Finkelstein Denied Tenure
Very sad news – Prof. Norman Finkelstein has been denied tenure at DePaul. This is despite the support of his department, which voted 9-3 in favour of tenure, and the 
endorsement of his scholarship by leading figures in his field(s) – Avi Shlaim, Noam Chomsky, Raul Hilberg, Sara Roy, etc. The decision comes as a result of a vicious campaign – a “jihad”, as Chomsky so accurately described it – of smears, slander and public intimidation with the openly declared aim of shutting Finkelstein up, putting him out of business. Creatures like Dershowitz and his FrontPageMag fan-club have resorted to accusing Finkelstein of anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial (his parents were survivors), even descending into insinuations about Finkelstein’s mother that are almost too offensive to describe. Dershowitz sent a 60-page dossier full of ad hominem attacks – all utterly ridiculous – to all Finkelstein’s colleagues, and maintained a correspondence with the ex-chairman of Finkelstein’s department for three years without Finkelstein’s knowledge, as well as correspondence with the university president – the same president ultimately responsible for rejecting Finkelstein’s tenure bid. In Prof. Finkelstein’s words, “I cannot tell you how vicious and ugly it got…the vicious reaction totally shocked me”.
What has happened is an utter disgrace. 
Prof. Finkelstein is one of those all too rare public figures willing to risk their career and subject themselves to horrendous bullying, vitriol and hatred by consistently speaking out against injustice. Unfortunately, the system works not to kindle these rare flames of honesty, academic integrity and compassion, but to extinguish them. The chief fireman in this case has been Alan Dershowitz who, as you can already see from the above, has essentially spent the past few years of his life trying to defame and discredit Prof. Finkelstein, ever since Finkelstein exposed his book on public radio to be a fraud, consisting of nothing but falsehoods and a gross apologetics for human rights abuses and war crimes. As Noam Chomsky wrote in a recent letter to the New Republic,
‘It is always intriguing to see just how far Alan Dershowitz will go in his efforts to conceal the fact that Norman Finkelstein exposed him as a vulgar and fraudulent apologist for Israeli human rights violations -carefully, judiciously, with extensive documentation. Knowing that he cannot respond, Dershowitz is reduced to a torrent of slanders and deceit about Finkelstein’s alleged misdeeds – which would, transparently, be irrelevant if there were a particle of truth to his easily-refuted charges.’
Dershowitz even tried to prevent Finkelstein’s book, Beyond Chutzpah, from being published, sending threatening letters to the publishers and even going so far as to appeal to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (who, credit to him, waived Dershowitz away).
The thought of Derhowitz’ smug face at this “victory” over academic freedom, integrity and historical accuracy is absolutely nauseating.
The whole affair illustrates that there is something truly rotten at the heart of academia in the U.S., but it also shows that the self-designated “pro-Israel” crowd is getting worried. The amazingly shrill and vicious campaign against Finkelstein, together with the smears of Jimmy Carter after his book was published a few months ago, is in large part a desperate reaction by the fanatics to the fact that the debate is, slowly but surely, slipping away from them. That, at least, is grounds for hope.
In the meantime, to cheer us up…
UPDATE: The letter (.pdf) from DePaul’s President to Prof. Finkelstein has now been published. It is, shall we say, a load of bullcrap. Essentially, it says that the main problem with Finkelstein is that he uses “inflammatory” language and ad hominems, and as such fails to “respect and defend the free inquiry of associates”. Finkelstein has obviously failed to live up to the high standards of DePaul university, which “defends the free inquiry” of its scholars by refusing them tenure on the basis of their political statements.
Update II: A DePaul sit-in! From Finkelstein’s site:
‘Upset over DePaul University’s denial of tenure to Professors Norman Finkelstein, and Mehrene Larudee, and after a meeting between 30 student leaders and DePaul President Fr. Dennis Holtschneider at his office, students have taken action to defend academic freedom which is under attack at the nation’s largest Catholic institution. After an unsuccessful meeting where their demands were ignored by the administration, DePaul students are continuing their sit-in overnight and through this week at the President’s office and plan to escalate action among the student body.
Student leaders called for Fr. Holtschneider to grant the professors tenure. They presented him with a petition of over 700 signatures calling for a reversal of the decision, and engaged in a heated discussion on the legitimacy of the university’s decision. The decision made at the secretive University-level overturned the tenure decisions made at the Departmental and College-levels, which approved Finkelstein’s position by votes of 9-3 and 5-0, respectively. Students were surprised by Larudee’s rejection as she was unanimously approved by both the Departmental and University level tenure committees. The student leaders cite Finkelstein and Larudee’s positive peer reviewed scholarship and flaws in the tenure process as reasons why they should receive tenure.’
***See Finkelgate.com***
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, US | 85 Comments
Tags: DePaul, Education, Free Speech, Norman Finkelstein
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
no tenure for a racist. boo hoo!
Thanks for this Healthlander. I’m also outraged by this Zionist conspiracy to destroy anyone who stands in their way. I linked to your post and featured some more of Benjamin Heine’s great work. Good work. Always enjoy reading your posts. I used to read your diaries at DailyKos, but I asked them to ban me when they banned Fulbright Scholar Anna Baltzer and all the other great people who blogged for justice. So I don’t read there any more.
Cheers.
Free Palestine!
Thanks, ressentiment. (The cartoon above is by Latuff, not Ben Heine, though).
F. Pebbles: You’re an idiot. He’s not a racist, and the reason why you didn’t back that statement up with anything is because you can’t.
I’ve been watching/listening to the two Democracy Now broadcasts (I’m half an hour into the second one), and i was wondering if anyone had ever run a clock on the actual speaking time for Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz. My guess is that Alan Dershowitz speaks for perhaps 4 or 5 times longer.
So i went to the btselem website to look up civilian casualties, only there doesnt appear to be ANY Palestinian civilain casualties. Perhaps there are no Palestinian civilians, at all, anywhere, ever.
So, i went a little further and looked at the “Fatalities in the first Intifada”
Opening month December 9-31 1987
Total Israelis killed 0
Total Palestinians killed 22. Of which 5 were minors under 17 (But no mention of any Palestinian civilians)
For the whole of 1988
Total Israelis killed 12. Of which 8 were civilains and 3 of which were minors under 17.
Total Palestinians killed 310. Of which 48 were minors under 17.
Again no mention of Palestinian civilians, yet there is mention that Israeli civilians killed 20 Palestinians.
In fact, there simply is no mention of ANY Palestinian civilians.
I guess it stands to reason that if there were no Palestinian civilians being killed there would be no such thing as a Palestinian civilian doing any killing. None of the Palestinian killed, even if they “did not take part in the hostilities” are deemed to be civilian. Yet an armed Israeli (illegal?) settler (invader?) is deemed a civilian.
Has btselem ever seen a Palestinian civilian, do they actually exist?
Please tell me ive read it wrong.
Hi, Keith. The reason why you don’t see B’Tselem mention “Palestinian civilians” explicitly is that all Palestinians are civilians. However, even though they are civilians, when they take part in attacks against Israel they become ‘combatants’, and lose their civilian protections for the period in which they are engaging in attacks against Israel. As soon as they stop attacking Israel at a later date, they regain their protected status.
So when B’Tselem says that there were 1,946 Palestinians killed who “who did not take part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces ( not including the objects of targeted killings),” they mean civilians who were not engaged in hostilities and so retained their civilian status. When B’Tselem says that 1,307 Palestinians “who took part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces”, they are talking about civilians who were combatants at the time of being killed, and so did not have a protected civilian status.
This should explain it further.
See this comment from a former student of Finkelstein’s:
DePaul Public Relations e-mail here: dmattson@depaul.edu Let them know what you think of their capitulation. (via).
“Hi, Keith. The reason why you don’t see B’Tselem mention “Palestinian civilians” explicitly is that all Palestinians are civilians. ”
Surely not, Palestinians have security people and police. Besides, when compiling the tables as they have and the word civilian is used for Israelis, then it ought to be used for Palestinians too, simple as. If B’Tselem mean civilians they should bloody well say so, as they do for the tables on Israelis.
And anyway, if a Palestinian loses his civilian status when becoming involved attacks, then how can an Israeli civilian kill a Palestinian. Surely by killing a Palestinian the Israeli loses the civilian tag too, as they are then engaged in hostilities.
Its absurd to not use the word civilian for Palestinians. And its equally absurd to argue that Palestinians who picks up a rock (and are then said to be engaged in hostilities) lose their civilian tag but an Israeli doesnt lose the civilian tag when killing a Palestinian.
Of course, the Israeli courts may only be considering those engaged in hostilities against Israel, not simply those engaged in hostilities. So an Israeli Palestinian may in fact lose his or her civilain status if engaged in hostilities said to be against Israel, but not if engaged in hostilities against palestinians. The criteria being “against Israel” not “engaged in hostilities”
In fact, Israelis kill Israelis, not that you’d know from the tables given. The tables appear to mean Palestinians killed by Jews and Jews killed by Palestinians, as that would surely give a clearer distinction between the two groups, as some Palestinians are Israelis too.
Correct me if i’m wrong.
Perhaps B’Tselem could try and add a little balance by saying -
Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians (who lost their civilian status whilst they were actually engaged in killing said Palestinians).
No, its absurd.
