Two Israeli soldiers found guilty of using human shields

War Is Hell, and when you put 18 year old boys in the middle of a place like Gaza, they're bound to do something stupid. I guess it's comforting to know that Israel brings these people to trial while Hamas sees human shields as its main combat strategy.

"War is Hell, and when you put 18 year old boys in the middle of a place like Gaza, they're bound to do something stupid. I guess it's comforting to know that Israel brings these people to trial while Hamas sees human shields as its main combat strategy."

Remind me, when was the last time an Israeli soldier actually got charged with anything, let alone anything meaningful in one of these trials?

You can't expect me to give you a list of every time someone did something bad in the IDF. The only reason this trial got into the headlines is because of its connection to the Goldstone report - a lot of other things didn't get reported in the worldwide media, yet are dealt with extensively in the local media.

If you insist on examples, half a year ago two soldiers shot and killed a couple of Palestinians in Nablus, who they thought were going to try and kill them (The details are a bit fuzzy since the trial is still ongoing and not a lot of details are available online). There are a couple of other examples, but my Google-fu is too weak to find them right now :S

IIRC Sherman brought up one of the prisoners and let him go to tell the commander that they were putting the prisoners out front unless the Confederates stopped using land mines.

^

That's essentially the message I was discussing sending.

So the rest of the world will only hold one side of these stupid conflicts in the middle east accountable? Despite the tactics of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, they just get a quick word, but Israel and the US are to be screamed at for anything? I just can't stand double standards. As for as the Israel-Palestine conflict, both sides have committed grievous wrongs, but nobody questions the tactics used by Palestine.

^ As far as I'm concerned, they're both accountable.

Barkey, your argument refutes itself. It's Israel itself that is punishing these soldiers, and holding itself accountable for abiding by certain rules, and they aren't "losing" their conflict. If they thought they were, I'm sure they would change their own rules of conduct.

Note I am not arguing in support of Israeli tactics, just pointing out that if they think using human shields is going too far, then maybe there's some merit to that.

Then there's the moral argument: your country didn't give you a uniform and a gun so that you could win conflicts in the most efficient manner possible, we gave them to you so that you could defend our values. One of which includes the sanctity of innocent bystanders. Yes, that means the casualty rate among our own troops is going to be higher than it would be otherwise. That's the price we pay for being the good guys.

Aren't you assuming that the resistance is a single entitiy, i.e. that you are using THEIR children instead of just children who happen to live in proximity. To give an example: "Oh well, we have those occupiers, but live isn't really worse than before, I even got a better job. If only those stupid insurgents would stop their fighting..." *Son gets killed by using the child to disarm booby traps* "DIE BITCHES"

The way I see it, it doesn't particularly matter. The children in question committed no acts of war in either case, so the question is whether the terrorists care enough about the kids' welfare to stop launching attacks if it risks endangering them, not whether they are in fact the terrorists' kids.

It seems like a fairly practical tactic to me, if everyone on the Israeli side could agree to use it, otherwise it fails spectacularly.

It's like refusing to negotiate with hostage takers or attempting to save hostages. It sounds cold and can lead to some innocents suffering or dying needlessly, but if everyone knows that's your policy, nobody will bother taking hostages in the first place.

Actually no, it's a standard play in the terrorist organization handbook- they need the "occupying power" to commit atrocities so that they can recruit more fighters and get the population on their side. To that end, it would be in their interest to plant more booby traps if the Israelis were using children as body shields, not fewer. The more kids that get killed or maimed, the more popular the insurgency will get.

Except insurgencies usually fail at that because their primary result is civilian casualties rather than anything meaningful from a military standpoint.

Rule #1 of a guerrilla war is never do anything that endangers the local sympathy for your cause. Meaning you never strike civilians as a first resort tactic. Like we saw in Anbar province and indeed all throughout Iraq, going that route backfires horribly.

Instead you go after the military targets. Al Qaeda lost in Iraq because they were killing civilians For the Evulz and failing to manage anything sympathetic in the local populace. Popular opinion turned on them because of that.

The Tamil Tigers also suffered from this. Their terrorist campaigns backfired horribly galvanizing support for the Sri Lankan government instead of allowing for the possibility of peace talks that could have improved the Tamil's situation there. Like Al Qaeda in Iraq (only after 27 years long instead of less than 6) the Tamil Tigers lost.

