News Israel PM: State Protection for War Crimes in Gaza

[rootX]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7850085.stm

Any Israeli soldiers accused of war crimes in the Gaza Strip will be given state protection from prosecution overseas, the country's PM has said.

While, I am unsure about any war crimes but I think it is bit disturbing that Israel wouldn't punish those who do war crimes.

(There have been other threads about the war consequences or ethics but I making this thread only to discuss the above statement of the Israel PM)

 

[mgb_phys]

A government can make any statements it likes about it's own behavior. Whether this stands depends on if the overseas courts can bring enough military/political/economic pressure to bear on the country to force it to hand over any accused.
- in simple terms, war crimes are committed by the losers.

 

[russ_watters]

While, I am unsure about any war crimes but I think it is bit disturbing that Israel wouldn't punish those who do war crimes.

The quote/article doesn't say that. It just says that Israel would not let others punish Israeli soldiers. That Israel wouldn't punish them themselves is something you are assuming.

 

[rootX]

The quote/article doesn't say that. It just says that Israel would not let others punish Israeli soldiers. That Israel wouldn't punish them themselves is something you are assuming.

"The commanders and soldiers that were sent on the task in Gaza should know that they are safe from any tribunal and that the State of Israel will assist them in this issue and protect them as they protected us with their bodies during the military operation in Gaza," he said.

Edit: I see he was referring to the oversees prosecutions .. But, there's little hope that he is willing to put anyone on trail.

But, Israel is also conducting some investigations like the following one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7838465.stm

A spokeswoman for the Israeli military said the incident is now under investigation.

So, my assumption might be wrong.

 

[jreelawg]

I still don't see though, how a state would have the power to protect war criminals in countries around the world. Would this have to be an agreement between the specific country after the fact. For example, do they mean that if you get arrested in state X, that Israel will fight state X to get you free?

 

[mgb_phys]

do they mean that if you get arrested in state X, that Israel will fight state X to get you free?

Or at least put political pressure through a third country to release them.
If you are an Israeli artillery officer it might be a good idea to only visit countries friendly to Israel for a while - just to be on the safe side.

 

[devil-fire]

For example, do they mean that if you get arrested in state X, that Israel will fight state X to get you free?

If a soldier was arrested in France while on vacation for a war crime charge, Israel would not go to war with them. Israel would most likely claim the French police abducted the person unlawfully. Also, the USA might side with Israel, implying that the French did something unlawful, or otherwise inappropriate but it wouldn't come to use of physical force.

Specifically what Israel has in mind is if Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Canada or anyone else for that matter asks Israel to extradite someone to face a war crimes tribunal, Israel is stating they have no intention of complying with such a request.

The USA has made similar claims and I expect most other countries would have a similar policy but no one else has had much reason to make such a statement.

 

[Sorry!]

If a soldier was arrested in France while on vacation for a war crime charge, Israel would not go to war with them. Israel would most likely claim the French police abducted the person unlawfully. Also, the USA might side with Israel, implying that the French did something unlawful, or otherwise inappropriate but it wouldn't come to use of physical force.

Specifically what Israel has in mind is if Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Canada or anyone else for that matter asks Israel to extradite someone to face a war crimes tribunal, Israel is stating they have no intention of complying with such a request.

The USA has made similar claims and I expect most other countries would have a similar policy but no one else has had much reason to make such a statement.

i don't think Canada will be requesting extradition of any war criminals. last time i checked Canada took a very firm stance on the gaza crisis instead of what it normally does and observe for peace operations and getting help to where its needed.

aside from that its not hard to refuse to hand over war criminals based on international findings that war crimes were commited. Especially with the US on your side.

there are many many many people wanted in the world still (right now even say darfur crisis?) where the country will not surrender the convicted. i believe if Israel finds that any soldier or group of soldiers did any sort of crimes that they will punish themselves though so it isn't even like it matters that they don't give up the convicted...

 

[russ_watters]

Edit: I see he was referring to the oversees prosecutions ...

Ehh, the article's wording may have been a little sloppy.

