Comments on: Israeli forces raid Palestinian NGO’s office in Ramallah

By: aristeides

aristeides — Sat, 12 May 2012 14:40:18 +0000

Max – neither of us know what reason the IDF had for the raid, but we make different assumptions. Your excuses for the IDF reveal the underlying assumption, but they are really lame excuses. The assumption is all you seem to have.

.
I do assume the probability that the IDF had no valid excuse, based on the known record of IDF behavior. Then there is also the fact that the IDF should have to right to enter Palestinian territory, no matter what evidence it might have.

By: the other joe

the other joe — Fri, 11 May 2012 21:16:41 +0000

OK Max, let us agree that none of us know whether there is any good reason for the IDF to carry out this raid. We are all starting from a position of ignorance on that bare fact.
.
Now on our side we have the following indicative evidence: 1. The IDF has entered Area 1, where it has no jurisdiction for security. 2. The IDF has been known to conduct raids before which have not ever been shown in any court of law to have had any validity at all. 3. The policy of Administrative Detention means that people who are arrested in raids such as these can be held almost indefinitely without trial. 4. The Wall co-ordinating committees are non-violent and have never been proved to be involved in any violent activities.
.
These are facts and not in dispute.
.
From your point of view, you have 1. The IDF may have asked the PA for permission to enter Area 1 and as the PA have not vocally condemned the raid, this means that there must be something to it more than we know. 2. Palestinians have been known to use Palestinian Red Crescent vehicles as cover to move arms to attack Israel
.
These are not facts, these are assertions. We do not know that the IDF contacted the PA, we do not know that there was any collaboration and even if there was this is not any indication that there was any validity in the raid. Even if there is evidence of some Palestinians using Red Crescent vehicles in the way you assert, there is no known evidence that the Wall co-ordinating committee is any kind of front for violence.
.
This is not about whether the IDF can do no right or the Palestinians can do no wrong. This is about the known behaviour of the IDF against Palestinians and the weighed likelihood of the raid upon Wall co-ordinating committees to have any validity, even under the rules of Israeli law. It is very unlikely that it does.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 11 May 2012 21:05:03 +0000

Max,

You have failed to prove burden of proof.
You have ignored the usual M.O/standard procedure of Israel which is empirical. With that being said there is a bigger chance that the usual tactics have been used by Israel again. That is, “shoot first, give a reason later to the public which none of course could check, case is closed by Israel”.

By: Erik Henderson

Erik Henderson — Fri, 11 May 2012 20:46:28 +0000

In any other country this would qualify as political oppression. In an apartheid state I guess this is just the norm.

By: max

max — Fri, 11 May 2012 20:45:46 +0000

@ARISTEIDES “… yet you assume so”
Do I? Where? You’re reversing the facts
I noted that the post is full of assertions based on the assumption-stated-as-fact that the IDF had no valid reason.
In fact, I explicitly wrote that I don’t know whether it had a valid reason or not, and neither do you.
.
Now that we’re down to the core of the reasoning, and as you can page-back to see that my claim is right, I’m sure you’ll agree with me

By: aristeides

aristeides — Fri, 11 May 2012 17:00:39 +0000

Max – if the question is whether the IDF had a valid reason for the raid, there is no evidence whatsoever that it did, yet you assume so. On what grounds? Because you believe in the IDF, despite numerous instances in which the IDF has been shown to act without valid reasons – as when they break into homes attempting to arrest toddlers.

.
The PA excuse is what they call in formal rhetoric: “reaching.”

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 11 May 2012 14:41:05 +0000

Max,

How long will it take before IDF will give us information about this raid (as well as other actions by IDF). How could we then confirm this information to be true? Compared to other events IDF have a history of putting out half the story if not the story is totally made up.

By: max

max — Fri, 11 May 2012 14:17:41 +0000

Piotr, I see no reason to assume that the IDF has a significantly different proportion of liars than that in the general population. The IDF reaction to the event seems to indicate that they address the fact.

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Fri, 11 May 2012 13:48:13 +0000

I think that IDF has to get to the bottom of certain disturbing violent events that happened during so-called peaceful protests.

To me, the biggest mystery is what happened to fingers of Lt. Col. Shaul Eisner. They were broken in some fashion that eluded detection. In that particular incident the consequences were very small, but the potential of attacking the commanding officers in an undetectable fashion totally changes the balance of forces on the ground. For example, officers could be injected with mind altering substances, becoming either enraged or totally placid, as it fits the enemy designs.

By: max

max — Fri, 11 May 2012 13:40:38 +0000

“On what grounds do you assert this probability?”
On ground of the many instances in which the PA brings their grievance to our attention. I explained it earlier.
.
“That doesn’t prove that the IDF had “evidences” as you assert. It would only be more evidence that the PA is corrupt.”
No. The assertion that the PA is corrupt isn’t relevant, unless you presume that all that they do is corrupt, and they collaborate – without complaining – in all cases.
As this is evidently not the case, the better reasoning is that they received and accepted the IDF reasoning.
.
Note that I never claimed that the IDF was right, but that the discussion here is stipulated on the assumption that it is always wrong.
.
“Just because the IDF has no valid reason… doesn’t mean the Palestinians are “always right.” It just means that the IDF is repressive… ”
let’s analyze:
“It just means” refers to “the IDF has no valid reason”, so we get “the IDF has no valid reason … means that the IDF is repressive”
Hmmm… a text-book example If A->B and A, Then B – but nothing about whether A.
The whole question is whether the IDF had a reason