On the flipside, the Viet Cong in Vietnam while hardly what you would call competent in battle, never resorted to attacking South Vietnamese civilians as a first option. They remained a persistent enemy because of that until they wiped themselves out in the Tet Offensive.

I don't see what that has to do with Marquis' point, which is that more bombs set off by POWs under distress will result in more people joining the insurgent cause.

Think about it, if all your side is doing is setting up bombs and they get defused/detonated and it kills civilians regardless of who's side they were working on, then it doesn't take a great leap of logic to realize the side planting the bombs doesn't have a clue how to fight a war or earn sympathy.

Or in more Rebus Bubble form:

Plant bombs + have civilians get killed + get locals thinking = backfire on the insurgents.

Doesn't work if the ones directly causing civilian deaths are the anti-insurgency.

Then there's the moral argument: your country didn't give you a uniform and a gun so that you could win conflicts in the most efficient manner possible, we gave them to you so that you could defend our values. One of which includes the sanctity of innocent bystanders. Yes, that means the casualty rate among our own troops is going to be higher than it would be otherwise. That's the price we pay for being the good guys.

That's why I can separate my personal opinion and follow the rules and orders given to me, there's never been a conflict there for me.

Works for me. You're a citizen, as well as a soldier, and have a right to express your opinion. Just so long as our military follows the rules set down for them by the civvies, we don't have a problem.

Just noticed the UN Report on Gaza Flottila is out. ( http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf )

Choice quotes:

114. Just minutes after soldiers from the zodiac boats had made initial unsuccessful attempts to board, the first helicopter approached the ship at approximately 0430 hours, hovering above the top deck. At this point between 10 and 20 passengers were located in the central area of the top deck, although this number increased as other passengers learned of events on the top deck. The Israeli forces used smoke and stun grenades in an attempt to clear an area for the landing of soldiers. The first rope that was let down from the helicopter was taken by passengers and tied it to a part of the top deck and thereby rendered ineffective for the purpose of soldiers’ descent. A second rope was then let down from the helicopter and the first group of soldiers descended. The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope. However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.

116. A number of the passengers on the top deck fought with the soldiers using their fists, sticks, metal rods and knives.69 At least one of the soldiers was stabbed with a knife or other sharp object. Witnesses informed the Mission that their objective was to subdue and disarm the soldiers so that they could not harm anyone. The Mission is satisfied on the evidence that at least two passengers on the bridge deck also used handheld catapults to propel small projectiles at the helicopters. The Mission has found no evidence to suggest that any of the passengers used firearms or that any firearms were taken on board the ship. Despite requests, the Mission has not received any medical records or other substantiated information from the Israeli authorities regarding any firearm injuries sustained by soldiers participating in the raid. Doctors examined the three soldiers taken below decks and no firearm injuries were noted. Further, the Mission finds that the Israeli accounts so inconsistent and contradictory with regard to evidence of alleged firearms injuries to Israeli soldiers that it has to reject it.

118. Israeli soldiers continued shooting at passengers who had already been wounded, with live ammunition, soft baton charges (beanbags) and plastic bullets. Forensic analysis demonstrates that two of the passengers killed on the top deck received wounds compatible with being shot at close range while lying on the ground: Furkan Doðan received a bullet in the face and Ýbrahim Bilgen received a fatal wound from a soft baton round (beanbag) fired at such close proximity to his head that parts such as wadding penetrated his skull entered his brain. Furthermore, some of the wounded were subjected to further violence including being hit with the butt of a weapon, being kicked in the head, chest and back and being verbally abused. A number of the wounded passengers were handcuffed and then left unattended for some time before being dragged to the front of the deck by their arms or legs.

123. During the shootings on the bridge deck and as it became apparent that a large number of passengers had become injured, Bulent Yildirim, the President of IHH and one of principal organisers of the flotilla, removed his white shirt which was then used as a white flag to indicate a surrender. This does not appear to have had any effect and live firing continued on the ship.

According to forensic analysis, tattooing around the wound in his face indicates that the shot was delivered at point blank range. Furthermore, the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back. The other wounds were not the result of firing in contact, near contact or close range, but it is not otherwise possible to determine the exact firing range. The wounds to the leg and foot were most likely received in a standing position.

Actually no, it's a standard play in the terrorist organization handbook- they need the "occupying power" to commit atrocities so that they can recruit more fighters and get the population on their side. To that end, it would be in their interest to plant more booby traps if the Israelis were using children as body shields, not fewer. The more kids that get killed or maimed, the more popular the insurgency will get.

