IDF expels Jewish extremists from West Bank for allegedly attacking Palestinians - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

So let me get this straight, they violently attacked people and they won't even begin to see the inside of a jail cell??

Depends on the act. they've been more arrests recently as well. if warranted, I hope they'll get jail time as well. not every act, however, is deserving of a prison term.

Correct me if I misunderstood, when I read the term "violent attack" I assume that the crime was at least battery if not battery with a deadly weapon, rape or murder. Those are really the only violent crimes I can think of.

Perhaps that's a cultural misunderstanding though, does the source use the term "violent attack" to describe something less serious? Because for all of those cases I could think of I can not imagine that any of those crimes wouldn't warrant a prison term.

A lot of people are unhappy..in my book it means the IDF is doing something right.

Sounds about right. It has been my experience that both sides hate you when you are fair and unbiased.

So let me get this straight, they violently attacked people and they won't even begin to see the inside of a jail cell??

Is being expelled, homeless and forbidden to return ironic enough to qualify as suiting punishment?

I see... that is a cultural misunderstanding then... here we wouldn't use the term "violent" to describe property destruction.

Mr. IDF, I see you didn't chose to comment on my recent seed. From that seed, a couple of worthy quotes:

"There is more political tension and campaigns by the settlers because they are trying to do their utmost to prevent the demolitions," said Hagit Ofran, a senior official at Israeli group Peace Now, who monitors the expansion of Israeli settlements. Ofran, who has taken a lead role in petitioning the court to dismantle these illegal outposts, has had her own run-in with these settlers. In November, settlers vandalised her home, slashed her neighbour's tyres, and grafittied death threats like "Rabin is waiting for you", in reference to the murder of the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Doesn't seem to be a very peace-loving group.

Regarding the information in your seed, how would the IDF respond if these attacks were by Palestinians? We all know--with several and lethal violence and immediate prison.

That last comment--if alleged attackers (and often their families) were not killed outright, they would get prison. The system of justice in Israel is remarkably two-tiered:

Separate legal systems have existed in the occupied West Bank for Palestinians and Jewish settlers. Palestinians are tried under administrative detention - imprisonment without trial - while Jewish settlers are not. Human rights group have criticised this measure, which strips individuals to due process of law.

In reaction to the attack on the Israeli base, Netanyahu announced that the use of detention without charge and trial through military courts would also apply to "those who raise a hand against Israeli soldiers or Israel police personnel". Thus far, not one of the attackers has been convicted.

A comment by a viner on the thread to my piece used this as a remarkable proof of apartheid:

The separate and UNEQUAL legal systems for Israelis and Palestinians is another reason to claim that this is a kind of apartheid, don't you think? Check this out (neutral source):

Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced by the National Party governments of South Africa between 1948 and 1994, under which the rights of the majority 'non-white' inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and white supremacy and Afrikanerminority rule was maintained.

Notice how nicely it translates (thanks to kpr37 on another thread):

Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced by the (Isreali Government) National Party governments of South Africa between 1948 and (2012) 1994, under which the rights of the majority 'non(Jewish) -white' inhabitants of (the Occupied Territories) South Africa were curtailed and (Jewish) white supremacy and (Israeli) Afrikaner minority rule was maintained.

Looks like this unequal and separate legal system is prime evidence for apartheid.

So, what can you say to all of this?

So let me get this straight, they violently attacked people and they won't even begin to see the inside of a jail cell??

The smirk on one of the "arrested" ones says it all. They know they won't be held for long. It has been like that for a long time. They're "arrested" in the morning and released in the afternoon. To mu knowledge none of them has been indicted.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-police-struggling-to-supress-jewish-extremists-in-west-bank-says-senior-officer-1.405658

One thing I don't get though. Palestinian throwing rocks are called "terrorists" yet Jewish settlers attacking Palestinians are called "extremists". It really makes youthink, doesn't it?

Maria-789794, you wrote:

One thing I don't get though. Palestinian throwing rocks are called "terrorists" yet Jewish settlers attacking Palestinians are called "extremists". It really makes youthink, doesn't it?