All Palestinians are civilians. See the Israeli High Court’s ruling from last December. To quote from Ha’aretz:
To quote from my piece on the ruling at the time:
Here’s what Amnesty International has to say on the topic:
It therefore makes no sense to always explicitly call Palestinians civilians: they are all civilians. The distinction is between Palestinian civilians who, because they are taking part in hostilities, do not enjoy civilian protection, and those Palestinian civilians who were not taking part in hostilities at the time of being killed, and so did enjoy civilian protection.
With Israel, this is not the case. There are combatants and there are civilians. It therefore makes sense to use this distinction when dealing with Israelis, but it doesn’t make sense when dealing with Palestinians.
((By the way – just FYI, I’ve in the past been confused by something B’Tselem has written and emailed them for an explanation, and they’ve always replied.)
Your point about the ‘Israeli civilians’ is an interesting one, though. I don’t have the answer for that. I’ll email B’Tselem for an explanation.
How can DePaul say that there was no pressure on them to deny Finkelstein tenure? He had widespread support among scholars, so the reason for this denial has to be something more sinister. A disgrace indeed.
“All Palestinians are civilians
It therefore makes no sense to always explicitly call Palestinians civilians: they are all civilians”
To be blunt. RUBBISH!
None of your quotes, as far as i could see, addressed the point i raised about Palestinians having security people and police.
And even if all Palestinians were civilians, and Israelis killed Palestinians who “did not take part in the hostilities”, then as the word “civilain” is used in the same table to refer to Israelis, then it ought to be there when refering to Palestinians.
And i simply do not agree with the point you are making about all Palestinians are civilians, that is not what the court ruling says (not that ive read it all). It simply says that a civilian is still a civilian even when engaged in terrosist acts etc. It doesnt say anything about all Palestinians, only all Palestinian civilains. There are two groups “Palestinians” and “Palestinian civilians”
No one is saying to always explicitly call Palestinians civilians. The context is that within the same comparitive table the word civilain is used for Israelis and ough to be used for Palestinians no matter if all Palestinians are civilains, else its a false misleading comparison.
And as i implied, the evidence suggests that the criteria regarding the “civilain” tag being applied, is to do with “against Israel” not “engaged in hostilities”, therefore only applies to Palestinians as can be seen in the B’Tselem tables.
Not to forget that Israelis kill Israelis, not that you’d know from the tables given. The tables appear to mean Palestinians killed by Jews and Jews killed by Palestinians, as that would surely give a clearer distinction between the two groups in question, as some Palestinians are Israelis too. Although i guess some Israelis who kill Palestinians are not Jews, but such distinctions dont seem to bother B’Tselem.
But i guess the words “Palestinian civilians killed by Israelis” is not likely to appear at B’Tselem, never mind the words “Palestinian civilians killed by Jews”.
Jamie, i’ll try an email to B’Tselem too.
Cheers.
Kind regards.
-Keith
Keith: actually, on second thought, I think B’Tselem got it right. As I say, it makes sense to distinguish between Israeli civilians and combatants. However, in the case of the Palestinians they are all civilians, and so the relevant distinction is between those civilians who were engaged in hostilities at the time of being killed and those who were not.
You say that B’Tselem should not describe Israeli settlers who kill Palestinians as “civilians”. However, the fact is that they were civilians – you may say that B’Tselem should have added ‘(who temporarily lost their civilian protection’) – certainly, that would probably be true, but I don’t think it’s necessary. After all, the whole point is that these civilians killed Palestinians, not the other way round. The Israeli civilians who killed Palestinians were not themselves killed, so it doesn’t matter what civilian protections they enjoyed. That’s irrelevant.
Under international law, there are only two states – combatants and civilians. A civilian is defined as a non-combatant. The Israeli High Court ruled, and this is supported by all the human rights NGOs, that Palestinians do not qualify as combatants. Ergo, they are all civilians.
Of course policemen are civilians. That’s as true in the OPT as it’s true in London and everywhere else.
I don’t know how you can disagree. That’s precisely what the ruling says. It says that “Palestinian terrorists” are still civilians (and obviously, Palestinians who are not “terrorists” are civilians, too).
Why? The way it’s written now is, as far as I can see, totally accurate. If you’re worried that the use of the term “civilian” with regards to Israelis who kill Palestinians might lead readers to mistaken conclusions about the innocence of those people, I think you’re misguided. After all, the whole context is one of Israeli civilians killing Palestinians, and that’s set out explicitly by B’Tselem.
B’Tselem is the Israeli centre for human rights in the Occupied Territories. So I don’t think that’s a valid criticism, unless settler-on-settler violence is significant (which I doubt).
But the point is that the term “Palestinian civilian” is meaningless – all Palestinians in the OPT are civilians. Every single one of them. The term is therefore superflous, and is actually counterproductive, since talking about “Palestinian civilians” implies that there are some Palestinians who are not civilians.
Cody: Yeh, it’s ludicrous to think that the decision was not politically-motivated. Apparently Finkelstein is considering filing a lawsuit against them – I hope he sues the pants off ‘em.
Heathlander, I really enjoyed the video. I know Dershowitz advocates torture, but he probably should not use such tortured logic. Its too painful.
So, did he give up the $10K?
Dershowitz’ “logic” has got to be in breach of the Geneva Conventions. I’ve never seen a more straightforward case of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. It’s like the Vogon Captain in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, who tortures people with his poetry. Dershowitz’ “arguments” inflict pain on rational human beings everywhere.
Nah, he didn’t give up the money. Just tried to wriggle his way out, as usual.
Pebbles, don’t cry. the NaZionist stranglehold on allowable opinion and acceptable truth was bound to go down in flames. This is their cheapest, most desperate shot and their last gasp.
“Keith: actually, on second thought, I think B’Tselem got it right. As I say, it makes sense to distinguish between Israeli civilians and combatants.”
Huh? You are kidding of course, having a laugh, pulling my leg.
You mean it makes sense to distinguish between Israeli civilians and Israeli combatants, dont you? Or do you mean it makes sense to distinguish between Israeli civilians and both Israeli combatants and Palestinian combatants? Surely the only correct way to make the distinction is between Palestinian and Israeli civilians and Palestinian and Israeli combatants? Or simply put – between civilains and combatants – which would make an Israeli who kills a Palestinian a combatant not a civilian, wouldnt it. That distinction was not made.
Of course, the Israeli is a civilian under a different criteria of the word, and a combatant too. Just like some Palestinians.
” However, in the case of the Palestinians they are all civilians, and so the relevant distinction is between those civilians who were engaged in hostilities at the time of being killed and those who were not.”
Jamie, you are not getting it, and for not lack of trying i’m sure.
The words “double standard” come to mind.
An Israeli combatant keeps the civilian tag, and a Palestinian civilian loses their civilain tag even though they were not a combatant. And in a table of side by side comparison you argue that it makes sense to treat the two groups differently, i’m baffled by that position, i would be if the two groups were A and B, or RED and BLUE teams. It would perhaps be better for this discution if the words “Israeli” and “Palestinian” were not used.
I take it you’ve moved away from saying all Palestinians are civilians to saying all Palestinians killed or doing the killing in the tables in question were civilians, which is a different thing all entirely.
I honestly dont see why just because all Palestinins involved were civilians that the civilian tag should be dropped, especially when an Israeli combatant keeps their civilain tag. It simply unbalances the comparison, compares apples to oranges so to speak.
The tables are not a paragraph of words where the one word takes on slightly different meanings depending on context etc, but a much more factual comparison in a very scientific way, it is a label and has to be consistent or it loses meaning altogether.
To drop the civilian tag for Palestinians and not Israelis without explanation is at best misleading.
“You say that B’Tselem should not describe Israeli settlers who kill Palestinians as “civilians”. However, the fact is that they were civilians -”
Yes Jamie they are, in one context of the word, but you quoted, did you not, that Under international law, there are only two states – combatants and civilians. And also said that it makes sense to distinguish between Israeli civilians and combatants. An Israeli settler who kills a Palestinian is therefore a combatant and yet the distinction is not made.
” you may say that B’Tselem should have added ‘(who temporarily lost their civilian protection’) – certainly, that would probably be true, but I don’t think it’s necessary. After all, the whole point is that these civilians killed Palestinians, not the other way round. The Israeli civilians who killed Palestinians were not themselves killed, so it doesn’t matter what civilian protections they enjoyed. That’s irrelevant.”
(What do you mean “probably” true?)
Its not necessary to drop the civilian tag for Palestinians just becasue all the Palestinians involved were civilians.
Irrelevent to who, what? The fact is that you argued that it makes sense to distinguish between Israeli civilians and combatants. And then argued that its irrelevent to do so?
Theres no room for subjective opinion about whether it matters or not when labelling the groups being compared, the labelling ought to be equal and consistant, else theres a false and misleading comparison.
There is no issue on what protection they enjoyed when killing or being killed, thats a different matter, and dare i say it, irrelevent.
Jamie, the purpose of the tables was not to distinguish between whether civilian protection mattered or not. At least i dont think it was. Not that i think that matters. The tables were not even there to distinguish between whether civilian protection under law applied or not, not that that matters either.
You are switching between distinctions when using the word civilian depending on whether its an Israeli or a Palestinian. Its a double standard.
When using the label “civilian” to head columns in tables that are there to compare one group side by side with another (call them group A and group B), then the use of that label ought to be consistant.
(And thats without getting in to the fact that some Palestinians involved were also Israelis).
