted Every Two Days

[JohnLocke]

One Attack Thwarted Every Two Days

Israel's security forces have thwarted an average of one attempted mass terrorist attack every two days in the past ten weeks. On Oct. 4 of this year, 21 Israelis were murdered, and 60 others were wounded, when a Palestinian terrorist - a 29-year-old lawyer - blew herself up in the Jewish-Arab owned Maxime Restaurant in Haifa. Since then, over 35 attempted attacks have been thwarted, and 52 warnings of planned attacks are still extant.

Eighteen people have been murdered in various shooting and bombing attacks during this period, including three American security personnel. Terrorism in the past ten weeks has included 114 bombings, 53 grenade attacks, 131 mortar shells, and 72 Kassam and anti-tank rockets.

Among attacks in the past 24 hours, a bus was targeted by terrorist gunfire near an army position near N'vei Dekalim in southern Gaza, and an anti-tank rocket was fired at an IDF jeep patrolling the Gaza security fence nearby. Palestinian terrorists fired a mortar shell towards Netzarim, and shootings were registered near Ramallah and Tul Karem. No one was hurt in these incidents.

Read the rest here

[niyad]

1. just for the record, how many palestinians have been killed by israeli

forces?

[bluesoul]

2. Around 3800

in the last 3 years...

[flattop]

4. they get no sympathy from me.......

...ever since I saw the leader of Hamas say that there is no difference between a baby and a tank when attacking the Israelis. World opinion will turn their way only if they stop INTENTIONALLY blowing up kids. I cant believe the Israelis have actually held back as much as they have.

[kalian]

5. Yeah...genocide is just the ticket....

:eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. 3,800 is far from genocide

It's not even keeping up with population growth.

Genocide is a ridiculous claim.

[bluesoul]

9. I agree not genocide

but the Palestinians are being driven from their land and homes and if Sharon would stay in power for a long time I'm afraid that could happen (most of the Palestinians being driven out)...

[newyorican]

11. For the record...yes, genocide

and both sides are guilty of it as defined by international law.

[MikeGalos]

13. Really?

Care to document that? It totally violates every use of the term I've ever seen in international law. Perhaps you'd care to show how your international law expertise justifies that wild claim.

[newyorican]

14. Rome Statutes...

apparently hidden in the section called "Genocide".

Article 6


Genocide

For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


http://www.iccnow.org/html/icc19990712.html

This is not the only problem both sides have with current international law which is obvious reading through the document.

[MikeGalos]

15. Good. You can find a definition

Now explain how those apply... (which is the silly part)

[The Magistrate]

16. That Is True, Sir

There is a body of interpertation on these statements, otherwise they would be useful only as nonsense, since a single killing could then be used as the basis for an accusation of genocide, as an individual is surely a "part" of an entire group.

There is no real ground to accuse Israel of genocide, and the temptation to do so, among the most radical opponents of that state, is regretable, as it devalues the gravest possible accusation in the lexicon, and must reduce the abhorence in which it is held, by employing it for trifling matters.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Also...

There is no real ground to accuse Israel of genocide, and the temptation to do so, among the most radical opponents of that state, is regretable, as it devalues the gravest possible accusation in the lexicon, and must reduce the abhorence in which it is held, by employing it for trifling matters.

For the same reasons, there's no grounds to accuse anyone of genocide towards Israelis. But claiming that only the most radical opponents of Israel (which I assume means those who don't want it to exist at all) accuse Israel of genocide is off-base completely. I have a friend who in no way wants to see Israel cease to exist and who I consider to be pretty moderate in her views. She has said that she thinks Israel is committing genocide, and the reason she does this is in my opinion because she's getting ethnic cleansing and genocide mixed up....

btw, what's being done to the Palestinian people is in no way a 'trifling matter'. It's just not genocide, though if in the future 'transfer' were to happen, it'd be a whole different matter entirely...

Violet...

[newyorican]

17. I didn't find a definition...

What I linked to is the Rome Statutes. That it includes language close to the dictionary definition isn't surprising when describing basic concepts. The definition doesn't include the examples that follow the 1st line.