Only for those who think. That's not recommended by the AIPAC.

Actually, the Palestinians are defending their own lands and the Jewish settlers are taking away their lands. The only think that is slowing them down right now is world opinion--which is turning against them.

What did you think of the argument for apartheid at the end of 1.8? Check out that seed if you have a chance.

Thanks to Oiled Pelican and you for good comments.

Palestinian throwing rocks are called "terrorists"

Where have you seen this? I was pretty sure the label of terrorist was reserved for those arabs who bomb or try to bomb Israeli citizens in cafes, streets, buses or in their homes, or those who plot such atrocities.

It would also apply to those arabs who break into Israelis' homes to murder their children, or who lure young Israelis to their death or who kidnap and incarcerate soldiers.

Terrorist would also be used for those arabs who fire rockets at Israeli towns or are involved in organising such attacks. And the many other activities at that level of violence or murderousness.

You might also say that members of terrorist organisations such as Hamas, which have the destruction of a legal state within their charter and end all their meetings with chants of "Death to Israel! Death to America!", are terrorists.

Throwing rocks at soldiers etc is hardly anything to be proud about but does not, on its own, make one a terrorist so far as I know.

Hope that clears up the confusion.

So let me get this straight, they violently attacked people and they won't even begin to see the inside of a jail cell??

So let me get this straight....

1. Guilty without due process - that must be the PalArab way of life

2. If they were Palestinians (role reversal) I bet that would have squares named after them....

IDF, I didn't see either of your posts until just now. I look around when I'm on line and look at things that interest me.

Oiled Pelican did quote from me (as "another viner") above. I'd be interested in your reply here (or on the original seed.). Here's the argument that Israel is an apartheid state:

The separate and UNEQUAL legal systems for Israelis and Palestinians is another reason to claim that this is a kind of apartheid, don't you think? Check this out (neutral source):

Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced by the National Party governments of South Africa between 1948 and 1994, under which the rights of the majority 'non-white' inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and white supremacy and Afrikanerminority rule was maintained.

Notice how nicely it translates (thanks to kpr37 on another thread):

Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced by the (Isreali Government) National Party governments of South Africa between 1948 and (2012) 1994, under which the rights of the majority 'non(Jewish) -white' inhabitants of (the Occupied Territories) South Africa were curtailed and (Jewish) white supremacy and (Israeli) Afrikaner minority rule was maintained.

Looks like this unequal and separate legal system is prime evidence for apartheid.

So, what can you say to all of this? Why isn't this a good reason for thinking that Israel is, at least prima facie, an apartheid state?

Dennis at 1.11:

Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. Just some further thoughts about terrorism.

The word "terrorist" is being banded about a bit loosely. Every viable definition I know of excludes attacks on military (whether in or out of uniform) as being terrorist. Instead, terrorism involves inflicting harm/death on civilians, or threatening to, for some ideological or political purpose.

There is also state terrorism in which a state does the same.

The "intention" to only kill or harm armed opponents, when in fact everyone knows that the result of some activity will inflict harm on civilians, does not absolve an act from being terrorist.

You are absolutely right to say:

Throwing rocks at soldiers etc is hardly anything to be proud about but does not, on its own, make one a terrorist so far as I know.

Those who say differently are misusing the term. Of course, the US government regularly misuses the term.

So every rocket or mortar fired from Gaza at a non-military target is a terrorist act and in this case state (HAMAS) sponsored terrorism.

Firing rockets or mortars from civilian areas (e.g., school yards) is a terrorist act as it put civilians in harms way (makes them qualified designated targets)

Putting on a suicide belt and blowing up a restaurant with men women children and infants inside is a terrorist act.

Going into a mosque and setting off a bomb because the attendees believe in a different form of Islam is a terrorist act.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

—FBI Definition

AH! The HAMAS and FATAH Mantra...

So every rocket or mortar fired from Gaza at a non-military target is a terrorist act and in this case state (HAMAS) sponsored terrorism.

Yes, but can you prove an Unguided rocket was being aimed at civilians? It is just as easily be claimed they are only targeting terrorists in Israel and thus acting in self-defense... Or can only Israel use that excuse?