 

[devil-fire]

i don't think Canada will be requesting extradition of any war criminals. last time i checked Canada took a very firm stance on the gaza crisis instead of what it normally does and observe for peace operations and getting help to where its needed.

This is true, I can't imagine a possible scenario where Canada would make such accusations.

there are many many many people wanted in the world still (right now even say darfur crisis?) where the country will not surrender the convicted.

I think you mean 'the charged', not 'the convicted' since I expect the person's presence at trial would be required for a conviction

 

[mgb_phys]

Generally there isn't much precedence for a country willingly handing someone over for trial.
Libya handed over the men accused of the Pan-Am attacks to the UK and France handed over the agents responsible for sinking the Greenpeace ship to New Zealand. However both of these involved giving up a couple of low level agents in the face of heavy economic sanctions.

The first leader to be arrested while their state was still functioning and able to bring diplomatic pressure was probably Gen. Pinochet (former facist dictator of Chile) arrested in Britain at the request of Spain - even then Britain managed to find a loophole to release him (presumably trade with Chile was worth more than trade with Spain) and he was granted immunity by his own government on his return.

 

[tiny-tim]

legal protection, not military protection

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7850085.stm

Any Israeli soldiers accused of war crimes in the Gaza Strip will be given state protection from prosecution overseas, the country's PM has said.

That is the BBC's rather ambiguous reporting.

This http://thejc.com/articles/idf-fight-war-crimes’-charges" (a weekly British newspaper) article makes it clearer …

… To counter the lawsuits, Defence Minister Ehud Barak has ordered the establishment of a team of military legal experts and intelligence officers to prepare evidence that could be used to defend officers if indicted abroad.

Officers who could be charged include IDF Chief of Staff Lt-Gen Gabi Ashkenazi, head of the Southern Command Maj-Gen Yoav Galant as well as the commanders of the Golani, Givati and Paratrooper’s brigades.

One senior officer downplayed the possibility that he would be charged with war crimes, saying: “In the worst case scenario, I won’t be able to visit Buckingham Palace for several years.”

But Amos Guiora, a law professor and a former senior officer in the IDF’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps, said that Israel had a strong defence case.

Israel’s decision to drop flyers over areas of Gaza and to call over 250,000 homes ahead of ground operations created the legitimate basis for the ensuing operation, he said.

“It wouldn’t surprise me if someone files a charge sheet against these officers,” Mr Guiora said. “But Israel acted in classic self-defence based on the fact that this action came three years after Israel left the Gaza Strip and after it absorbed thousands of missiles.”

In other words, Israel has promised its soldiers the protection of lawyers, not military protection!

Specifically what Israel has in mind is if Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Canada or anyone else for that matter asks Israel to extradite someone to face a war crimes tribunal, Israel is stating they have no intention of complying with such a request.

No … an extradition request for war crime is only lawful if the requesting country has jurisdiction, which means that the crime alleged was committed in that country, or (in a few cases) that a citizen of that country was a victim.

Neither of those would apply to Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Canada or indeed anywhere but Palestine.

The problem is not one of extradition, but of Israeli officers being arrested on holiday.

 

[jreelawg]

There is a case where a Russian Billionaire who is wanted in Russia for all kinds of things, was granted permission from the UK to stay there. Russia wants him back, but the UK refuses. Russia became upset with the U.S. because one of George bushes Brothers does business with him. Essentially the guys money is dirty, and Russia would call it money laundering. But, what is russia going to do invade the UK?

 

[mgb_phys]

There is a case where a Russian Billionaire who is wanted in Russia for all kinds of things, was granted permission from the UK to stay there. Russia wants him back, but the UK refuses.

The UK would also like Russia to hand over the agent that off'ed Litvinenko with the radioactive sushi - but as he is now a Russian MP it ain't going to happen.

 

[Alfi]

You are arguing about war crimes.

WAR is a crime.

 

[tiny-tim]

what's it all about, alfi?

WAR is a crime.

So if country A invades country B, then country B will be committing a crime if it resists?

