American civilians are legitimate targets in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Great Debates
281

Newcomer, I have a few questions.

  1. Does a country have a right to protect their citizens from having bombs fall on them?
  2. I’d go so far as to say that they have not only a right, but an obligation. Would you agree?
  3. What actions do you think Israel should take to protect their citizens from having bombs dropped on them?
  4. If a cease fire is reached and remains in effect for five years, and then in 2014, Hamas renews their sending of rockets into Israel, what should Israel do then?
  5. No doubt many people would differ and what exactly should constitute a war crime. Nations have agreed to look to the GC for common agreement. Do you think it is okay to ignore what the GC says about what is and isn’t a war crime? If you do, where should we look to see what does, in fact, constitute a war crime?
282

That’s what you think. The Nazis thought otherwise and they were sincere in their belief. And that is the fact.

283

People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

284

On occasion, I have seen perception trump reality.

285

Oh, to be sure, perception informs reality (small “R”). And perception can always trump reality if folks let it.
But Reality is immutable when it comes to belief.
Wish in one hand, spit in the other, after all.

286

I have to admit, I don’t entirely know (and part of my frustration with the whole Israel-Palestine situation is that the status quo is suboptimal but I don’t know how to improve it). It’s just, while I realize that it probably did shelter millitants and an arms cache, it gets hard to publically defend Israel’s response when it hits a crowded school. I don’t know, it’s just frustrating. (And, of course, there’s a part of me that wants Israel to be less discriminating. See how well Hamas can terrorize Sderot when the entire Gaza strip is nothing but ash. But obviously, that solutuion, while satisfying, is suboptimal. There’s a reason I try to stay out of threads like this. I really don’t like what they do to me.)

287

#1: The question is very narrow and allows for wide spectrum of possibilities. Additionally, term “country” in this situation is very shaky and one could fill-up 10 pages only on discussion what is “country” in this case and who is - legally - fighting here. I find questions like this a slippery-slope used by trolls. No offence, just my reading of the question that I find irrelevant to the whole mess.

#2: Croatian city of Vukovar was flattened by Milosevic army. In strict army terms to get rid of a guy who is shooting from a house window a tank needs to destroy 3 to 5 houses to neutralize one guy. However, destruction of Vukovar is one of the most barbaric and hineous acts in the former Yugoslavia wars because politicians and war machine put army in that situation and approved orders of a mass destruction. Asking a question like “what would you tank to do?” is pointless. There is no debate on how should Milosevic army approach the problem - they should not have been there in the first place.

Same goes for your question.

#3: Again terminology. It is amazing to me that attacking defensless people and taking away their land through constant warring you call “protecting” citizens. Just like US attacking Iraq was not protection of US - even though some still argue about it. Similarly I do not accept that attacking Gaza is for protection of citizens of Israel; if anything it either keeps the level of nervousness at the same level, provides for a brief exhiliration of the populus and keeps everybody on their toes until next time. It’s called cycle. I have no rational answer to a question like that. I’m honestly at a loss with words.

BTW, “protection of citizens” is the oldest trick in the books but it works. Every time.

#4: In case you missed it, the current events were triggered by IDF. There was a cease fire and then there wasn’t.

#5: While I understand the need to look up the international law, if you ever happen to study law you would realize that massive body of work and results are being constantly updated. It is almost a “law” that laws always look at the history to prescribe the future. However, laws cannot win when faced with th ecreativity of the people bent on doing what they think is “right thing to do”.

For example, in WWII japanese-americans did not need to be interned in camps in Guantanamo, if you catch my drift.

So direct answer to your question is I dont know where do you need to lookup. It may sound tardy, but sometimes looking deep inside of your soul is always good. For starters at least.

My expirience comes from not so recent history where in Sarajevo, Serbs had snipers shooting randomly at the people going bout their way in the occupied city. I did not need to lookup any law to understand that it is a war crime.

288

I think there still needs to be much more investigation until we know for sure what happened, or what Israel knew and when. Part of what complicates this, as well, is that it was a UN location, and the UN, during the recent war against hezbollah, allowed Hezbollah militants to base right on top of UN positions and then lied about it when Israeli strikes hit those positions.

I’m more than willing to look at the calculus of collateral damage here, but I think we need more information before we can make an informed decision one way or the other.

289

It’s a valid question. There is no doubt that targets that the US would never go after are valid targets to the Israeli’s. Of course the US isn’t under constant attack either, so it’s a bit easier for us to pick and choose targets based on political instead of purely military reasons. That said, it’s also valid to ask questions about what exactly happened with this school (I just read an article saying that the Israeli’s are claiming that the school grounds were being used as a mortar position).

-XT

290

You want someone to justify Hamas deliberately using a shelter to launch military attacks?

Shodan is right on the mark when he said that Hamas does not care about the lives of either Palestinians or Israelis.

The solution is simple, Palestinians have to believe life is precious and act accordingly. Done. Nothing else needs to happen.