Under international law, there are only two states – combatants and civilians. A civilian is defined as a non-combatant. The Israeli High Court ruled, and this is supported by all the human rights NGOs, that Palestinians do not qualify as combatants. Ergo, they are all civilians.
OMG! Do you remember making this point earlier?
when they [Palestinians] take part in attacks against Israel they become ‘combatants’,
Not only are you arguing for an inconsistant use of the word civilian but you are also inconsistant with your use of the word “combatant”.
dont stick a chance, you are arguing with yourself!
You went on to say -
When B’Tselem says [...] they are talking about civilians who were combatants
I dont want to get into this arguemnt with you -
Of course policemen are civilians. That’s as true in the OPT as it’s true in London and everywhere else.
“It simply says that a civilian is still a civilian even when engaged in terrosist acts etc. It doesnt say anything about all Palestinians, only all Palestinian civilains. There are two groups “Palestinians” and “Palestinian civilians””
I don’t know how you can disagree. That’s precisely what the ruling says. It says that “Palestinian terrorists” are still civilians (and obviously, Palestinians who are not “terrorists” are civilians, too).
I dont know what you think i’m disagreeing with. It does not say all Palestinians, Jamie, it talks about a Palestinian civilian being civlian even if they are terrorists or whatever. It does not talk about all Palestinians, only Palestinian civilians. There are two groups “Palestinians” and “Palestinian civilians”. Trust me. take a piece of paper and draw group circles like you hopefully did in school, and see just how one circle relates to another.
“And even if all Palestinians were civilians, and Israelis killed Palestinians who “did not take part in the hostilities”, then as the word “civilain” is used in the same table to refer to Israelis, then it ought to be there when refering to Palestinians.”
Why?
Because to do otherwise is to be inconsistant, misleading and false, and any like for like comparison is impossible.
The way it’s written now is, as far as I can see, totally accurate. If you’re worried that the use of the term “civilian” with regards to Israelis who kill Palestinians might lead readers to mistaken conclusions about the innocence of those people, I think you’re misguided.
You may well think i am misguided, but its not just about me is it. Its not about being worried or any other subjective opinion, its about being consistant within the same table, and or set of tables.
After all, the whole context is one of Israeli civilians killing Palestinians, and that’s set out explicitly by B’Tselem.
Oh, the whole context is about that is it? Perhaps i missed that part of the heading, that the tables were there to list Israeli civilians killing Palestinians.
You’re killing me
“Not to forget that Israelis kill Israelis, not that you’d know from the tables given.”
B’Tselem is the Israeli centre for human rights in the Occupied Territories. So I don’t think that’s a valid criticism, unless settler-on-settler violence is significant (which I doubt).
I dont give a monkeys left testicle who or what B’Tselem is or is not regarding the issue of consistency, its simply not relevant. I was making an observation, a statement of fact, whether you think that amounts to being a valid criticism or not is neither here nor there. What on earth settelr on settler violence has to do with it i have no idea.
“But i guess the words “Palestinian civilians killed by Israelis” is not likely to appear at B’Tselem, never mind the words “Palestinian civilians killed by Jews””
But the point is that the term “Palestinian civilian” is meaningless
Really.
- all Palestinians in the OPT are civilians. Every single one of them. The term is therefore superflous, and is actually counterproductive, since talking about “Palestinian civilians” implies that there are some Palestinians who are not civilians.
Huh?
The tables cover not just the OPT.
Dare i remind you of your own words of
- when they [Palestinians] take part in attacks against Israel they become ‘combatants’,
- When B’Tselem says ["..."] they are talking about civilians who were combatants
-As I say, it makes sense to distinguish between Israeli civilians and combatants.”
For the last time, if there is a lack of consistancy then any comparison is meaningless.
You’re right! When I said this:
I was wrong. What I said later about the High Court’s decision was correct. Palestinians are not combatants, they are all civilians.
But surely you see that the reason they only talk about terrorists is because nobody doubts that non-terrorist Palestinians are civilians. It’s not in question that a Palestinians who hasn’t engaged in acts of violence is a civilian.
The High Court ruled that Palestinian civilians who engage in terrorism are still civilians. Who, then, do you think are non-civilian Palestinians? If even those Palestinians who engage in terrorism remain civilians, as the Court ruled, then what Palestinians do you think exist who are not civilians?
It’s neither inconsistent, misleading nor false. Like for like comparison is possible – the only way you could maintain that it isn’t is there exists such a thing as a Palestinian living in the OPT is not a civilian. Now, the High Court ruled that even those Palestinian civilians who engage in violence or terrorism remain civilians. Thus, what they are saying is that a Palestinian civilian cannot lose his civilian status by engaging in hostilities, or committing terrorism.
Now, since a Palestinian civilian cannot lose his civilian status even by engaging in hostilities or terrorism, how do you think a Palestinian can lose his civilian status? He can’t, and so all Palestinian are civilians.
Again, see Amnesty International:
Now, again, you’re correct that Amnesty International don’t here make explicit that Palestinians who are not engaged in “armed attacks” are civilians. It’s taken as obvious, something that doesn’t need to be said: if Palestinians who do engage in terrorism are civilian, then obviously those who don’t are civilians as well. If I understand you correctly, that’s what you seem to be missing.
You say:
Well, I’ll quote it for you if you like:
You say:
Then what was the point of making the observation? Trees are green. Cows go moo. These are ’statements of fact’, too, but they’re pretty pointless on their own.
Not meaningless. I meant unecessary. It’s an unecessary addition, because it’s a tautology. It’s like me saying “the past is over”, or “my red hen is red”. All Palestinians are civilians. Therefore, to try and make a distinction between Palestinian ‘civilians’ and ‘combatants’ is utterly pointless, because there are no Palestinian combats. Instead, the relevant distinction is between those Palestinian civilians who were engaged in hostilities at the time of being killed, and so did not enjoy the normal civilian protections, and those who were not.
That very early comment I made about Palestinians being ‘combatants’ was wrong. All Palestinians are civilians. From that, everything else follows.
The Israeli High Court ruled, and this is supported by all the human rights NGOs, that Palestinians do not qualify as combatants. Ergo, they are all civilians.
It does not say that.
It says a civilian does not become a combatant and therefore enjoy prisoner of war status, but they do lose civilian protection. That is not the same thing as saying all Palestinians do not qualify so all Palestinians are civilians
And that ruling is leaving the Palestinian without protection under international law, at least as far as Israeli law is concerned.
You did quote Amnesty stating that Palestinians engaged in armed attacks against civilians or in clashes with Israeli forces are not combatants… But so what?
Quite why you would quote such a ruling by Israel that does away with protection under international law for Palestinians in that way, is beyond me. Not least because it contradicted your own words about civilians and combatants along with what you had to say about B’Tselem on the matter.
I guess in the context of talking about an Israeli organisation such as B’Tselem it would seem to make sense to quote Israeli law. Its just that whether a ruling leaves a Palestinian with legal protection or not is not relevant to the tables in question.
If the tables were there to list combatants and non combatants (or civilians and combatants) as defined under Israeli law, then it might make sense. But that is not the purpose of the tables as far as i’m aware, not least because it does not mention the term “combatant” in the column headings.
The High Court ruling explicitly only talks about that situation – that of a Palestinian civilian engaged in hostilities – because the context of that ruling was a decision on the legality of targeted killings. Targeted killings are supposedly aimed at people engaged in hostilities, and the Israeli government argued that it is legitimate to assassinate them because they are “illegal combatants”. The Court rejected that, and said that even by taking up hostilities a Palestinian civilian does not lose his/her civilian status.
So no, it didn’t explicitly say that all Palestinians are civilians. That would not have been relevant to the case. Butif Palestinians can’t lose their civilian status by engaging in terrorism, which is what the Court said, then how can they? By buying a loaf of bread? No – if Palestinians can’t lose their civilian status by taking up arms, then obviously they can’t lose their civilian status full stop. Ergo, all Palestinian are civilians.
Because if they’re not combatants, they are civilians.
The High Court ruling did diverge from Amnesty International’s and others’ interpretations of international law, but not in any way that is relevant to this discussion. What is important here is that it follows from both the Israeli High Court ruling and Amnesty’s and others’ interpretation of the law that all Palestinians are civilians, unless you argue that there exists some other group of Palestinians apart from those engaged in hostilities that might not be civilian. But I think that’s a silly argument, and it’s not one you’ve made yet.
The point was to list fatalities on either side, and then distinguish between those who enjoyed civilian legal protection at the time of death, and those who didn’t. On the Israeli side, those who were legally protected as civilians at the time of death were labelled “civilians”. Those who were not were labelled “Israeli security forces”. On the Palestinian side, the labels had to be changed because, as I say, all Palestinians are civilians, and so making the distinction between Palestinian ‘civilians’ and ‘combatants’ is impossible. Instead, the distinction was between those who enjoyed civilian legal protections at the time of death, labelled as “Palestinians who did not take part in the hostilities”, and those who didn’t, labelled “Palestinians who took part in the hostilities”.
In other words, one can compare like with like. They are just labelled differently, because to do otherwise would be inaccurate.
then what Palestinians do you think exist who are not civilians?
Hey, at that point i’m still working on your given words about them being either a civilain or a combatant.
But, to quote wiki – A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country’s armed forces.
Wiki again – The armed forces of a state are its government sponsored defense, fighting forces, and organizations. They exist to further the foreign and domestic policies of their governing body. In some countries paramilitary forces are included in a nation’s armed forces. Armed force is the use of armed forces to achieve political objectives.