I see you still won't talk about the IAF attacks on densely populated civilian areas that are acts of terrorism being claimed as "self-defense".

aRTieA, I don't understand your glee.

Whenever Hamas or anyone else shoots rockets randomly into areas where civilians live, or blows up a suicide belt in a civilian area (rather than at a military spot where there are only military), that's terrorism. Capturing or killing solders is not.

Whenever the IDF or IAF kill civilians knowingly (foreseeably is better), or what the IDFand IAF did in the last Gaza invasion, or when they bombed the electric generators and shut off water to the civilian population... is also terrorism. It may be state terrorism, but it is still terrorism.

What is there to rejoice about?

Maria-789794, thank you for the FBI definition.

That definition, however, is liable to be influenced by the government which has an interest in having us think that attacks on military targets are acts of terrorism.

The definitions I know do not count attacks on military as terrorism, though obviously the US government does.

The attack by Israeli forces on the USS Liberty in 1967 was not a terrorist attack, by these definitions, even though one civilian (and 33 US military personel) was killed. It was a bona fide military target.

Link for the above quote.

Important article-- thanks for the link :-)

IDF expels Jewish extremists from West Bank for allegedly attacking Palestinians

And in other news, Hamas has expelled Islamic extremists from Gaza for allegedly firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets in Israel.

(Do I really need the /sarcasm tag here?)

Yes, but can you prove an Unguided rocket was being aimed at civilians? It is just as easily be claimed they are only targeting terrorists in Israel and thus acting in self-defense... Or can only Israel use that excuse?

Now that is just plain f'n insane logic.

Now that is just plain f'n insane logic.

As if your able to judge what is or isn't insane seeing as the agenda you push is, well... Bat@!$%# Bonkers!

My post is as insane as Israel's claim of self-defense while committing acts of terrorism against the civilian population of Gaza. But I wouldn't have expected you to understand the point so obviously made in my post...

But you haven't addressed a good point I made. HOW CAN UNGUIDED ROCKETS TARGET ISRAELI CIVILIANS? or do you not understand the word UNGUIDED?

I almost burnt down my neighbors house with unguided bottle rockets some years ago.

Now that is just plain f'n insane logic.

Yes.

But fairly typical actually.

UNGUIDED?

If an unguided rocket hits you-- the effect is no different than if a guided rocket hits you.

HOW CAN UNGUIDED ROCKETS TARGET ISRAELI CIVILIANS? or do you not understand the word UNGUIDED?

And Gaza is very, very close to Sderot-- pointing a rocket even in the general direction of the town has deadly consequences.

HOW CAN UNGUIDED ROCKETS TARGET ISRAELI CIVILIANS? or do you not understand the word UNGUIDED?

First Person: When a rocket hits a child therapy center

HOW CAN UNGUIDED ROCKETS TARGET ISRAELI CIVILIANS? o

"Unguided" rockets"

Here's what President Obama said on the subject-- please listen carefully

Also, if unguided rockets have no effect, then why use them. (P.S. that is a rhetorical question)

I almost burnt down my neighbors house with unguided bottle rockets some years ago.

if it's an unguided rocket how could it have targeted anything? It must have been an accident.

I guess Hamas' victims were all accidents, casualties of war. It's ok since Rockets are fired in self defense. Isn't that Israel's position? If it's BS to say Hamas hasn't committed terrorism, why can't you see that Israel is just as guilty and her position is full of the same BS?

If an unguided rocket hits you-- the effect is no different than if a guided rocket hits you.

But if it is unguided, how can it be targeting civilians? Thus, how can it be called terrorism if it wasn't targeting civilians? See?

If unguided rockets that have the potential to kill civilians is terrorism (28 Israelis so far), then Israel's Smart-Bombs that are aimed at densely populated areas is just as much a form of TERRORISM!!!

The numbers say it all. 28 Israelis have been killed "in self defense" due to rockets; 3500 Palestinian civilians have been killed "in self defense" do to Smart bombs... That means Israel is 125x worse! Either they both are terrorists or neither are terrorists...