291

Sure, and not only that, it encourages psychopathic people to use civilians as shields. Which is exactly what Hamas does, apparently.

It seems to me that the definition of “war crime” which some people are asking for effectively means that Israel cannot respond militarily to any sort of aggression.

To anyone who thinks that Israel is engaged in “war crimes,” I would ask you:

How exactly would you define “war crime”?

I agree 100%. It’s hard to think of any other reason why someone would define “war crime” in such a way.

292

Agenda.

-XT

293

No that is not fact. Jews were not attacking anybody, they were simply hated for being Jews. They were slaughtered based on pure hatred and not any reasoned concept of self preservation.

294

Actually, that doesn’t seem to be the case. It seems what is lacking is the moral courage to describe things for what they are. You shuck and jive at every question that asks you to make a moral decision. You avoid making judgements because there may be a slippery slope or may be otherwise be difficult. Too bad. Life is tough. The only exception seems to be the comfort you find in determining that Israel is in the wrong when it comes to protecting itself.

Especially when it’s true. It’s a far cry better than a country not protecting its citizens. Wouldn’t you say?

You’ve got to be kidding. Are they supposed to wait till the tunnels are operational and damage is inflicted. If you lived next door to people that have a history of erecting a catapult by which they propelled fifty pounds of nails at a time over the fence with great velocity, which in the past have killed some of your family, and then you see them erecting a new catapult, do you wait for history to repeat itself. Or do you take the catapult out before it is completed?

And the rest of your post, more obfuscation and lack of moral courage. You condemn Israel, but don’t even have the moral fortitude to say what YOU think they should do? Amazing. Every agrees that it is a tough decision to make, to accept collateral damage. Big deal. You know what’s harder? Going about your day and having a rocket kill your mother. If the killing is to stop, the people who do it simply need to stop. Hamas simply needs to stop seeking to kill Israelis. Why is that so hard to understand? If they’re living side by side, Israel is taking no offensive action against Palestine or Hamas. They are simply reacting, trying to protect themselves. You know that phrase you find so trite and platitudinous. The same one that saves lives and allows people to live in comfort

Tell me, is there a number of Israelis that Hamas can kill with these rockets that would nudge you into a place where you’d feel comfortable saying that Israeli has the right to protect its citizens?

And while we’re at it, I’d be curious on seeing some support concerning your comments regarding Jews and The Nazis.

295

And then will they get an independent state, with no IDF patrols, and all Israeli settlers between the Green Line and the Jordan packed up and gone?

No?

How about full Israeli citizenship in a one-state solution?

No?

Then what will they get, that would be an improvement for them over the status quo? (N.B.: Just not getting periodically invaded by the IDF would not be much of an improvement for them over the status quo.)

296

Well, then there would be peace and the possibilities to negotiate further concessions. My guess is for REAL peace the Israeli’s would be willing to make some significant concessions. Mind, the Palestinian’s are NEVER going to get as good of a deal as the one they pissed away initially…but I could definitely see both internal and external pressure being applied to Israel if the Palestinian’s ever decided to cut the throats of their militant fanatical assholes and give real peace a chance.

Why ask a question if you think you already know the answer too it?

I’m sure Israel would go for this (assuming the new citizens would not blow the crap out of shopping malls and bus stations) but I seriously doubt the Palestinians would EVER want something like this. So, in this case your assumed answer of ‘no?’ is correct.

What a bunch of horseshit. Out of curiosity why exactly would the IDF be invading and bombing them if they weren’t tossing rockets, launching suicide attacks or preparing tunnels to spread hate and discontent? Why do you assume that if the Palestinian’s decided to stop attacking that the Israeli’s would continue?

-XT

297

Your description is way too simplified. Did you ever read anything on the subject?

You really need to go back and read more on the subject including actual thoughts of Nazis. Because, in their mind they saw a threat however delusional that may sound; they saw few successfull Jews in Germany at the time after WWI and in their impotence at the World powers at the time, found easily identifiable and unprotected group. Add to that their deeply disturbed worldview combined with the madness.

Cite: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?event_id=185252&fuseaction=events.event_summary

I think I’m dealing with a troll.

298

And what I think?

Here’s Hitchens in Slate

Cite: Gaza could have been a model of the future Palestinian state.
I think that it is in Israel’s interest to create conditions for Hamas to be destroyed from within. That is of course just an idea and I know lots of “practical” people will shoot it down using their “moral courage”. But, just like it was created from the distance, it can be destroyed from distance. And the onus is on an occupying force not the one occupied to find, or at least steer the solution (e.g. British-India).

Nothing would in practice prove to the rest of the World well promoted superiority of “the only democracy in the region”.

299

I predict a moderator is about to fire a rocket in your general direction. Get your kids out NOW.

300

No offence, **xtisme **- and I really appreciate what you’re doing in this thread - but didn’t the U.S. military once bomb a Iraqi wedding reception because they were firing their guns into the air?