UN calls on Israel to lift Gaza blockade

[Billo_Really]

Didn't you, just a few post ago, claim you don't deal in ad hominem attacks?

"rarely" deal.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Why don't you provide your version of 'impartial and credible sources not associated with either the Israeli nor Palestinian cause' which would be likely to have first hand knowledge of events in Palestine? Human Rights Watch? ICRC? Amnesty International? UN??"

You already have a laundry list of extremely reasonable criteria for establishing credentials with respect to competency and impartiality.

You already have a concession which acknowledges in advance that it may prove impossible to meet all the criteria, so that only meeting most of them should suffice.

You already have insight into one or two non-negotiable criteria... impartial and not affiliated with or having a history of leaning towards either the Israeli or Palestinian side, which would throw suspicion upon any findings.

You are the ones who made the positive assertion of a policy of IDF headshots directed towards children.

The burden of proof is yours.

Your burden of proof includes the acquisition of two-sided investigative findings by impartial and non-stakeholding and historically neutral sources.

It is not incumbent upon me to assume your burden nor to aid you in your work.

But I will offer-up one helpful hint:

Whatever source(s) you uncover need not have First Hand Knowledge of related events in Israel-Palestine; they do not need to have had boots-on-the-ground at the time of such alleged intentional child-targeted headshot incidents.

Such source(s) merely need to have competently and thoroughly and dispassionately investigated both sides of any such collection of incidents - enough to establish a baseline with respect to patterns and trends and suspected policy or practices, rather than isolated and individual sociopathic behavior manifestations - and, utilizing staff not strongly linked to either side in the conflict, have reached a finding of Probable Cause to indict leadership at-law; not convict, merely to indict; a finding which any reasonable and objective person would be obliged to concede as likely.

Multiple sources along these lines (impartial, credible, no history of preference, taking both sides of the story into full account) would be best, but even a single such source would make a great start for such a broader discussion amongst the audience, to build upon your assertion.

Successfully substantiate your assertions of a policy or practice of IDF headshot targeting of children, to such a reasonable extent so as to indict leadership at-law, in light of indicative impartial and neutral and competent and thorough findings, and you've suddenly got a ball-game on your hands, and a real chance to convince folks that your assertions should be taken seriously.

And that's about as far as my thinking takes me on that one, without starting to do your homework for you.

Hope that helps.

 

[georgephillip]

"Frustrated by the events of the First Intifada and by what she considered their inadequate coverage in the Israeli media, she started to report from the Palestinian territories in 1991.Credibility cuts both ways ...Amira Hass

Slapped with a hefty fine in court for intentional lying about events in Hebron in 2001. Once a liar always a liar, of course. How about credibility?

Your credibility's about as good as Baruch Goldstein's
Are you two still close?

"The Israeli military commander of Hebron, colonel Yehuda Fuchs, has imposed a curfew on the poor Palestinians who live in the old city of Hebron many times. He also closed the main entrance gates to the old market. Nothing has changed in the city of Hebron since 1997.

"The occupational military commanders who served in Hebron have changed, but the city still lives the same curfews, the same suffering, the same regular attacks by the Jewish settlers and the Israeli soldiers.

"The Israeli headquarter in the city and under the various commanders is going ahead in implementing the old Zionist plan of turning Hebron into a 'Jewish only' city.

"Whatever happened in the city, from both the Israeli and the Palestinian side, it was always used by the IDF to 'create facts on the ground'. For example, the massacre perpetrated in 1995 by the psychopath from New York, Baruch Goldstein, resulted in the destruction and expropriation of the vegetable market, the closure of Al-Shuhada street and in 12 years of continued, almost uninterrupted curfew for Palestinians in the whole city.

"The plan to depopulate, ethnically cleanse Hebron, is old and has been in implementation since 1967.

"The specific style of its implementation changes from commander to Israeli commander, but what is common is 'timing' and 'apparent legitimacy': any excuse is used to expropriate a house here, kill somebody there, arrest a group elsewhere, steal some land, … and if no excuse is found, then some incident is created by the settlers."

The IDF Cold War in Hebron « Europa & Middle East News

 

[georgephillip]

Didn't you, just a few post ago, claim you don't deal in ad hominem attacks?

"rarely" deal.

"...Why don't you provide your version of 'impartial and credible sources not associated with either the Israeli nor Palestinian cause' which would be likely to have first hand knowledge of events in Palestine? Human Rights Watch? ICRC? Amnesty International? UN??"

You already have a laundry list of extremely reasonable criteria for establishing credentials with respect to competency and impartiality.

You already have a concession which acknowledges in advance that it may prove impossible to meet all the criteria, so that only meeting most of them should suffice.