 

[mjsd]

WAR is a crime.

So if country A invades country B, then country B will be committing a crime if it resists?

There is too much gray area on the issue of WAR and it is misleading to view it in such a yes/no (or black/white) situation.
People have different views as to what constitute a "crime", just as they may have different values and expectation in life.

 

[jreelawg]

What constitutes a crime is the violation of a law. The strongest authority makes the laws. The idea is that countries joint together to make a strong enough authority to enforce certain laws. Yes certain acts of war are against a law. There is a rule that you cannot invade a country unless they are threatening you. Another law is that you cannot use collective punishment. Certain weapons which are especially damaging to civilians are illegal to use in certain situations. White phosphorous is illegal in densely populated areas because it causes heavy civilian injury, death, and destruction. It is anything but a precise selective weapon.

The law gets kind of fuzzy when countries have enough power and influence to single handedly undermine the worlds attempts at global war authority.

The reason it would be ironic for Israel to undermine these laws, is that they were once the victims of these types of crimes, and that is one of the main reasons why the laws were made.

 

[Alfi]

There is a rule that you cannot invade a country unless they are threatening you.

oh that's going to be a hard one for some to defend.

coughcoughIraqcoughcoough


there is a rule ... who makes the rules?

 

[tiny-tim]

oh that's going to be a hard one for some to defend.

coughcoughIraqcoughcoough

Pretending you have weapons is just as threatening as actually having them.

 

[jreelawg]

"Preemptive war (or a preemptive strike) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable (although international law categorically rejects Preemptive war).[citation needed]"
...
Legality

Further information: War of aggression, Jus ad bellum, and UN Charter
There is some question as to the legality of this doctrine under international law. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens, or a peremptory norm which cannot be violated. It bars the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat. At the same time, however, Article 51 clearly permits self defense. The tension between these two principles is evident in the doctrine of preemptive war, which claims to be defensive, yet does not come in response to an attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

I'm not sure about legality, but S.H. was a mass murdering genocidal war criminal himself. If Hitler hadn't invaded anyone or threatened any country, but just exterminated the Jews, I would hope it would have still be legal to invade the Nazis.

 

[mjsd]

there is a rule ... who makes the rules?

definitely not you and me.

"Preemptive war (or a preemptive strike) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable (although international law categorically rejects Preemptive war).[citation needed]"
...
I'm not sure about legality, but S.H. was a mass murdering genocidal war criminal himself. If Hitler hadn't invaded anyone or threatened any country, but just exterminated the Jews, I would hope it would have still be legal to invade the Nazis.

legality? for invading someone? That's too subjective! Based on what do we judge someone is a real threat to us? Is there actually a standard or universal guidelines as to when one can go to war? As far as I know, there is no such standard.

Even if Hilter did not invade or threaten any country directly, one could well argue that given his actions against a race of ppl (Jews in that case), it is clear that he was a threat to humanity, and ppl may use that to justify preemption. Because if he could do it to the Jews, there was no telling whether he couldn't do it to someone else. But I wouldn't think in any case one declares "it is legal to do so!". One may do it for one's interests.

Same goes with war crimes per se, the main theme of this thread. How do you justify certain actions/mistakes becomes the sticking point, and often not the actions/mistakes themselves.

Since the rules are not set by us, our interpretation is no better or worse than the offender's.

 

[kyleb]

Since the rules are not set by us, our interpretation is no better or worse than the offender's.

So then, when whoever wrote the law dies, then the law is out the window?

Wow, I suppose if I were a psychopath I'd go on a killing spree and take some peoples homes from them know that I know that the old laws against such things don't apply anymore.

 

[jreelawg]

definitely not you and me.

l
Since the rules are not set by us, our interpretation is no better or worse than the offender's.

Better or worse is subjective, but actions are actions and are undeniable. People know what they are doing, and truth is not subjective. If people abide to a common simplistic morality such as, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you", or something of that sort, then we can all live in a better world and eliminate senselessness which can threaten us all.