Palestinians have armed forces. But then you can get into an argument about whether the Palestinians have a “state”or “country” just because they have elections and a government, and on an on in legal arguments that Israeli lawyers excell at.
It doesnt really matter whether they have or not, to make the tables consistant then the appropriate columns should have the same consistant labelling.
But please remember i was working on your words regarding civilians and combatants.
…
You say:
“Perhaps i missed that part of the heading, that the tables were there to list Israeli civilians killing Palestinians.”
Well, I’ll quote it for you if you like:
“Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians”: 41
Jamie, for goodness sake! You missed the first part of that paragraph where i say – Oh, the whole context is about that is it? In other words – “Perhaps i missed that part of the heading, where it states that the whole context is about Israeli civilians killing Palestinians.”
It’s neither inconsistent, misleading nor false. Like for like comparison is possible – the only way you could maintain that it isn’t is there exists such a thing as a Palestinian living in the OPT is not a civilian.
But the tables are not jsut about the OPT though, are they.
And Palestinians do have Armed forces there. Not that that issue should decide whether to be consistant with the labelling of the word civilian. But please remember i was working on your words regarding civilians and combatants.
how do you think a Palestinian can lose his civilian status?
Enough said on that i think.
Then what was the point of making the observation? Trees are green. Cows go moo. These are ’statements of fact’, too, but they’re pretty pointless on their own.
Beacause just by looking at the tables, anyone not familiar with the situation on the ground would reasonably conclude that no Israelis had killed Israelis, which i figured to be false as i know that Israelis have killed Israelis. Therefore the tables are misleading and false.
It’s an unecessary addition, because it’s a tautology. It’s like me saying “the past is over”, or “my red hen is red”. All Palestinians are civilians. Therefore, to try and make a distinction between Palestinian ‘civilians’ and ‘combatants’ is utterly pointless, because there are no Palestinian combats.
Again i refer you to your own words on the matter of civilains and combatants.
“For the last time, if there is a lack of consistancy then any comparison is meaningless.”
That very early comment I made about Palestinians being ‘combatants’ was wrong. All Palestinians are civilians. From that, everything else follows.
Right, and because of your inconsistency a lot of what has been said has been meanigless and pointless.
So no, it didn’t explicitly say that all Palestinians are civilians. That would not have been relevant to the case. Butif Palestinians can’t lose their civilian status by engaging in terrorism, which is what the Court said, then how can they? By buying a loaf of bread? No – if Palestinians can’t lose their civilian status by taking up arms, then obviously they can’t lose their civilian status full stop. Ergo, all Palestinian are civilians.
Again, you’re still replying to what i said as if you didnt know that you had led me astray with your inconsistency.
And i dont want to get into a discussion about whether Palestinian “armed forces” qualify or not becasue Palestinians dont have a “state” or “country”.
unless you argue that there exists some other group of Palestinians apart from those engaged in hostilities that might not be civilian. But I think that’s a silly argument, and it’s not one you’ve made yet.
I hadnt made it cuz you already had, silly.
“The point was to list fatalities on either side, and then distinguish between those who enjoyed civilian legal protection at the time of death, and those who didn’t.”
Please, point out to me where you got the idea from that the point of the tables was to distinguish between those who enjoyed civilian legal protection at the time of death, and those who didn’t?
On the Israeli side, those who were legally protected as civilians at the time of death were labelled “civilians”. Those who were not were labelled “Israeli security forces”. On the Palestinian side, the labels had to be changed because, as I say, all Palestinians are civilians, and so making the distinction between Palestinian ‘civilians’ and ‘combatants’ is impossible.
There’s no “had to”, you made that up
.
Please, show me where the tables are there to distinguish between those who enjoyed civilian legal protection at the time of death, and those who didn’t?
Fatalities in the first Intifada is the title
Each of the four tables are titled thus
- Palestinians killed in the Occupied Territories (including East Jerusalem)
- Israelis killed in the Occupied Territories (including East Jerusalem)
- Palestinians within the Green Line
- Israelis killed within the Green Line.
And theres no ‘only in th OPT’ to it.
Of course, i was wrong to talk about elections and stuff earlier, as this was the first intifada and before Oslo and so before any such armed forces as i had in mind earlier.
Instead, the distinction was between those who enjoyed civilian legal protections at the time of death, labelled as “Palestinians who did not take part in the hostilities”, and those who didn’t, labelled “Palestinians who took part in the hostilities” They are just labelled differently, because to do otherwise would be inaccurate.
No it wouldnt. Being consistent would not mean being innacurate, thats absurd.
I made one mistake in terminology very early on – it was the online version of a slip of the tongue. Everything else I’ve said has been accurate, and I acknowledged the mistake right at the beginning of my last comment. Yet, most of your reply seems to act is if the apparent inconsistency still remains, even though in fact it was already cleared up.
The wiki definitions you quote are interesting, but as you say it is not clear on how to apply them. Groups like Amnesty International have long been clear, and recently, in the decision we’ve been talking about, the Israeli High Court made it explicit as well. It said that there are only two states – civilians and combatants, civilians being everyone who is not a combatant. It further ruled that Palestinian civilians cannot lose their civilian status, even if they take up arms. In other words, there is no such thing as a Palestinian combatants, ergo all Palestinians are civilians.
But what matters is not that the labels are consistent, but that the substance is consistent. If B’Tselem did as you say, and label Palestinian non-combatants as civilians, they’d have to call ALL Palestinians who were killed ‘civilians’, regardless of whether they were involved in hostilities or not. And in that case, it would be impossible to make a like for like comparison with Israeli civilians, since there would be a qualitative difference between some of those classed as civilians on the Palestinian side and those classed as civilians on the Israeli side.
No; the only way to be accurate and consistent is to do as B’Tselem has done. Or at least, they could add the ‘civilian’ label in as well – e.g. “Palestinian civilians who were killed when not engaged in hostilities” but, as I say, it would be quite unnecessary, since by definition all Palestinians are civilian.
Well, what else could you mean by “whole context”? I know what I meant when I initially introduced the phrase. I said that you shouldn’t be concerned that the phrase “Israeli civilians” might lead to a misunderstanding on the part of the reader that the Israeli civilians in question were innocent of all wrongdoing, since the “whole context” was one of Israeli civilians killing Palestinians. Obviously, that’s not what the entire table is about – it’s what that column to which I was referring is about. That is obviously the relevant context – I had thought that would be obvious.
They are about either events that take place within the OPT or events that involve residents of the OPT, yes.
You were perhaps working on the single mistake I made very early on, but I’ve already corrected that a while ago. You’ve made three comments since I corrected it, and at least two of them still seem to be working on the basis of the error, as opposed to the correction.
So you were making a criticism, and my comment about it being an invalid criticism was relevant…
Israeli-upon-Israeli violence within Israel is not the concern of B’Tselem, which is a human rights organisation working within in the OPT. Which was my earlier point.
Which words? The one mistake in terminology I made very early on, or the words I’ve been typing ever since? If the former, I don’t know why – as I say, I already clarified that a while ago.
OK, so now it’s been corrected, you agree that, given that all Palestinians are civilians, B’Tselem’s wording makes sense, yes?
It’s all right, we don’t need to get into that discussion, because it’s pretty much already decided. On that question, all the human rights NGOs and the Israeli High Court are united in agreement – they don’t qualify.
I never did.
And of course –
Wiki says – A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country’s armed forces.
But do “Palestinians” have a country, if not, are they then able to qualify as a civilian?
Perhaps thats the point B’Tselem is trying to make? Though some several million so called “Palestinians” have a country – Israel
And going back to labelling it as Palestinians vs Israelis – ignoring as that does the fact that some of the so called Palestinians are also Israelis – once such a person is recognised and labelled as an Israeli, then it ought to be recognised that being an Israeli makes it possible to be a combatant even by the recent Israeli court ruling.
Of course, the system of categorising and labelling is part and parcel of the racism that pervades Israeli rule.
I think that by “Palestinians” it means those Palestinians in the OPT. I think they use the term “Israeli-Arab” to talk about Palestinian citizens of Israel – see here, for example.
So B’Tselem’s terminology remains, as far as I can see, totally accurate.
. Everything else I’ve said has been accurate, and I acknowledged the mistake right at the beginning of my last comment. Yet, most of your reply seems to act is if the apparent inconsistency still remains, even though in fact it was already cleared up..
Huh? .
The wiki definitions you quote are interesting, but as you say it is not clear on how to apply them. Groups like Amnesty International have long been clear, and recently, in the decision we’ve been talking about, the Israeli High Court made it explicit as well. It said that there are only two states – civilians and combatants, civilians being everyone who is not a combatant. It further ruled that Palestinian civilians cannot lose their civilian status, even if they take up arms. In other words, there is no such thing as a Palestinian combatants, ergo all Palestinians are civilians.
You’ve just posted all that as if it hasnt been cleared up.
But what matters is not that the labels are consistent, but that the substance is consistent. If B’Tselem did as you say, and label Palestinian non-combatants as civilians, they’d have to call ALL Palestinians who were killed ‘civilians’, regardless of whether they were involved in hostilities or not. And in that case, it would be impossible to make a like for like comparison with Israeli civilians, since there would be a qualitative difference between some of those classed as civilians on the Palestinian side and those classed as civilians on the Israeli side.