Also, if unguided rockets have no effect, then why use them.

In the small numbers that they are being used, they are useless and present no danger, thus the retaliation Israel takes is not self defense.

However, 40,000 rockets from Gaza and 80,000 from Syria and Lebanon fired in large salvos would have an affect. Maybe even cause mass evacuations again.

Also, if unguided rockets have no effect, then why use them.

Care to give them tanks and warplanes for a fair fight? Until then you'll have to expect them to fight a gorilla war using questionable tactics because that's all they have.

However, 40,000 rockets from Gaza and 80,000 from Syria and Lebanon fired in large salvos would have an affect.

I would hope that that would be answered with neutron bombs. Threat gone forever... Bang bang your dead...

Let me elaborate...

Thus you have proved the point that unguided missiles are indeed lethal and the degree of harm is based on an offensive strategy consistising of numbers of rockets, firing sequence, and geographical area targeted.

Such an attack would constritute a weapons of mass destruction attack against a civilian population and I assume would be subject to a massive retaliatory attack.

Unfortunately, this is not a good scenario as people will needlessly be killed on both sides.

This is the downside of MAD and it is mad to think that because both sides are poised to annihilate one another that it will never happen.

Also, if unguided rockets have no effect, then why use them. (P.S. that is a rhetorical question)

Good question-- i had never thought of that, actually.

Also, if unguided rockets have no effect, then why use them.

I dunno.

Maybe...its because...Hamas members are gentle folk-- who don't want to harm anyone?

if it's an unguided rocket how could it have targeted anything? It must have been an accident.

If that's the case, why are they shooting them?

I would hope that that would be answered with neutron bombs. Threat gone forever... Bang bang your dead...

Glad to see you can support the mass murder of civilians if the victims are Arabs, nice comments there Artie. At least we know were you stand.

Thus you have proved the point that unguided missiles are indeed lethal and the degree of harm is based on an offensive strategy consistising of numbers of rockets, firing sequence, and geographical area targeted.

Such an attack would constritute a weapons of mass destruction attack against a civilian population and I assume would be subject to a massive retaliatory attack.

28 dead Israelis resulting from 10 years of rocket attacks do not constitute a Weapon of Mass Destruction nor does it justify the rogue state of Israel to use or threaten to use Nuclear weapons. The only weapon of terror being wielded is the nuclear arsenal Israel threatens their neighbors with just by possessing them and having so many fanatical maniacs in their government and legions of supporters.

If that's the case, why are they shooting them?

Why does any occupied and oppressed people resist their abuser? Care to give them tanks and warplanes for a fair fight?

or do you not understand the word UNGUIDED?

The joke's on you because you clearly don't. Unguided is not the same thing as untargeted.

Never heard of unguided ordnance? Meaning bombs dropped from aircraft and left to fall under gravity. There is no guidance system or, in this case, means of propulsion given availability of gravity, but they are very definitely targeted. If there was no prospect of killing someone with them there would be no point airmen risking their lives to deliver them.

The Gaza rockets are unguided (they do not have electronics and attitude rockets that fine tune trajectory to tightly defined target) but they are fired in the direction of Sderot (ie they are targeting Sderot) in the hope of causing damage or injury to its residents. Otherwise, what is the point of firing them?

The difference between guided and targeted is not in whether they are targeting a particular destination, or whether or not their intention is to kill or injure, simply in the accuracy of targeting that can be achieved with the level of sophistication of the weapon.

The joke's on you because you clearly don't. Unguided is not the same thing as untargeted.

Clearly you want to invent some sort of distinction. If it is Unguided then it isn't targeting anything.

guided (tr vb) 2. To direct the course of

targeted (tr vb) 2. To aim at or for.

Almost every rocket lands in an empty field without any damage or injuries; while Israel's smart bombs are aimed and are targeting civilian areas and have killed 3500 civilians in Gaza over the past 10 years alone.

Because he disagrees with you?

How about some of your deep reflections on 1.8 and 1.9?

It does require thinking.

IDF, that was a question--how/what makes him a useless piece of @!$%#?