Parts A & B of Article 6 have clearly been violated by both parties. It would be up to whatever court this is adjudicated in (if ever) to determine whether the scale or intent rises to the level where it warrants prosecution. I believe the PA/PLO/IJ/Hamas/Arafat & Co. have a bigger problem with the intent issue as it can be argued that the GOI is acting in self-defense while the some of the former is trying to remove Jews from the land. To be fair there are some "settlers" (in Hebron for instance) that are mirror images of Hamas and Co.

Part C was dodgy until the barrier started going up. The scale, scope and impact of the barrier couldn't be a more clear problem to the GOI in this regard. Adding the effect of the barrier to the cumulative effects of "settlers" gobbling up land and resources is perhaps the most problematic issue with Article 6.

All of these issues will be resolved by a judge or panel of judges when or if this is ever dealt with in a tribunal or other court. For example, the wall may be adjudicated sooner, the part A & B violations will likely go away with old farts dying and as part of peace treaty that works in place.

[MikeGalos]

18. So you clearly can't

A & B apply to any death or injury in any group and without massive, orders of magnitude, quantity increases AND a demonstrated intent do not apply.

Your interpretation of C, on the other hand is ludicrous under any interpretation and isn't even a case of being off by multiple orders of magnitude.

I appreciate your providing your claim so that it was clear to anyone reading just how silly that claim is when the charge is made against Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Thanks

Thanks for picking up the slack on this overly ridiculous claim.

[newyorican]

22. Au contraire...

The "slack" consisted of pleading no lo contendre to the violations and simultaneously claiming the offenses do not rise to the level that warrant prosecution. Whether the offenses do indeed rise to that level is up to a panel of judges if these issues are to ever be adjudicated.

To dismiss all of this as silly overlooks the fact that the GOI is currently in the docket in World Court concerning the construction of the barrier. Scale, scope and what charges are warranted are up to the court, not anyone posting in this forum.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Slackers

Actually, the slack consisted of pointing out that the definition you used applied to every murder or attack in the history of mankind and bore no relationship to genocide whatsoever.

A and B are almost laughably vague.

C again is so vague that almost anything anyone does with even a slightly unkind attitude would qualify.

By D, the worst modern offenders are Planner Parenthood or the Chinese nation. Not exactly two identical groups.

By E, I don't see Israel kidnapping Palestinian children, but I did see the English do this in WWII to save orphans from the German bombing.

[newyorican]

24. The vagueness is intentional...

and depends greatly on the judges to determine when to proceed. They have decided to proceed in the case of the wall. The statutes are part of the body of international law that the world court draws upon for guidance in decision making. This exact article of the Rome Statutes (specifically Art. 6, Sect. c) is quite possibly an arrow in the quiver of the prosecution.

The other sections are not relevant beyond what I previously said about part A & B. IMO, the proper place to deal with offenses that may violate A & B are in a post peace reconciliation process.

[newyorican]

21. Argumentative Ad Homein...

is the coin of your realm. I am refraining from indulging in my baser instincts in the interest of cogent debate. Feel free to join at any time.

[Scurrilous]

6. Israel has...

...'held back' to the tune of 3800 Palestinians killed in the past 38 months (including 500+ children). Such restraint! :eyes:

[JohnLocke]

12. Welcome to DU, flattop!

You'll enjoy you're time here at Du, and in the I/P Forum in particular. :toast: :toast: :toast:

Edit: technical error with the animation.

[Gimel]

7. Most were militants

That is proven as well. It should always be included in the count.
On the Israeli side, 903 dead, 80% are civilian deaths.

[kalian]

3. You know...

all these stats we should be taking with a grain of salt. Its the
Israeli government that reports how many attacks are "thwarted".
You know...like those "orange alerts" here... :eyes:

[MikeGalos]

10. The difference, however,

is that in the case of the attacks the Israelis thwart, they usually capture the terrorist, their weapons or both.

In the case of Ashcroft, there's rarely any evidence presented.

Kind of like the claims posted here, some are backed with documents and contemporaneous quotes and records and some are just wishful speculation. You learn, after a while, to notice who does which.