If you murder someone, then no one should feel sorry when you be murdered. If you steal from people, then no one should care if your things be stolen. The world largely operates in terms of respect. If you don' show respect, then you are not entitled to respect.

If you violate basic human rights laws, then you lose respect and should no longer have the benefit of protection under those codes. If you wish for your rights to be protected, then you must not violate the rights of others.

 

[mgb_phys]

If people abide to a common simplistic morality such as, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you", or something of that sort, then we can all live in a better world and eliminate senselessness which can threaten us all.

Although you should remember the 8th of God's "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

 

[mjsd]

Since the rules are not set by us, our interpretation is

So then, when whoever wrote the law dies, then the law is out the window?

I don't think I have said that?! Anyway, I think you confused with the term "us" used in my sentence. It really just mean "us", as in you and me only, and not the "us", as in the community as a whole.

Wow, I suppose if I were a psychopath I'd go on a killing spree and take some peoples homes from them know that I know that the old laws against such things don't apply anymore.

If you were a psychopath, indeed you would kill without remorse, because in your view, you are not doing anything wrong. Society judges you in the perceived "majority view" of what is right and wrong. However, this view may change with time, information available, as well as who is in power.

In the current discussion of "war crimes", I see a lot of disagreement arising from the issue such as: what is and what is not self-defence, or who is using or not using human shield... which immediately brings me back to my original statement that "interpretation" is everything.

I am sure that some would argue that torture is ok if it may keep America safe (especially straight after an terrorist attack when the emotions/pains are high), while there must be an equally large section of the community who would disagree. So WHO is right?

Sometimes, ppl do not just argue about the actions, but also intention as you would be well aware. That's what I was trying to point out... ie. not black/white whether something is definitely correct or wrong. Unless you forego the discussion on intention/motive, then perhaps it would be more clear cut.

 

[mjsd]

Better or worse is subjective, but actions are actions and are undeniable. People know what they are doing, and truth is not subjective. If people abide to a common simplistic morality such as, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you", or something of that sort, then we can all live in a better world and eliminate senselessness which can threaten us all.

Sure, simple moral view as such is helpful "If people...", well, that's a very big IF unfortunately. Besides, YOUR definition of what is a "better world" may not share by all either. As a result, although it is nice, it may not be workable. That doesn't mean one should forego such nice ideals completely, we just need to know its limits.

If you murder someone, then no one should feel sorry when you be murdered. If you steal from people, then no one should care if your things be stolen. The world largely operates in terms of respect. If you don' show respect, then you are not entitled to respect.

If you violate basic human rights laws, then you lose respect and should no longer have the benefit of protection under those codes. If you wish for your rights to be protected, then you must not violate the rights of others.

I understand what you are trying to say and I agree with the logic (to certain point). The difficulty however is that rarely in the real world do you have someone or some group who is totally evil, in other words, they may not break the rule completely, or they may have done some goods elsewhere etc. All this complicates the situation and suddenly you may not have a "clear cut" case as to whether someone has lost all the respect of others. Since there are so much gray area, and those being prosecuted always tend to exploit it (rightfully or otherwise), the "truth" may not be subjective, but where to "draw the line" is.

 

[Hurkyl]

Pretending you have weapons is just as threatening as actually having them.

Well duh; that should be obvious (assuming the pretense is any good).


(Or was that the point you were actually trying to make? I can't tell)

 

[kyleb]

I don't think I have said that?! Anyway, I think you confused with the term "us" used in my sentence. It really just mean "us", as in you and me only, and not the "us", as in the community as a whole.

If you were a psychopath, indeed you would kill without remorse, because in your view, you are not doing anything wrong. Society judges you in the perceived "majority view" of what is right and wrong. However, this view may change with time, information available, as well as who is in power.

Ah, such mob rule has never appealed to me, but I do see where you were coming from now.

In the current discussion of "war crimes", I see a lot of disagreement arising from the issue such as: what is and what is not self-defence, or who is using or not using human shield... which immediately brings me back to my original statement that "interpretation" is everything.