Substance?
No, there would be no qualitative difference. if they were all civlians they were all civlians. Simple as.
No; the only way to be accurate and consistent is to do as B’Tselem has done. Or at least, they could add the ‘civilian’ label in as well – e.g. “Palestinian civilians who were killed when not engaged in hostilities” but, as I say, it would be quite unnecessary, since by definition all Palestinians are civilian.
Eh?
You say the only way, then give another way, and then conclude that the other way was unnecessary. How bizzare (and inconsistant)
Well, what else could you mean by “whole context”? I know what I meant when I initially introduced the phrase. I said that you shouldn’t be concerned that the phrase “Israeli civilians” might lead to a misunderstanding on the part of the reader that the Israeli civilians in question were innocent of all wrongdoing, since the “whole context” was one of Israeli civilians killing Palestinians. Obviously, that’s not what the entire table is about – it’s what that column to which I was referring is about. That is obviously the relevant context – I had thought that would be obvious..
So obvious that it applies to that one heading, that i thought you must have meant something else to bother mentioning it at all, sorry.
They are about either events that take place within the OPT or events that involve residents of the OPT, yes.
But the events also involved none OPT residents. And the tables are not jsut about the OPT.
You were perhaps working on the single mistake I made very early on, but I’ve already corrected that a while ago. You’ve made three comments since I corrected it, and at least two of them still seem to be working on the basis of the error, as opposed to the correction.
Which ones?
So you were making a criticism, and my comment about it being an invalid criticism was relevant…
Huh?
I dont give a monkeys left testicle who or what B’Tselem is or is not regarding the issue of consistency, its simply not relevant. I was making an observation, a statement of fact, whether you think that amounts to being a criticism, valid or otherwise, is neither here nor there. As for being relevant, i dont see any relevance in you thinking it was a criticsim, valid or otherwise, and i dont see what settler on settler violence has to with it.
Israeli-upon-Israeli violence within Israel is not the concern of B’Tselem, which is a human rights organisation working within in the OPT. Which was my earlier point.
I dont see what that has to do with my observation (call it a criticsim or whatever).
OK, so now it’s been corrected, you agree that, given that all Palestinians are civilians, B’Tselem’s wording makes sense, yes?
It can make sense to mislead.
I can see why they might do it that way, but i disagreee with that way of doing it because it is not the clearest way to do it as it is inconsistant and misleading.
It’s all right, we don’t need to get into that discussion, because it’s pretty much already decided. On that question, all the human rights NGOs and the Israeli High Court are united in agreement – they don’t qualify.
There is no such ruling by Israel. The Israeli high court does not talk about Palestinian armed forces or all Palestinians.
You have that one quote from Amnesty, not all human rights NGOs.
But neither addressed the issue of whether Palestinian “armed forces” qualify or not becasue Palestinians dont have a “state” or “country”.
I think that by “Palestinians” it means those Palestinians in the OPT. I think they use the term “Israeli-Arab” to talk about Palestinian citizens of Israel – see here, for example.
So B’Tselem’s terminology remains, as far as I can see, totally accurate.
Accurate but inconsistant and misleading?
Are you saying that not one “Isreali Arab” is in that list? That none of the 60 “Palestinians” killed “within the Green Line” were “Israeli Arabs”? And that none of the Israelis killed were killed by “Israeli Arabs”?
obviously, there has been “Israeli Arabs” killed and who have killed, and btselem’s page on Fatalities lists them in the table as “Palestinians”.
And in a way Jamie, ironically enough, you have made the case for me.
You say that there is no chance that any Palestinian can be a combatant, and that the purpose of calling an Israeli a civilian in those tables is to distinguish between an Israeli combatant and an Israeli non-combatant. But theres no point, you say, for Palestinians, because there is no chance of them being a combatant.
But anyone reading those tables has no way of knowing that there is no such thing as a Palestinian combatant (theres no footnote, no link etc) , so for all the observer of those tables knows, they are all combatants, because the reader has not been told that all Palestinians are civilians. And just to make the point about how misleading that can be, you, who does know and has read both what Amnesty had to say on the matter and what the Israeli court ruling had to say, made the argument to begin with that Palestinians are either combatants or civilians.
You are almost an expert on the labelling of Palestinians compared to most people and you got it wrong, leading our conversation on a right merry dance, with an inconsistentand misleading argument. Can you remember that this discussion was sparked by a debate on stripping away certain groups to make Israeli deaths more numerous than Palestinian deaths?
***
Btselems Clarifications regarding data on fatalities for the al-Alasqa intifada is an intersting read, and goes someway to explain your inconsistant and confusing arguments, propably due to its misleading content.
The clarification states – The data on Israelis who were killed indicate whether they were a civilian or member of the security forces. Regarding Palestinians who were killed, the data state whether they took part in the fighting, in the event that B’Tselem has this information.
Which doesnt mention the ruling about being a “combatant”, or that all Palestinians are civilians.
It goes on to state – … The lists of fatalities relate to persons killed during incidents related to the al-Aqsa intifada, and are to be viewed solely in that light.
How is the killing of a Palestinian civilian not participating in the fighting said to be related to the al-Asqa intifada (please note that the al-Asqa intifada began after the end of the first intifada and so the “clarification” does not cover the tables we were discussing earlier.
For B’Tselem’s statement to be true and accurate, then all those Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli security forces were killed by Israeli accidents in the course of incidents related to the al-Aqsa intifada. Thats quite a whitewash.
Think about it, if the Palestinian civilian was not taking part then how can they be said to be related to an incident except by dint of being killed by someone else who was. It is the killer who made them part of a so called al-Aqsa intifada incident, and so related to it.
For the heading - Palestinians who did not take part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces ( not including the objects of targeted killings). -
B’Tselem states there were 1970 + 5 killed.
Thats some accident prone Israeli security force isnt it, if we are to believe the B’Tselem tables.
Think about it, if it was not an accident, then B’Tselem putting them in that category is false and misleading, and accoring to B’Tselem’s tables they can only be accidents. Because if it was not an accident then how can it be said to be related to an incident of the al-Aqsa intifada? And if it was deliberate then it was surely targeted killing and belongs in another category.
I wonder if the “al-Asqa intifada” is seen by B’Tselem as a period of time. But then exactly what did they mean by “incidents related to the al-Aqsa intifada”. Surely they mean incidents of killing that took place during the al-Asqa intifada time period. This time their clarification would be misleading, as there would be no distinction possible between an al-Asqa incident and a non al-Asqa incident during the time of the al-Asqa intifada time period.
No, the only reasonable conclusionto be made from those tables is that B’Tselem believes that Israeli security forces killed 1970 + 5 palestinians by accident.
Of course, there are 589 + 3 Palestinians who were killed by Israeli security forces and it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities, so they might have been accidents too. Which means the Israeli security forces could well have killed more by accident that deliberately (or in self defence or whatever), according to B’Tselem.
You’d think with such info available there would be some considerable attention paid to the appaling standard of deadly accidents by the Israeli security forces, yet i’m not aware of any such concern expressed. They are praised by the Israeli governemnt and others as the most careful and accurate. Bizzare isnt it (not).
Can you point me to anywhere that states that Israel kills so many Palestinians (probably half) by accident? And anything that compares such findings with the Israeli claims about being the most careful and caring security force on earth?
I bet only the Americans come close to being so accident prone with their record of accidental killings of Arabs.
No, not “simple as”. The Israeli “civilians” would all have enjoyed civilian protection at the time of death, whereas some of the Palestinians “civilians” would not have enjoyed civilian protection at the time of death. Thus, one would not be comparing like with like.
You didn’t actually address the point, which is that for B’Tselem to do as you say – to use the same ‘civilian/combatant’ distinction for the Palestinians as for the Israelis – would be both inaccurate and misleading.
No, they don’t, so yes, they are.
This one and this one.
Your criticism was that, looking at the tables, one would not think that Israelis ever killed Israelis. Unless you’re talking about settler-on-settler violence, Israeli-upon-Israeli violence would take place within Israel, and so would not be the concern of B’Tselem. So it’s not a valid criticism.
There’s no inconsistency. As for “misleading” – you’re right that proper understanding of it is certainly predicated upon the knowledge that all Palestinians are civilians. People who are not aware of that might possibly find the table misleading.
“Qualify” for what? As a proper army, meaning that their members would be “combatants” and not civilians? The High Court did answer that. It said that Palestinians cannot lose their civilianality by engaging in violence or terror. That means that even if a Palestinian civilian joins Islamic Jihad, Hamas, PFLP, AAMB or one of the other Palestinian militant groups, which you’re presumably referring to by “armed forces”, they do not lose their civilian status.
That’s right. In fact, it even makes clear that “Palestinian-citizens of Israel” are not included at the bottom. I’ll quote:
In other words, violence by or towards Palestinian citizens of Israel is not included in the data.
“No, there would be no qualitative difference. if they were all civlians they were all civlians. Simple as.”
No, not “simple as”. The Israeli “civilians” would all have enjoyed civilian protection at the time of death, whereas some of the Palestinians “civilians” would not have enjoyed civilian protection at the time of death. Thus, one would not be comparing like with like.
DONT BE BLOODY STUPID!
If the purpose of the tables was to distinguish between those who have legal protection and those that dont, which is not the case, you might be making a relevant point.