I am interested. Thanks.

Whose defending extremists? I'm not. And those who kill civilians for political reasons, whether individuals or groups or governments, are committing terrorist acts. Period.

I am raising questions that you and your colleagues on this thread don't seem capable or interested in answering.

Too bad you aren't interested in dialogue. So my first impression was correct: this guy, whoever he is, must hold a position contrary to yours. Looks like the typical AIPAC stance: agree with me or you are either a self-hating Jew or an anti-Semite or both.

If you want to try to have a thinking dialogue, here's the argument that Israel is an apartheid state and I'd love to have a thinking/argumentative/giving of reasons reply:

The separate and UNEQUAL legal systems for Israelis and Palestinians is another reason to claim that this is a kind of apartheid, don't you think? Check this out (neutral source):

Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced by the National Party governments of South Africa between 1948 and 1994, under which the rights of the majority 'non-white' inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and white supremacy and Afrikanerminority rule was maintained.

Notice how nicely it translates (thanks to kpr37 on another thread):

Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced by the (Isreali Government) National Party governments of South Africa between 1948 and (2012) 1994, under which the rights of the majority 'non(Jewish) -white' inhabitants of (the Occupied Territories) South Africa were curtailed and (Jewish) white supremacy and (Israeli) Afrikaner minority rule was maintained.

Looks like this unequal and separate legal system is prime evidence for apartheid.

You haven't addressed this and I was disappointed in IDF's reply. Technically it is an informal fallacy--and argument ad authoritatum. In ordinary language, IDF you didn't respond to the argument but quoted someone you never would have quoted until he made some remarkable retractions and apparently fully damaged his credibility.

So: is there any THINKING discussion possible about this argument?

My guess is there isn't. So be it.

Anyone who speaks against Israel or Jews is banned

If you speak against Jews you are by definition displaying anti-semitic behaviour so deserve to be banned. Same would apply to anyone who "spoke against Muslims".

That is blatant Ad Hominem and a violation of the CoH. That is the way your "friends" have got themselves banned and the way you will achieve the same result yourself.

If you have a contribution to make to the debate, and you can keep within the code, then you are welcome. If not then you will very likely be banned and then NV will add you too to the list of attempted re-regs.

You do your own "side" no favours by behaving like this. If you have honest, objective points to make in support of your position then do so and others will respond in kind.

No way. I do not do Muslim hate or any kind of hate.

You need help.

I'll just say that if you're defending the extremists responsible for despicable price-tag acts against Palestinians, Israeli security forces, that alone could make one a @!$%#ing useless piece of @!$%#.

I think that pretty well sums it up...

Warrants notifying the West Bank activists of their imminent expulsion were handed in an overnight operation at the Yitzhar, Havat Gilad, Elon Moreh, and Ramat Migron settlements.

So these warrants were an official warning that they would be expelled?

Do you think the government will follow through and expel them? When? Where to?

When? Where to?

Hopefully not to the Sea of Galilee area. I'll recommend Chicago if they ask me.

South Sudan seams like a good place to send them.

I was relieved when the second lot of prisoners was released. Thanks for remembering. Satisfaction is not a word I'd use in connection with the deal that left thousands still imprisoned (including hundreds of children).

I'm OK with them being exiled to Chicago but why reward them for bad behavior? btw, in anticipation of a G-summit our mayor has proposed draconian restrictions on assembly. The intel and org skills these young bucks have honed in the West Bank might be put to use by frustrated protesters.

Yes, please keep me in mind when you learn of actual measures (not just threats, warnings) taken to restrict settler mayhem.

Richard S.?

oh, Richard Silverstein? Maybe he'll cover it. I keep an eye on his blog. I think these growling noises toward the settlers are for Israeli voter consumption. We'll see if they amount to anything other than posturing.

Yes, I saw that story. He certainly starts out well for his celebrity on the news. Is he someone you might support?

This talk over getting tough on the settlers is Bibi's political cushion. Channel 2 has probably contributed to the need for Bibi's tough talk by stirring public interest (through the girl being spit on story).