I am sure that some would argue that torture is ok if it may keep America safe (especially straight after an terrorist attack when the emotions/pains are high), while there must be an equally large section of the community who would disagree. So WHO is right?

Sure, like if I wanted to refer to day as "night", then I could argue it is a matter of interpretation and hence open to debate. If I can brainwash over half the population to follow me, would you consider me right?

Sometimes, ppl do not just argue about the actions, but also intention as you would be well aware. That's what I was trying to point out... ie. not black/white whether something is definitely correct or wrong. Unless you forego the discussion on intention/motive, then perhaps it would be more clear cut.

We should certainly avoid speculating our way to such decisions, but mob rule is full of speculation.

 

[Art]

So if country A invades country B, then country B will be committing a crime if it resists?

Is this support from you for the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance to Israel's occupation?

 

[kyleb]

I am guessing he exploits the technicality of not recognizing Palestine as a country to avoid that.

 

[ALYAZAN]

peace upon u all

i'll express my own view about war ... there is a need of war only when there is a need of killing people and destroying live ... no excuse is enough to establish a project of killing so called "WAR" ..but u have the full right to defend your self when someone come intending to kill u

i think that war crimes in Gaza are not the subject .. it seems to me just like discussing "is sun in the sky in the midday ?"
the intrinsic point is how to reach justice and let criminals into courts ??

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/01/20091229274380583.htmlbest wishes

 

[Alfi]

Pretending you have weapons is just as threatening as actually having them.

In poker it's called a bluff. In an airport it's called stupid.
but, after they are determined to be 'mostly harmless', Should they be kicked some more to make sure they never ever pretend again?
Should the pretenders be occupied to ensure the pretense never becomes reality?

This gets to be a silly time war. You might be a future enemy, so We'll occupy you now.

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, falling for a bluff isn't preemption, it is precognition.

 

[sirchasm]

I think the interesting part of all this is that most of us here in the West see either a 'civilised' country putting down a rebellion, or an uncivilised country applying overwhelming military force to punish a rebellion, possible war-crimes, or since it's a civilised country and the rebels are all barbarian savages, no war-crimes; anyway, I don't think Western perceptions are important, regardless of the spin or what we (that is, the US) believe about it, the Arabs have all the time in the world.

Israel doesn't - it wants to effect something that simply will not survive history - South Africe, Germany, Romania, ...

All the Arabs/Palestinians need to do is wait it out; incidentally, is the US in its current near-bankrupt condition going to increase Israel's welfare payments? Is the rationale for the US, its workers (the ones who can find work), its commerce and industry, to support Israel economically and militarily?
This is why the US exists?

 

[Art]

Following the alleged (sic) illegal application of military force by Israel, Amnesty International has called for the UN to impose a weapons embargo. It will be interesting to see the new US administration's response.

Amnesty International urges Barack Obama to suspend military aid to Israel

Amnesty called for the UN Security Council to enact an arms embargo until mechanisms were put in place to ensure that equipment was not used to commit violations of international law.

"Israeli forces used white phosphorus and other weapons supplied by the USA to carry out serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes," said Donatella Rovera, who headed an Amnesty fact-finding mission to southern Israel and Gaza.

"Their attacks resulted in the death of hundreds of children and other civilians, and massive destruction of homes and infrastructure."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Obama-to-suspend-military-aid-to-Israel.html

It seems the pressure for Israel to be held to account for it's murder of Gazan civilians is growing. There appears to be a major shift taking place in world opinion of just who the 'bad' guys are in this conflict and the appointment of the right wing Netanyahu as Israel's new PM reliant on the support of the racist, ultra rightwing, Avigdor Lieberman and his Beiteinu Party can only accelerate this process.

 

[sirchasm]

Appointing hardliners and becoming fanatical supporters of nationalism and its causes, are usually the beginning of the end for an effectively fascist ideology; the nationalist population tends to get tired of being called fascists, racists, war-criminals, etc, after a while.

 

[Evo]

It seems the pressure for Israel to be held to account for it's murder of Gazan civilians is growing.

Stop the misinformation.

