I don't want to get bogged down in another Israel vs. Whoever thread, because inevitably you will have swaymedia freaking on Israelis, and browntwn trying to get people banned for saying anything negative about Israel. But I did skim read to the bolded portion. IIRC, Women do serve in the IDF. I am quite sure of this, because I remember seeing some photos of IDF soldiers, and there were some hot young Israeli ladies, in their desert combat gear and carrying big machine guns, and I thought it was super sexy. Yeah, I know, the antiwar guys digs chicks with guns. Anyway, someone should check out IDF mandatory service and verify that (1) women serve, and (2) that they perform front line military duties. Because if that is the case, the absolutely RETARDED (IMHO) notion that we can weigh justice by sexually profiling the dead by percentages is completely without merit.
Yes women serve in Israel Army, but they are not on the front lines, two most of the attacks against Israel over the Years have been against civilians.
I think that is a dramatic find and a dramatic story. The percentage of dead females is entirely a function of the volume of strikes on civilians. Israeli women do serve in the military but not at the front line. If some of those deaths reflected soldiers in front line fighting the percentage of Israeli women would be dramatically low. Someone should look at Iraq deaths in the same way and when doing so, evalute the deaths via who was directly responsable.
That would ruin their whole point of keeping track of the dead now wouldn't it..... Remember this isn't about facts, but about how you can make numbers look good for your argument, so for them the end justifies the means.
Ok, well since we can't get a clear answer, I decided to consult Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Women_in_the_IDF Apparently most women serve on with the Border Police, which specializes in anti-terrorism. So I'm still not dissuaded that the argument using female deaths is valid. I am assuming the Palestinians do not put women in law enforcement or military engagement scenarios at all. In fact, Palestinian women might be that much more less likely to get killed, because they may not stray as far from the shelter of home as men do. Again, I think differentiating based on sex is silly, given the social differences between these two groups. I think the onus is on the author to distinguish military deaths from civilian deaths statistically (as he was able to write the total military/police count). At the end of the day, the article is trying to put perfume on the pig of 1300 dead Palestinians to 500 Israelis. It's really hard to understand how anyone can rationalize that it takes 2.6 Palestinians to kill one Israeli. By that measure, Hamas is not only bad at terrorism, they might be grossly incompetent.
Guerilla: If your politics mandates how you are going to look at new data then you can choose any type of response you like. And this is a case where that has occurred (again). On its face value, there probably are no reports of the deaths of people representing gender....until this report. One need only use their brain a bit, to comprehend the nature and types of deaths that occurred during the period of the study. In view of the fact that Israel often struck back at Palestinians with significant armor and weapons it is surprising, even astonishing to see the scarcity of female deaths. It would appear Israel was specifically not targeting general popuation areas but targeting areas different in nature and character. In fact it suggests they were targeting areas specifically with suspected male terrorists. On the other hand the 25% figure of Israeli women who died suggests the open ended nature of attack by terrorists on civilians. I find the data fascinating. It deserves more investigation. It is further interesting as juxtaposed within the article that is its source, referencing world opinion and UN condemnation as a nation that violates human rights. In fact that is
You're inferring politics. I'm merely pointing out the facts that women serve on the Israeli side, whereas they do not likely serve on the Palestinian side. Probably because it is a silly methodology without a more granular sorting method. So what is the holdup in your case? Right, so 25% of the Israeli deaths are civilian women, but they manage to kill 2.6 times as many Palestinians with only 138 military and police death. That's a 9.4 to 1 ratio. Whoa. Male terrorists? Where did you get terrorists from? We can conclude more Palestinian males have died, but there is no mention that these males were all, partially or predominantly "terrorist". They could all be 8 year old boys, or 60 year old men. The attacks could predominantly take place at sporting events or the outdoors. Without having all of the data, the author has irresponsibly tried to make a very broad generalization. More female deaths = more civilian deaths. But as I pointed out, Israel puts their women in harms way, Palestinians may not, and could explain the skewing, until we are able to ascertain the number of female police/army deaths. Of course, the author forgets to mention that Israeli women serve in the police and military, just as he doesn't present his statistics or sources. I wouldn't take much from this piece given the lack of sample size and detail.
Sure, they don't ever use kids as shields or send their young women to blow themselves up... never...
I'd never really considered it. But you have to admit that Palestine needing 1300 (sic) terrorists to kill 358 Israeli non-combatants is pretty weak. And to think that Bin Laden's 19 guys have killed nearly 8,000 between 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, injured 10s of thousands, and are estimated to cost the country $3 trillion. The lesson we can gather from this, is that CIA sponsored insurgency training really pays off. I'm not sure what value you think you add with this. We don't know the ages. We only know the total dead, and the numbers of females in the dead, and the Israeli Police/Military count in the dead. That's it. If the Palestinians were sending their women, then they might have more women dead. But what kind of bomb blows up 2.6 bombers for every victim? Seems counter-intuitive to me.
If the death of Palestinian children means that they are used as shield, with the same type of reasoning, it must mean that Israel is using women as shield and that is how they got them killed.
Last I saw Israel was using Palestinian children as shields. See video. One of them an 11 year old girl... Scumbags. If anyone can give me any kind of proof of Palestinian militants using children as shields I would like to see it.
It is not surprising that people with a built in political agenda against Israel, such as the G and G boys of Guerilla and Gworld, would give short shrift to this interesting and potentially revealing information. In a world of war nobody is perfect. Not even close. It is surprising, though, how this data defines a marked difference in the results of killings by palestinians an by israelis. One can go on and on as to who is responsable and who struck first, who killed babies, etc. etc. etc. Look at the examples of Israeli attacks during the Intafada and it was usually a response to some kinds of actions by palestinians over time. If these responses killed so few women, they must represent a measured response of some sort that doesn't attack the general population but is targeted toward males. Clearly the Israeli's have been targeting those whom they think are targeting the Israeli's themselves. Even more dramatically it suggests that the Israeli's are targeting anything BUT the general public. That is rather astonishing, at least based on hard evience rather than the latest emotional cries from either side that blame one or the other.
So you think that should get some extra point because they kill men and children and not too many women? I don't give it a short shift but it is a meaningless stats and I was sure the Benedict Arnolds of today's USA will always be there to give it a proper "attention".
1. And you don't have a pro-Israel, anti-Muslim (as evidenced by your support for their mass murder in Iraq by Clintonian and Bushite policies) political agenda? 2. There is little interesting, except to the feeble minded. No statistics are provided, except the hand selected ones to make the author's premise, and even then, their is a serious lack of granularity. You killed 500,000 babies in Iraq with your support for Clinton's Food for Oil program. As far as I am concerned, you are responsible for that. The above quoted section is absolute and total nonsense. You're drawing conclusions to mirror your politics and the author's assertion. As I have pointed out, we're missing data. How many of the female deaths were military/police? Why does it take nearly 3 Palestinians to kill one Israeli civilian? Or better yet, why were 1300 Palestinians killed in response to 350 or so Israeli civilian deaths? The data is lacking, the premise appears to be flawed, and you're drawing conclusions based on limited facts.