But any Israeli civilian engaged in hostilities is also a civilian who loses their protection, or is that only Palestinians lose their protection when engaged in hostilities (as i somewhat joked earlier).
Only if all the Israeli civilians killed were not taking part in hostilities can your argument make sense. But as we know that Israeli civilians kill Palestinian civilians that can hardly be said to be the case.
Stop applying a double standard!
Only if the Israeli civilain in question was “innocent” of involvement would they still have their civilian “protection”.
But then we do know that probably half of the Palestinian civilians killed were not taking part in hostilities and so still “enjoyed” their civilian status “protection”, legally anyway.
Stop applying the term “civilian” differently to the two groups in the same table.
That is precisely the purpose. You’ve nailed it in one.
I suppose they do. What’s your point? Do you think B’Tselem’s tables contradict that?
Maybe if an Israeli civilian was killed by a Palestinian whilst he/she was engaged in hostilities, you’d have a point. But we don’t know that that has happened at all.
The Israeli “civilians” would all have enjoyed civilian protection at the time of death – You say.
You are assuming that quite falsely because the labelling in those tables is inconsistent and misleading. You have no way of knowing that all Israeli “civilians” would all have enjoyed civilian protection at the time of death, because it is not stipulated that all Israeli “civilians” werre not involved in attacks
And the Israeli “civilians” that killed Palestinians are also labelled as “civilians” despite their act of killing ruling them out of civlian protection, unless the protection ruling only applies to those that attack Israel, and not those involved in attacks.
Thats an inconsistent use of the word “civilain” amongst just the Israelis.
Maybe if an Israeli civilian was killed by a Palestinian whilst he/she was engaged in hostilities, you’d have a point. But we don’t know that that has happened at all.
Right, we dont know, so dont write the table out as if we do.
Until we do know, it is not the case, and the table is false and misleading.
You didn’t actually address the point, which is that for B’Tselem to do as you say – to use the same ‘civilian/combatant’ distinction for the Palestinians as for the Israelis – would be both inaccurate and misleading.
Oh, i’m sorry.
there is no ‘civilian/combatant’ distinction made in those tables, Jamie, only in your mind is it there.
“But the events also involved none OPT residents. And the tables are not jsut about the OPT.”
No, they don’t, so yes, they are.
Right, so every Israeli security forces member is an OPT resident? Even when they killed Palestinians inside the green line?
Your criticism was that, looking at the tables, one would not think that Israelis ever killed Israelis. Unless you’re talking about settler-on-settler violence, Israeli-upon-Israeli violence would take place within Israel, and so would not be the concern of B’Tselem. So it’s not a valid criticism.
Yet the observation still stands that anyone reading the tables would not know that Israelis ever killed Israelis. The tables do not just cover incidents in the OPT, and there is no stipulation that there is no concern of B’Tselem so it wasnt worth mentioning.
Anyway, the use of “Palestinian” and “Israeli” is misleading and false when looking at the tables for fatalities regardless of what you say about the concerns of B’Tselem .
Well, if it was otherwise, then B’Tselem would presumably not have labelled them as they did.
Look, if it is the case that some of those Israeli civilians were killed whilst engaged in hostilities, then I’d agree with you. If not, then I’m right in saying that B’Tselem is totally accurate and not misleading at all.
I’ll email them to ask.
Right, but they’re still civilians.
No – why assume that some were killed whilst engaging in hostilities? You could just as easily assume as the default position that B’Tselem would not make such an obvious mistake, and so it means that all were killed whilst not engaging in hostilities.
But again – if this is the only sticking point, then it can very easily be resolved with an email to B’Tselem (which I’ll send off right now).
There is on the Israeli side.
No, but presumably the Palestinians they killed were…
There’s no inconsistency. As for “misleading” – you’re right that proper understanding of it is certainly predicated upon the knowledge that all Palestinians are civilians. People who are not aware of that might possibly find the table misleading.
“Qualify” for what? As a proper army, meaning that their members would be “combatants” and not civilians? The High Court did answer that. It said that Palestinians cannot lose their civilianality by engaging in violence or terror. That means that even if a Palestinian civilian joins Islamic Jihad, Hamas, PFLP, AAMB or one of the other Palestinian militant groups, which you’re presumably referring to by “armed forces”, they do not lose their civilian status.
No, thats not what i meant by “armed forces”.
Then what did you mean? Here is my email to B’Tselem:
I’ll post any reply.
(God – this is the longest argument about nothing I’ve ever had…
)
“Are you saying that not one “Isreali Arab” is in that list?”
That’s right. In fact, it even makes clear that “Palestinian-citizens of Israel” are not included at the bottom.
…
In other words, violence by or towards Palestinian citizens of Israel is not included in the data.
Ok, my bad. I actually read that part and read that the examples listed were in the tables!
Although the point being made still stands, that those tables cover the al-Asqa intifada and it is possible for Palestinians to be members of the “armed forces” (“security force” , wear a uniform etc) and subsequently become combatants under law. So not all Palestinians in the OPT are “civilians” in the way that you argued.
How do you do the quote thing?
No, thats not what i meant by “armed forces”.
Palestinians do have armed forces other than militant groups, ive seen them on telly wearing their uniforms.
The fact that you are asking whether all the Israeli “civilians” killed enjoyed civilian protection at the time of death is indicative enough that the tables are misleading.
And even if they all did, the point being made is that roughly half of all Palestinians killed also enjoyed civilain protection when being killed but dont recieve the same “civilian” labelling. Thats an inconsistent use of the word.
To do a quote, use the ‘blockquote’ tag. tag. If you’re talking about the “Executive Force”, or the “Presidential Guard”, then it doesn’t make sense that they would be considered combatants but Islamic Jihad or Hamas members wouldn’t. They are militant groups, no different to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, Islamic Jihad, etc. etc. They act differently, certainly – their role is different within the Territories – but there’s no reason to think that if a Palestinian can’t lose his/her civilianality by joining one militant group (e.g. the AAMB), they can lose it by joining another (e.g. the Executive Force).
Well, if it was otherwise, then B’Tselem would presumably not have labelled them as they did.
Look, if it is the case that some of those Israeli civilians were killed whilst engaged in hostilities, then I’d agree with you. If not, then I’m right in saying that B’Tselem is totally accurate and not misleading at all.
Presumably you assumed then?
I dont think it correct that you assume such things, i think it false.
The misleading charge was also based on not labelling the Palestinians not engaging in hostilities as “civilians”, which by using the same definition as for Israslis they were.
To do a quote, use the ‘blockquote’ tag.
You mean like this?
I’m asking on your behalf! When I read I just assumed, based on the way the table was constructed, that they did, and that is the answer I expect to receive.
Because, when discussing the Palestinians, calling them “civilians” doesn’t mean that they enjoyed civilian legal protections at the time of death, because all Palestinians, even those engaged in hostilities, are civilians.
Huh?
They are different then. But for the purpose of Israeli control and this discussion they are not different enough?
Didnt the the official Palestinian National Security Force provide the manpower for the Joint Patrols with Israel in the Area B zones under joint security? Doesnt that make them different enough?
No, since they are not members of the armed forces of a state.
And at the same time you argue that when discussing Israelis, calling them “civilians” does mean that they enjoy civilian legal protection?
But we are not talking about “discussing”, we are talking about those tables.
The very notion that those tables are then being used to discuss Israelis and Palestinians with misleading and inconsistent use of the word “civilian” causing confusion is the point being so well made.
In practice, I think so. It is true that you could conceive of a circumstance when it wouldn’t be the case, such as an Israeli civilian who was killed whilst engaged in hostilities. If B’Tselem included such a circumstance in that category, then it would be inconsistent. I don’t think they did, though – in any event, we’ll hopefully soon have an answer to that question via their reply.
DePaul Public Relations e-mail here: dmattson@depaul.edu Let them know what you think of their capitulation.
Thanks for doing the legwork. I just wrote to them telling them that they made a great decision and that we support them 100%.
I, and all my friends living in the “Zionist Entity” (TM) appreciate your fine work at telling us where to write and how to respond to the terrible things the “Zionist Entity” (TM) does.
Which is why i quoted wiki earlier and mentioned that Palestinians do have armed forces. But then you can get into an argument about whether the Palestinians have a “state”or “country”, and on an on in legal arguments that Israeli lawyers excell at.
I think you misunderstood the point being made. I asked – whether calling them “Israeli civilians” means that they enjoy civilian legal protection?
You are wrong to argue that the “Israeli civilian” label is there to indentify the kind of Israelis civilian that enjoy civilian legal protection. That label is there to distinguish them from being a member of the “Israeli security forces”. There is only one kind of Israeli civilian, that which is not a member of a security force, and they all enjoy protection, there is no Israeli civilian who loses protection. So there is no reason to indentify which type of civilian it was. There are however two types of Palestinian civilian, those that do and those that do not enjoy protection.
If you look back at the post(s) where you argue that there is no “Palestinian security force” and so all Palestinians are civilains, and that distinction isnt worth bothering with. Then see that even when an Israeli civilian kills a Palestinian they do not lose their protection as there is no Palestinian state being attacked, so there is no need to make a distinction for Israeli civilians, the distinction inst made or worth bothering with.
Israeli civilains can, and according to the tables in question do, kill Palestinians civilians and enjoy their civilian protection, else why use the term “israeli civilian” to list those Israeli civilians who kill? Not so for the Palestinians
Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians
Two groups – both all civilian. Only one group is labeled “civilian” in order to distinguish them from a subset of the same name sake?
Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians
Two groups – both all civilian. Only one group is labeled “civilian” in order to distinguish them from a subset of the same name sake?
That’s how I read it.
As we go down the tables we see that there are two subsets for the “Israeli” set (to try and borrow a maths term)
Subset 1 Israelis who are “Israeli security forces” (that enjoy prisoner of war protection)
Subset 2 Israelis who are “Israeli civilians” (that enjoy civilian protection status).
Presumably there is no 3rd subset such as Israelis who are civilians but did not enjoy civilian protection status. Else it would be mentioned.
For the Palestinians, any “Palestinian security forces” subset is empty, so the group being compared to the Israeli set becomes a Palestinian set that is divided into two different subsets.
Subset A Palestinian civilians who are “Palestinians who did not take part in the hostilities ” that enjoy civilian protection status.
Subset B Palestinians civilains who are “Palestinians who took part in the hostilities” that do not enjoy civilian protection or enjoy prisoner of war status.
Having established the four subsets from the two sets, we can look at the tables to see how the labeling identifies those four subsets.
In the first table we can see that there is only one type of Palestinian, they are labeled “Palestinians”. We know, if we know why, that they are all civilians, but we don’t know which subset they belong to (in the first table). They could be either or both.
With Israelis there are two types in the first table, one is the subset called “Israeli security force”, the other subset is “Israeli civilians”. We do know that the “Israeli civilian” subset is responsible for killing “Palestinian” civilians, but we don’t know what subset of “Palestinian” civilians was killed (in the first table).
We also know that the subset “Israeli civilian” was also killed by “Palestinians”, but we don’t know which subset those “Palestinian” civilians belong to. Presumably by killing an Israeli (even a settler), civilian or other wise, the Palestinian civilian automatically loses the protection status.
It might well be argued that Israeli civilians who attack Palestinians (who are all civilians) can not lose their enjoyed protection status.
But what of those Palestinian civilians who attack Israeli civilians, they apparently do.
I guess its true, and that Palestinians automatically lose their protection when attacking an Israeli civilian because that is deemed as an attack on the Israeli state, and that it doesnt work going the other way because there is no Palestinian state.
What you have from those tables as well as there being no “Palestinian security forces” in the eyes of B’tselem, is that there is no such thing as an Israeli who is a civilian that loses civilian protection status when killing Palestinians.
So during the conflict both “Israeli security forces” and “Israeli civilians” are protected under relevant international laws. Yet the Palestinians who engage in the conflict are not to be protected under either.
I’m sure that that is just the way that Israel likes it, and I guess it makes sense that B’Tselem would follow on in that regard, but I don’t think that that is how International law sees it or should see it.
A Palestinian civilian is a civilian whether engaged in hostiliteis or not but loses the “civilian” tag because the term “civilian” is being used for Israelis?
Its absurd.
And the excuses for that have been equally absurd.
You said
Maybe.
But that wasnt to identify whether a civilian lost their civilain protection though, was it. Because “security forces” are not civilians and so dont have civilian protection to lose at the time of death.
No, you can still label Palestinian civilians as “Palestinian civilians” and then simply carry on with the note saying whether they were engaged in hostilities or not. Arguing that the word “civilian” had to be dropped because it was already being used for Israelis is absurd and incorrect.
But not impossible to call them “Palestinian civilians”!
They are civilians so call them civilians, especially so if you are labeling israeli civilians as “israeli civilians”.
The “civilian” tag for israelis was not used to distinguish between two types of israeli civilians so its use for labeling palestinian civilains as “Palestinian civilians” was not affected. Your argument that it “had to be changed” it is both false and misleading
Including the word “civilian” for Palestinian civilians (which is how the high court refered to them wasnt it – “Palestinian civilains”?) would not alter the understanding of whether they were taking part in the hostilities. A solution to any possible confusion about there being civilian protection would be to say that they were “Palestinian civilians who lost their civilian protection becasue they took part in the hostilities”. That way the reader knows that they are civilians and that they lose protection.
There would be nothing inaccurate about labeling a Palestinian civilain as a “Palestinains civilian”, even the high court did that. Again your argument is false and misleading.
They are not like for like, they are labeled differently becasue they are different, there are combatants with prisoner of war protection and civilians with civilian status protection on one side, and civilians with and without protection on the other side.
There is one seamingly similar like for like comparison when comparing both civilians with civilian protection – but only one side gets to be called a “civilian”. And that is not a true like for like comparison as only one side gets to keep the civilian protection when killing the other.
Sorry for taking ages to reply, Keith. I typed out a huge long reply to you and then I had a power cut and it was all lost, and I couldn’t really motivate myself to re-write it all out again.
Firstly, B’Tselem has replied to my email (the reply is from Yehezkel Lein, B’Tselem’s “Research Director”). The bits from B’Tselem are in itallics.
So, that confirms what we already thought – namely that all Palestinians are civilians, and also that the figures refer to the OPT (with the clarifications given in the email above).
Now, the third itallicised section seems to go some way to answering your point about consistency. For the Israeli side, the distinction is based on legal status (as opposed to legal protection at the time of death). While it is theoretically possible that some of the Israeli civilians who were killed by Palestinians were engaged in hostilities, according to the B’Tselem email the vast majority if not all of the armed Israelis killed by Palestinians were included under the “security forces” label, not the “civilian” label, and so this isn’t really an issue.
I’m not sure that this answers all of your questions/concerns. Could you do me a favour and try and very explicitly and succintly sum up what your core argument is, in a paragraph or two? It’s just that it’s difficult to understand what it precisely is you are getting by piecing together different bits from lots of different comments. Plus I have been away from this discussion for a couple of days, so I need a refresher.
Turning to your comments….
Because legally that’s what they are – civilians. Again, you are wrong to deduce from the “civilian” label that Israelis who kill retain their “protected” status. In fact, I’m not sure whether they do or not, although it would make sense that they lose it, just as Palestinian civilians lose it when they engage in hostilities. So why isn’t it mentioned? It’s not mentioned because the legal protection (or lack of it) of the Israeli civilians who kill Palestinian civilians is irrelevant, because they are the ones doing the killing. The question of “legal protection” is only relevant for those who are being attacked and killed, not those doing the attacking and the killing.
Well, no I don’t think that’s strictly accurate. You have to distinguish between situations where Israelis are the ones doing the attacking and those where Israelis are the ones being attacked. In cases where Israeli civilians are being attacked, then yes – “civilian” in practice means that they have civilian legal protection (see B’Tselem’s reply to my email, above). In cases where Israelis are doing the attacking, it’s a different story. In those cases, the purpose of the term “civilian” is to distinguish between “security forces” (i.e. members of the state armed forces) and “civilians”, i.e. those who are not members of the armed forces. Such a distinction is important and useful for many reasons, as I’m sure you can imagine. So in cases where it is Israeli civilians doing the attacking, the label “civilian” serves that function, as opposed to the function of indicating that they had a protected legal status at the time they were doing the killing. Whether they did or did not have this status is left unsaid – although I presume, if standards are consistent, that they didn’t – because, as I said above, it’s totally irrelevant. Whether a person does or does not enjoy legally protected status is only relevant if they are the ones being attacked, not if they are the ones doing the attacking.
And I’ll just say that I’m not really familiar with the rules governing who does and does not have “prisoner of war” status. Is it the case that all combatants, and no non-combatants, have that status? I’ll proceed on that basis, but if I’m wrong about that, please tell me.
Right – in the first table. The existence of the second table is precisely in order to break down those figures to enable us to determine into which “subset” those Palestinians fall.
Well, yes – for the period of time they were engaged in the hostilities. But that would only show up on the tables if that Palestinian was killed by an Israeli during that period when he/she was engaged in hostilities, and so did not have civilian legal protection.
See, you’re again talking about the legal protection status of the attacker, when in fact the question of legal protection only has relevance in this discussion when talking about the people being attacked.
Wrong. B’Tselem only makes distinctions based on the status of legal protection when referring to those being attacked, not when referring to those doing the attacking. If you look, you’ll see that this is the case for both Israelis and Palestinians.
That would be a correct conclusion if the assumptions upon which it is based were correct. Which, as I discuss above, is not the case.
Your last statement in that comment seems to imply that B’Tselem is biased in favour of the Israeli government. I have to say that I think that’s quite a strange view, given their track record.
It would be, if that were the case.
Right. I didn’t say they “lost” it, I said they didn’t have it.
Yes, you could. But it would not only be unnecessary but also misleading, since it would imply that there exist some Palestinians who are not civilians. But certainly, it would be unnecessary.
That’s not the argument.
Not impossible, but unnecessary. The distinction is valid on the Israeli side, because there are Israelis who are not civilians, but it isn’t on the Palestinian side, because all Palestinians are civilians. To specify “Palestinian civilians” is thus totally unnecessary.
It would be unnecessary and possibly misleading.
I don’t know why you raise the ‘combatants’ bit, since obviously that is not comparing like for like, since there are no Palestinian combatants. Hence the different labels.
As to the civilians – again, your objection is focusing on the legal civilian protection of the attackers, not those being attacked. And yes, you’re right – B’Tselem doesn’t distinguish between subsets when discussing attackers (i.e. doesn’t say whether Israeli civilians who attack Palestinians did or did not have any legal protections), but it doesn’t do that for Palestinians either.