There appears to be a major shift taking place in world opinion of just who the 'bad' guys are in this conflict.

I don't see any such shift in opinion.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of adults, however, believe the Palestinians are to blame for the current situation in Gaza, while 13% point the finger at the Israelis. Nearly one-third (32%) aren’t sure.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those who say they are following news out of Gaza Very Closely support Israel's military action, while 30% favor diplomacy.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/americans_closely_divided_over_israel_s_gaza_attacks

 

[jostpuur]

Stop the misinformation.

You should not use your moderation power to force your personal political opinions as truths here.

 

[Evo]

You should not use your moderation power to force your personal political opinions as truths here.

He's stating that Israel "murdered" Palestinians. That's misinformation.

 

[tiny-tim]

Amnesty International: "War Crimes by Hamas"

Following the alleged (sic) illegal application of military force by Israel, Amnesty International has called for the UN to impose a weapons embargo. It will be interesting to see the new US administration's response.

That (with the four-paragraph quotation which follows it) is a carefully deliberate one-sided summary of the Amnesty International report and news item …

both the report and the news item criticize both Israel and Hamas, and call for weapons embargos on both Israel and Hamas …

The human rights group said it found evidence that Israel and Hamas had both used weapons supplied from overseas to carry out attacks on civilians, accusing both sides of committing war crimes during the three-week conflict at the start of the year.

The report also said Hamas and other Palestinian groups should be subject to the embargo because they had committed war crimes by attacking Israeli towns with rockets.

… yet you select quotations, and write your own summary, leaving Hamas out completely

One-sided selectivity like this, giving a report a completely different slant, is yet another example of misinformation.

To be fair, of course, Amnesty International knows perfectly well that a weapons embargo on Hamas is unlikely to stop the very war crimes that Amnesty International is charging Hamas with. ​

 

[Alfi]

Re: War Crimes in Gaza
Originally Posted by Art View Post

It seems the pressure for Israel to be held to account for it's murder of Gazan civilians is growing.

Stop the misinformation.

There appears to be a major shift taking place in world opinion of just who the 'bad' guys are in this conflict.

I don't see any such shift in opinion.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of adults, however, believe the Palestinians are to blame for the current situation in Gaza, while 13% point the finger at the Israelis. Nearly one-third (32%) aren’t sure.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those who say they are following news out of Gaza Very Closely support Israel's military action, while 30% favor diplomacy.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s_gaza_attacks

Actually, He's correct. There is a shift in positions. When I started reading about this whole topic I was fairly neutral in that I think both sides are wrong. That use of violence is not the best solution to any problem.
After reading and following questions and links, I can be counted as one of the undecided that is starting to point my finger more and more at Israel and it's American money connections.

 

[Evo]

Actually, He's correct. There is a shift in positions. When I started reading about this whole topic I was fairly neutral in that I think both sides are wrong. That use of violence is not the best solution to any problem.
After reading and following questions and links, I can be counted as one of the undecided that is starting to point my finger more and more at Israel and it's American money connections.

And others have shifted to Israel's side. Art made the claim that

There appears to be a major shift taking place in world opinion of just who the 'bad' guys are in this conflict.

I have seen no evidence of this.

More polls.

Sixty percent of Americans in the nationwide survey said they were sympathetic toward the Israelis, compared with 17 percent who supported the Palestinians, CNN reported today on its Web site. A recent European poll showed that 23 percent of French people said the Palestinian Hamas group was primarily responsible for the war while 18 percent mainly blamed Israel.

The CNN poll showed that 63 percent of Americans felt Israel was justified in taking military action, compared with 30 percent who disagreed. The poll of 1,245 adults was conducted Jan. 12-15, before the Israeli military campaign ended in a cease-fire on Jan. 17. Conducted by Opinion Research Corp., it had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Sympathy for Israel exceeded that for the Palestinians by a margin of 49 percent to 11 percent, according to the Pew poll. The results narrowed when respondents were questioned on Israel’s military action in Gaza, with 40 percent approving and 33 percent disapproving.