You already have insight into one or two non-negotiable criteria... impartial and not affiliated with or having a history of leaning towards either the Israeli or Palestinian side, which would throw suspicion upon any findings.

You are the ones who made the positive assertion of a policy of IDF headshots directed towards children.

The burden of proof is yours.

Your burden of proof includes the acquisition of two-sided investigative findings by impartial and non-stakeholding and historically neutral sources.

It is not incumbent upon me to assume your burden nor to aid you in your work.

But I will offer-up one helpful hint:

Whatever source(s) you uncover need not have First Hand Knowledge of related events in Israel-Palestine; they do not need to have had boots-on-the-ground at the time of such alleged intentional child-targeted headshot incidents.

Such source(s) merely need to have competently and thoroughly and dispassionately investigated both sides of any such collection of incidents - enough to establish a baseline with respect to patterns and trends and suspected policy or practices, rather than isolated and individual sociopathic behavior manifestations - and, utilizing staff not strongly linked to either side in the conflict, have reached a finding of Probable Cause to indict leadership at-law; not convict, merely to indict; a finding which any reasonable and objective person would be obliged to concede as likely.

Multiple sources along these lines (impartial, credible, no history of preference, taking both sides of the story into full account) would be best, but even a single such source would make a great start for such a broader discussion amongst the audience, to build upon your assertion.

Successfully substantiate your assertions of a policy or practice of IDF headshot targeting of children, to such a reasonable extent so as to indict leadership at-law, in light of indicative impartial and neutral and competent and thorough findings, and you've suddenly got a ball-game on your hands, and a real chance to convince folks that your assertions should be taken seriously.

And that's about as far as my thinking takes me on that one, without starting to do your homework for you.

Hope that helps.

I does.
Thank-you.
I suggest we start by agreeing on a common definition of "child."
There are three ages to choose from in the following link.
Let me know your preference.

"Applicable to Israelis and Palestinians is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, an human rights treaty setting out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children.

"The Convention defines a child as any human being under the age of eighteen, unless the state itself defines the age of majority as an earlier age.[35]

"Israel ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991.[36] Although Palestine did not have the status of a state, in 1995 Yassir Arafat, as the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization, signed the Convention.[34]

"The internationally accepted definition of children, codified in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), defines children as individuals under the age of 18.

"Since 1991 Israel has signed and ratified the CRC and applies the definition to Israeli children.[37] However, in the Occupied Territories Israel defines as minors only Palestinians who are under the age of 16.

"Some leaders of the major Palestinian armed groups also state they consider children of 16 to be adults.[38]

"According to the 1971 Israeli Youth Law, criminal responsibility is set at 12 years of age and over."

Children in the Israeli?Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Billo_Really]

You already have a laundry list of extremely reasonable criteria for establishing credentials with respect to competency and impartiality.

You already have a concession which acknowledges in advance that it may prove impossible to meet all the criteria, so that only meeting most of them should suffice.

You already have insight into one or two non-negotiable criteria... impartial and not affiliated with or having a history of leaning towards either the Israeli or Palestinian side, which would throw suspicion upon any findings.

You are the ones who made the positive assertion of a policy of IDF headshots directed towards children.

The burden of proof is yours.

Your burden of proof includes the acquisition of two-sided investigative findings by impartial and non-stakeholding and historically neutral sources.

It is not incumbent upon me to assume your burden nor to aid you in your work.

But I will offer-up one helpful hint:

Whatever source(s) you uncover need not have First Hand Knowledge of related events in Israel-Palestine; they do not need to have had boots-on-the-ground at the time of such alleged intentional child-targeted headshot incidents.

Such source(s) merely need to have competently and thoroughly and dispassionately investigated both sides of any such collection of incidents - enough to establish a baseline with respect to patterns and trends and suspected policy or practices, rather than isolated and individual sociopathic behavior manifestations - and, utilizing staff not strongly linked to either side in the conflict, have reached a finding of Probable Cause to indict leadership at-law; not convict, merely to indict; a finding which any reasonable and objective person would be obliged to concede as likely.

Multiple sources along these lines (impartial, credible, no history of preference, taking both sides of the story into full account) would be best, but even a single such source would make a great start for such a broader discussion amongst the audience, to build upon your assertion.

Successfully substantiate your assertions of a policy or practice of IDF headshot targeting of children, to such a reasonable extent so as to indict leadership at-law, in light of indicative impartial and neutral and competent and thorough findings, and you've suddenly got a ball-game on your hands, and a real chance to convince folks that your assertions should be taken seriously.

And that's about as far as my thinking takes me on that one, without starting to do your homework for you.