Just to repeat what I said earlier – if you could in one or two paragraphs summarise what your main argument is, that would be very helpful for my understanding. Cheers!
Huh? What you already knew B’Tselem to believe, but most definately not what i thought or is made clear from looking at the tables.
You asked them -
So B’Tselem agrees with or advocates the notion that all Palestinians are civilians, that still does not answer why they should drop the “civilian” tag for Palestinian civilians. Why does B’Tselem not include the word “civilain” so everyone reading the tables knows that they are indeed all civilian. on emight believe that they were all “combatants”. Wheres the need to drop the tag? The need to keep the tag is clear enough.
Jamie, please read through to the end of this post and absorb all of what is being said.
.
Because legally that’s what they are – civilians.
What do mean by “legally” that’s what they are? Are they “legally” a civilian even though it “would make sense that they lose [their "protected" status], just as Palestinian civilians lose it when they engage in hostilities?
Huh? What you already knew B’Tselem to believe, but most definately not what i thought or is made clear from looking at the tables.
You asked them -
So B’Tselem agrees with or advocates the notion that all Palestinians are civilians, that still does not answer why they should drop the “civilian” tag for Palestinian civilians. Why does B’Tselem not include the word “civilain” so everyone reading the tables knows that they are indeed all civilian. one might believe that they were all “combatants”. Wheres the need to drop the tag? The need to keep the tag is clear enough.
So the figures do in fact “include Palestinian citizens of Israel” unlike what you claimed.
So thats two points the tables are misleading on.
And obviously thats two points to me in this debate.
Theres no way of knowing from the tables that all Palestinians are civilains. And theres no way of knowing (and you got it wrong) that there are in fact “Palestinian citizens of Israel included”.
My point about inconsistency was surely made when you were making the point, since retracted, that some Palestinians were indeed “combatants”. Anyway, lets see.
What isnt really an issue?
I like the use of the “(if not all)” bit, and then the “acting on behalf of the army, and therefore classified as “security forces” bit.
They may well have been “classified” by B’Tselem as “security forces”, but does that mean they were legally not a civilian? If that is not the case then that is another fault in the tables, as that conflicts with the argument that “security forces” are not civilians, and would blow away the claim that the point was to distinguish between the “legal status of the killed person”.
So no, it goes no way to answering the question about inconsistency and opens up another question. Is a civilian “acting on behalf of the army” still a civilain?
I’m not surprised its difficult for you to understand what i’m saying when your arguments, that i’m answering, have been inconsistant and misleading.
Point one – There are no “Palestinian civilians” in those tables.
Most of the rest of my comments have been an attempt to show you that your arguments in defense of what you think of as invalid criticsim of B’Tselem’s tables have been inconsistant, misleading and false.
I appreciate that you might support B’Tselem for all the great work that they may do, but no one, not Chomsky, not Israsel, not B’Tselem are beyond criticism.
Jamie, please read through to the end of this post and absorb all of what is being said.
What do mean by “legally” that’s what they are? Are they “legally” a civilian even though it “would make sense that they lose [their “protected” status], just as Palestinian civilians lose it when they engage in hostilities?
I think you misunderstood the point being made. I asked – whether calling them “Israeli civilians” means that they enjoy civilian legal protection?
if the word “civilian” is used as a distinction for “legal status”, then it has nothing to do with whether they lose their protected civilian status (please read on to the end).
If “civilian” in the tables means that they have civilian legal protection, how come you have just said it would make sense that they lose it, just as a Palestinian civilian loses it, when they engage in hostilities?
You are saying that -
a) “Israeli civilians” who kill Palestinians are tagged as “civilians” becasue they are infact civilians, even though they lose their legal protection thingy when engaging in the fighting.
and also saying that -
b) “Israeli civilians” who are killed are tagged as “civilians” because they keep their legal protection thingy as they were not engaged in fighting (of course, they may have been engaged in the fighting but lost) .
How can the word “civilian” mean two different things for Israelis and not be said to be an inconsistant use of the word?
It cant be both of the things you are arguing for without being inconsistant.
Your attempt to remedy the apparent inconsistancy with the line
doesnt work either, because the question of relevant civilian “legal protection” per se is not the issue, the interpretation of the tables is. Its the use of the word for both those with and without civilian legal “protection” that is the issue.
On the one hand you are saying that the word “civilian” is there to say that the person is an Israeli civilian regardless of whether they enjoy civilian “protection” status or not. Which is fair enough (apart from Palestinian civilians not having the tag). On the other hand you say the word is also used “in practice” to mean “that they have civilian legal protection”. That is a dual use of the label “civilian”, where it means different things in the same table, both for describing the Israeli group.
The very idea that the word is being used to distinguish between Israeli civilians and israeli non-civilians on the one hand, and then also being used to distinguish between civilians who do and who do not retain their legal “protection” status on the other, thereby rendering all Israeli civilians being labeled as “Israeli civilians”, while at the same time dropping use of the word when it comes to Palestastinians, is absurd.
As for your bit about
I hope you see that as funny now. As there is one clear distinction being made with the use of the words “killed by”!
Or perhaps you mean, for example, where Palestinians are “killed by” Israelis then you have to distinguish between who was being attacked? I bloody well hope not.
Anyway, to quote that email response from B’Tselem
There is no having to distinguish between situations where Israelis are the ones doing the attacking and those where Israelis are the ones being attacked. You made that up. And In cases where Israeli civilians are being attacked, then NO – “civilian” does NOT in practice mean that they have civilian legal protection (see B’Tselem’s reply to your email, above). It simply means that they were civilians as opposed to security forces.
There are two legal distinctions being claimed. One is by B’Tselem – that is the legal distinction between civilian and security force. And the other is by you – that is the legal distinction between Israeli civilians themselves on whether they enjoy legal “protection” status or not. B’Tselem does not make the claim that the word “civilain” is used to distinguish between two types of Israeli civilians, it does not make a claim to distinguish between two types of Israeli civilians at all, probably becasue it sees only one type.
My words are not so much a criticism of B’Tselem (though there are problems with the tables) as a criticsim of your inconsistant, false and misleading arguments.
You said -
The distinction between Israeli security forces and Israeli civilians may be necessary, but to specify Israeli civilians as “civilian” is thus as equally (totally?) unnecessary as it is with Palestinian civilians. As all non-”security forces” are by definition civilians, so by your argument and logic there is no need to label them as civilians, just call them Israelis, as is the case with Palestinians. Else – and this is also borrowed from your argument and logic – people might think there is a second type of non-civilian.
And this is the ironic bit – By labeling Israeli civilians as “civilians” and not labeling Palestinian civilians as “civilians” then people such as yourself will be mislead and get all confused about what the term “civilian” means in those tables.
Your comments on this blog have made it abundantly clear that the tables at B’Tselem ought to be changed/clarified. And in the course of this conversation you have highlighted further issues with the tables than i had first considered.
Oh the irony
Argh!!
OK – your last point does make sense. So, therefore, I suppose the “civilian” tag should be added to the Palestinians, even though I think most people reading the page would already know it.
In the email, B’Tselem said that on the Palestinian side, they distinguish based on legal protection and on the Israeli side, they distinguish based on legal status, you’re right. I think that is probably for convenience, since in practice, on the Israeli side, the distinction between who did and did not have legal protection at the time they were killed will divide almost completely into those who were security forces and those who were civilians. So in practice, that’s almost always what it means. (And when it’s Israelis doing the killing, it’s also about legal status, not legal protection. This is inconsistent, as you say, but it’s an inconsistency that doesn’t really matter, since the level of legal protection of a killer (as opposed to someone who is being killed) is irrelevant. That’s what I was saying earlier.)
Essentially, I was arguing that the whole point of the tables was to distinguish between who did and did not enjoy civilian legal protections at the time of death. Because that’s the only way it really makes sense. Otherwise, there is (as u say) an inconsistency. But then B’Tselem emailed and ruined that, by saying the distinction was based on “legal status” for Israelis and “legal protections” for the Palestinians. In practice, as I say, you can still quite effectively compare like-for-like, but it is inconsistent, nevertheless.
However, regardless of all this, I still think the meaning of the tables are pretty clear. When I first looked at it and saw “Israeli civilians” killed, I thought of just ordinary people, not part of the security service and not combatants. And in the vast majority of cases, that is right. When I saw “Israeli civilians” doing the killing, I thought of ordinary Israelis going out and killing Palestinians, which is right. And the same with the Palestinian side. It’s only when going into the very specifics and trying to explain the labelling that there was some confusion.
I don’t think my arguments were internally inconsistent at all. They did contradict the B’Tselem email, however, which I didn’t notice. But OK, I agree – the “civilian” label should be added to the Palestinians, for consistency if nothing else. One point to you!
In addition, it would be useful if the “Israeli civilian” subset would be further divided into those who enjoyed legal protection at the time of death and those who didn’t. That way the tables would show both legal status and the level of legal protection.
It’s ridiculous how they allowed AD rant and rant and cut off NF. They should have cut of the mics to allow the other person make a point.
I think they were forced to cut off both mics at one point, but compared to the rest of the coverage Democracy Now have been excellent. A later edition had Chomsky on to talk about the issue, and another edition spoke to Raul Hilberg and Avi Shlaim about it.
Ha ha ha ha ha
Little Nazi Normie got canned!
Today DePaul, tomorrow Iran!
Let him go off with his swastika and play with his neo-nazi friends!