If the attacks are likely to exclusively harm their own people, particularly their children, this is not likely. That's why I noted that the strategy would only work if applied uniformly. If planting mines is sometimes an effective way to kill Israelis, then terrorists have an incentive to do it, and will be motivated by the deaths of their children. If planting mines is never an effective way to kill Israelis, only their own children, then they will not have an incentive to do it.

It's likely that this would lead to their using some other sort of attacks, of course, which might not be so easily redirected.

I'm afraid you underestimate the Machiavellian nature of insurgent tactics, and over-estimate the rationality of an occupied population. The key component here is that the land mines (IE Ds) aren't targeted at the children. Intent is what matters here, not just the end result. If someone is standing around, and observes a bunch of soldiers forcing a child at the point of a gun to test a potential explosive device, and it explodes, injuring or killing the child, I am afraid the observer is very unlikely to conclude that the insurgency is at fault. They are over-whelmingly likely to blame the soldiers. Knowing this, it is very much in the interest of the insurgency to plant more IED's, hoping that the occupying forces will force more bystanders to test them. That can only help the insurgency.

Why should this surprise anybody? It should be common knowledge that the IDF is the brutal hand of an essentially fascist government. It's ok to slaughter Palestinians, all in the name of Zionism. It has been made very clear that you can get away with shooting unarmed Palestinian children ON PURPOSE and possibly get out of it as a war hero.

I should add that Hamas are no better, but they are the army of the underdog.

edited 4th Oct '10 6:18:03 PM by Shichibukai

^ So basically what you're saying is the whole Israeli Palestinian thing is Stalin vs Hitler all over again only on a fraction of the scale.

In which case I gotta side with the Stalin side (Israel) because they don't go around randomly attacking civilians and hiding behind them like the Hitler side (Hamas) does.

I'm afraid you underestimate the Machiavellian nature of insurgent tactics, and over-estimate the rationality of an occupied population. The key component here is that the land mines (IE Ds) aren't targeted at the children. Intent is what matters here, not just the end result. If someone is standing around, and observes a bunch of soldiers forcing a child at the point of a gun to test a potential explosive device, and it explodes, injuring or killing the child, I am afraid the observer is very unlikely to conclude that the insurgency is at fault. They are over-whelmingly likely to blame the soldiers. Knowing this, it is very much in the interest of the insurgency to plant more IED's, hoping that the occupying forces will force more bystanders to test them. That can only help the insurgency.

If the Israelis publicly state that all potential explosive devices will be tested by Palestinian children? They'd probably blame the soldiers, but I doubt they'd approve of planting more explosive devices if the Israelis showed a willingness to follow up on it.

^^ Not at all, and I resent the comparison to World War II. There is no such balance of power.

The whole Israel-Palestine conflict is screwed up. I can understand WHY the two sides despise each other. Yet Israel is the establishment, it is much more organised and much more advanced than Hamas. It should know better than to be an almost tyrannical regime. Hamas has much less control over the situation than the Israeli government likes to say. The Palestinians are helpless to stop West Bank settlements and Gazans have no control over their own borders or trade. Aggressive Israeli expansionism needs to stop before Hamas will stop.

edited 4th Oct '10 7:25:38 PM by Shichibukai

Except as we've seen over the last 6 years every concession Israel gives, Hamas just steps it up. Israel left Gaza completely and what did Hamas do? Build and/or purchase untold thousands of rockets and start firing them from Gaza into Israeli towns.

The only reason Hamas exists today at all is because apologists like you Shichi think Hamas is somehow worthy of being heard, somehow above being nothing but the terrorists they are.

Do you honestly think further Israeli concessions without concessions by Hamas will resolve the issue? If you do, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

^ Like I said, Hamas are just as bad. Yet does that excuse Israel's inhumane policies? I certainly don't think so. The reality of the situation is, Israel has much more control over the situation now.

I'm no apologist, just deeply concerned for civilians on both sides. And the Palestinians are clearly the ones who are suffering the most here. What do you want, genocide?

edited 4th Oct '10 8:03:56 PM by Shichibukai

All potential explosive devices? That seems... impractical. What if there are no civvies around (and they wont stick around, knowing what's coming)? But, yeah, I guess if the occupying forces can implement such a policy, the locals will begin to resent the insurgents too. Not that that would necessarily stop them...