The Pew poll surveyed 1,503 adults Jan. 7-11, with a margin of error at plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The French poll, conducted by CSA, found that 28 percent of respondents blamed Israel and Hamas equally. That telephone survey questioned a representative nationwide sample of 958 people on Jan. 7-8. CSA didn’t report a margin of error on its Web site.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2oCpwqqFTpw&refer=home

More polls, and some showing history.

http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm

 

[humanino]

I have seen no evidence of this.

But you provide very interesting numbers :

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|    (1)      |  sympathetic toward the Israelis | supported the Palestinians |
|    (2)      |  Hamas was responsible for war   | mainly blamed Israel       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  american   |              60%                 |             17%            |
|   french    |              23%                 |             18%            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Can the discrepancy mostly be attributed to the different statements between ligne (1) and (2) , or to the misinformation of one of the two groups of people ? Or is it that american and french people feel differently when it comes to human life and war, given the same situation ? Can this be explained simply at all, or are those numbers only confusing ?

I claim that american people and french people receive different information coverage. I do not intend to back up this claim, but it would certainly explain at least some of the discrepancy above. I further claim that misinformation can only be temporary when it comes to the history of war. Not that it will become perfectly accurate, but there will be something written someday in the books, that if everybody does not agree on, at least everybody knows the other's version. Assuming the hypothesis in this paragraph are correct, at some point, there will be a change which will take place, one way or another, to get back to a better agreement in the numbers above. Where am I going wrong in my understanding ?

edit
If given the number of people interviewed, one can not evaluate the uncertainty

CSA didn’t report a margin of error on its Web site.

then I'd be interested to know how the uncertainty can be evaluated otherwise !?

 

[rootX]

But you provide very interesting numbers :

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|    (1)      |  sympathetic toward the Israelis | supported the Palestinians |
|    (2)      |  Hamas was responsible for war   | mainly blamed Israel       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  american   |              60%                 |             17%            |
|   french    |              23%                 |             18%            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Can the discrepancy mostly be attributed to the different statements between ligne (1) and (2) , or to the misinformation of one of the two groups of people ? Or is it that american and french people feel differently when it comes to human life and war, given the same situation ? Can this be explained simply at all, or are those numbers only confusing ?

American != French
as
Relationship between Americans and Israel != Relationship between French and Israel
Interests of Americans != French interests
American Involvement in the Middle East != http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7880453.stm"

 

[humanino]

American != French

So for you the difference can mostly be explained by the fact that those groups of people feel differently. Please realize that when it comes it was and human life, it seems to me, this is a very strong statement.

 

[Evo]

Can the discrepancy mostly be attributed to the different statements between ligne (1) and (2) , or to the misinformation of one of the two groups of people ? Or is it that american and french people feel differently when it comes to human life and war, given the same situation ? Can this be explained simply at all, or are those numbers only confusing ?

I'd say that it is a number of things, different media exposure, different attitudes, different population demographics, France may also be more likely to have more Palestinians and/or people sympathetic to Palestinians than the US? The last is just a guess. I guess you would know the answer to that humanino.

I believe there was some mention in my first article about the difference in opinions between Europeans and Americans.

 

[rootX]

So for you the difference can mostly be explained by the fact that those groups of people feel differently. Please realize that when it comes it was and human life, it seems to me, this is a very strong statement.

Uhh no, actually there's a big difference between Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinians are Muslims while Israelis are Jews (or "not Muslims ").

IMO, those numbers are meaningless. They are coming out of biased media or national interests. How many of those people actually understand the conflict?

 

[kyleb]

He's stating that Israel "murdered" Palestinians. That's misinformation.

"http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1066231.html" " is what Amiststy cites, how are you differentiating that from murder?

By the way, I'm still wondering how you came to perpetuate the misinformation I inquired about https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2085150&postcount=55".

 

[humanino]

IMO, those numbers are meaningless.

I have been living in both countries, and discussing with similar people (in the same academic environments, not bars or night clubs) and I think thouse numbers, as unpleasant as they are, are quite meaningful.