Which makes your analogy wrong. Hamas wants the state of Israel to go away. The Palestinians voted these people into power. They are openly attacking Israel with rockets. They are doing it with the intent to kill and spread terror.
Despite the fact that Hamas is a terrorist group Israel has tried to negotiate with them. It failed. Now it’s war.
Not taking any sides in this, but let’s get rid of the five year old kicking you in the shins.
How about a dude with a pile of rocks throwing them at a brick house? For the most part, the rocks are going to hit the bricks. Sometimes they might hit a window, though, which does cause some annoying damage. The house certainly won’t fall down, but replacing broken windows is troublesome and the broken glass and ballistic rock might hurt someone inside.
Now, in our society the person who owns the house is not necessarily justified in going out and bashing that dude’s skull in. He calls the police, instead, and the dude gets fined and/or jailed.
So. How does that relate in the larger scale? Economic sanctions would be the equivalence of a fine, maybe. Who are the police to come and take the dude to jail? He’s certainly not coming quietly. And it turns out that the land the house is built on was actually acquired from the dude’s grandparents under questionable circumstances; therefore, it’s his right, as he sees it, to tear it down. He can’t do that, though, and he can’t do real damage to it. All he can do is keep throwing rocks at the house and hope somebody notices who’s in a position to give him back the house his fathers lived in.
But the house owner’s family lives there too. Making them live together is impractical. Splitting the house up will end in frustration when the house owner moves more and more of his Tupperware to the other side of the kitchen, and then the police have to show back up…
I want a solar powered house. Who cares what they WANT? As the saying goes, they can wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
What do you have against democracy?
That’s ridiculous. They attacked the seat of American military power. They attacked a city and were probably going to attack either the President or Congress. They caused a half trillion dollar
s worth of economic damage and to this day the airlines have not recovered. It couldn’t be any more serious attack unless they used nuclear weapons which they would have given the opportunity.
You’re not making any sense at all.
I edited my post to try to clarify. My point is that what they want is irrelevant unless and until they have some means to bring it about, and since that’s never going to happen, it doesn’t matter.
If I want the Green Bay Packers to spontaneously burst into flame, does that make me a threat to them? Should they be alarmed?
Diogenes, I might have missed it, but did you ever say what you think would be an appropriate response by Israel to the Hamas rocket attacks?
Of course Hamas isn’t going to bring an end to Israel by firing some rockets, but they’re an attempt to kill Israeli citizens, and surely the government of Israel has a right to do something to try to stop Hamas from trying to kill its citizens. Right?
I don’t have a magic answer, but I think the best approach lies in giving the Palestinian people a reason to believe that friendship with Israel is better for their self-interest than supporting Hamas. They can’t be killed or threatened or terrorized out of supporting Hamas. They need to have their humanity and their grievances recognized. Assaults like the one this week are like trying to put out a grease fire with gasoline.
No.
I declare that random now means “tasty”, concussive now means “deliciousness” and energy now means “into my tummy.”
Clearly, Hamas was not providing tasty insertions of deliciousness into my tummy. Therefore, all these claims about Israel defending itself against continual rocket attacks are a pack of lies.
Glenn Greenwald speaks, in this case, for me.
If we want to wage war on Terror,–not Islam, nor Araby, nor insufficiently European Caucasoids–then we must oppose Israeli terrorism as well.
Hamas has launched a terror campaign using rockets against Israel. It already happened.
If you’re launching missiles at them absolutely. Palestinian’s have elected a political force whose active goal is the destruction of Israel. They accept military weapons and in turn have used them against Israel. Buildings have been destroyed and people killed. That is an act of war. It’s not a gray area. It’s not even close to a gray area.
Fools: sure, I think we can all agree that we would strongly oppose Israeli terrorism.
And when Israel starts bombing random civilians in order to instill terror, we’ll have something to actually condemn. Until then, hitting valid military targets is not terrorism.
Here’s a rather simple thought experiment that folks can perform if they believe various forms of nonsense about Israeli “terrorism” or how Israel “targets” civilians.
Imagine, if you would, all of Hamas, rockets and all, picked up and moved into, say, the Sinai peninsula. Then they started attacking Israel again. Would Israel’s missiles be targeted at A) Hamas or B) Palestinian civilians?
That should answer, rather clearly, who Israel is targeting and if they’re carrying out valid military objectives or terrorism.
Hamas wants the destruction of Israel (which, by the way is not necessarily synonommous with the destruction of the Israeli people, but that’s a different topic). The rockets are not going to bring about the destruction of Israel, so no, it isn’t “happening already”, no matter how much they want it to.
The point is that reckless disregard for civilian casualties is morally indistinguishible from deliberately targeting them. I think the distinction is a rationalization with little ethical substance.
Timothy McVeigh wasn’t intentionally targeting the day care center when he blew up the Murrah Federal bulding. He saw the building as a military target and the kids as collateral damage. Does it matter?
The terrorism, death and destruction of the rockets are happening. Your logic is without purpose if you think Israel has to wait until it’s a smoking hole in the ground to react to rocket attacks.
I didn’t say it shouldn’t react, but this not the way to react.
Wasn’t intended as a funny. More a comment on the stupidity of your definition of an attack.
I don’t see why you’re worked up over things, I mean Israel isn’t threatening Hamas’ existence, so they’re not actually attacking the Gaza Strip, right?
Seriously, 9/11 wasn’t an actual ‘attack’ by your definition, so why are you so worked up over much fewer civilians dying? I mean they weren’t actually attacked, so who gives a shit, right?
No no… Israel isn’t threatening the PA’s existence, so they’re not attacking any Palestinians at all.
Wait, no… Israel isn’t threatening the ME’s existence, so they’re not attacking anybody in the ME at all.
Wait, still not quite right. Israel does not possess the Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator, so they can not in fact destroy the Earth, so they are in fact not attacking anybody on the planet, at all.
I’m pretty sure they ARE threatening Hamas’ existence. It’s definitely a full scale military attack on a democratically elected governing body.
Like I said, 9/11 was a crime. Just because it’s not accurate to call something an attack on a state doesn’t mean it can’t be condemned as a crime.
I’ve lurked here for quite awhile, and I figure that I may as well use my first post to solve the Arab/Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea how to do that, so instead I will ask a few questions.
The OP states in the thread title that American civilians are legitimate targets, but then posts later that they are not. Could He/She please provide some clarification on that issue?
DtC:
Is it accurate to say that you believe that a gov’t should only use military force to defeat threats to its very existence? In general, what responsibility does a state have to the protection of its citizens from external threats which don’t rise to the level of an existential threat? Please understand that I’m not attacking you here. I think your position is a legitimate one. I’d just like to hear more about it.
Also, what if Canada sent an entire legion of its best 5 year olds to kick our Heads of State in the shin while throwing our neighbor’s houses at our children?