Hope that helps.

It's not up to you to decide what is (and is not) admissible as evidence. When the one making the initial claim provides corroborative citations to back up their claim, the burden of proof shifts to the "objector", who must show evidence to the contrary, to prove their "objection" is not frivolous and has merit.

You can't just sit back and pass judgment on someone's source as not being credible, you have to prove it. You know this is just a "cop out" tactic on your part, because you don't have the evidence for a valid rebuttal.

 

[Kondor3]

"...You can't just sit back and pass judgment on someone's source as not being credible, you have to prove it. You know this is just a 'cop out' tactic on your part, because you don't have the evidence for a valid rebuttal."

Anyone may challenge a source, by demonstrating a too-close connection to Side A or B, which, ipso facto, and entirely reasonably and logically, calls the validity of their findings into question.

The entire point of the exercise is to craft a largely unassailable assertion and substantiating evidence, which, in order to be unassailable, must be beyond reasonable contestation.

George appears to understand this, and, also apparently, seems to grudgingly see some merit in both the recent range of challenges, as well as some of the discussion pertaining to bullet-proofing one's substantiating data.

He has expressed some mild and limited and temporary interest in pursuing a higher-order and more unassailable case, for fun, to see where that goes, and I have been dropping what I hope are some helpful hints, to demonstrate the likely Filtering Criteria which his case must survive, in order to attain that magical 'unassailable' status.

We are also playing-about the fringes of Data Modeling, with respect to broadening the sampling base and obtaining both holistic casualty and specific headshot injury data, in order to discern whether the Intentional Headshot Policy Assertion would survive such Filtering Criteria and whether the numbers would indicate a trend or pattern, quite possibly indicative of a policy or routine practice.

We are two bitter adversaries who have found a few moments of peace in our mutual rock-throwing, by discussing objective and neutral matters of Sampling Bases and Filtering Criteria and the Vetting of Sources so that these might result in an improved approach that might actually gain some traction in open discussions on the subject.

Not to mention that such a more careful attention to sources and data modeling and trends and patterns can be usefully applied across much of the spectrum topical matter that we all encounter on these boards.

There is nothing disingenuous nor diversionary about it; I have already adequatedly refuted such assertions IN THEIR PRESENT FORM and successfully demonstrated the bias-driven unsuitability of the sources presented SO FAR; what we are doing here is actually tweaking the model so that he gets more mileage out of it later, if better and more complete and more voluminous data can be found to support the assertion.

This temporary 'lull' in the 'fighting' is merely an exercise in common-ground modeling and expectations-management; worthwhile interludes, before we start throwing rocks again. It may yield something. It may not. But, at a bare-bones minimum, it has been a modestly enjoyable and respectful exchange of understanding, pertaining to credibility and credentials and data-modeling and stats likely to be acceptable to BOTH sides.

Now... go away, and bother somebody else, while we're enjoying a brief interlude of relative peace and quiet between he and I, eh?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Thank-you. I suggest we start by agreeing on a common definition of 'child'. There are three ages to choose from in the following link. Let me know your preference..."

Good question, and one that is easy to weasel-out on, from several angles.

My gut tells me to say 16 is the magic age for attaining Adult Status in our context.

I think the Israelis are dead-wrong to call it at 12.

I also think the UN Convention specification of 18 may be unrealistic with respect to teen militia members and street fighters and operatives.

My thinking is... 18 'on paper', 16 'in practice'... which seems a sensible compromise, in light of how many late-teen militia members and street-fighters and operatives there are.

For what that's worth.

 

[Billo_Really]

Anyone may challenge a source, by demonstrating a too-close connection to Side A or B, which, ipso facto, and entirely reasonably and logically, calls the validity of their findings into question.

Actually, in a court of law, if you object to an initial claim, you have to provide evidence to show your objection has merit, otherwise, the judge will not even hear your argument.

Simply saying you "don't believe it" and launching into some pseudo-logical hypothesis to prove the opposite, won't cut no scratch with a judge. You need to provide evidence to the contrary, or the judge will cut you off and tell you to shut-up.

 

[docmauser1]

"Frustrated by the events of the First Intifada and by what she considered their inadequate coverage in the Israeli media, she started to report from the Palestinian territories in 1991.Credibility cuts both ways ...Amira Hass

Slapped with a hefty fine in court for intentional lying about events in Hebron in 2001. Once a liar always a liar, of course. How about credibility?

Your credibility's about as good as Baruch Goldstein's Are you two still close?

Non sequitur drivel.

 

[docmauser1]

Credibility cuts both ways, Kondor3 Don't hurt yourself.

Sharing a personal experience is commendable, of course.