American civilians are legitimate targets in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Great Debates
361

It was more of a rhetorical point that you took literally. It was supposed to be used to expose inconsistency of a “Hamas and Judgment Day” argument as one of the driving forces behind the conflict - it is frivolous and self-serving. You obviously and conveniently chose to interpret it literally so 'll explain once more and then you can come back. Because, even though you did understand you omitted to voice your opinion on the subject of US Evangelists & blind (“blind” in a sense they just talk about it but they do not really explain why) support for Israel but rather added some ad hominem.

My overall point is that when one is using a specific case of argument (Hamas, Judgment Day and Israel) then one has to be ready to accept the generic argument; i.e. if there are some other specific cases, the generic case has to apply.

Otherwise, your bias is showing like a plumber’s crack.

362

This is hilarious, Mr. Pot. You’re the one who stridently holds on to his opinion in the face of contradicting information—the Israeli “war crimes”, for instance—and you call someone else biased? Thanks for the laugh. Have a nice day.

363

You just picking adjectives out of a hat now?
Hamas has a genocidal religious rationalization for hating Jews. Evangelical Christians have a non-genocidal religious rationalization for supporting Israel. Rather obviously, Hamas is involved in the conflict and Evangelical Christians in the US live half a world away.
You’re straining to draw an analogy which simply doesn’t exist.

Let’s see…

  1. You’re fabricating an alternate reality in which I used an ad hominem. In the reality the rest of us know and love, I did not.
  2. I don’t have to play your games or ‘voice my opinion’ on an irrelevant subject, even if you really, really want me to. You’re the one whose silly little rhetorical gambit tried to equate genocidal with non genocidal religious beliefs because it made your argument a tad less risible.
  3. Your ignorance of Evangelical theology hardly means they don’t explain why their religious beliefs cause them to support Israel. I suggest google to clear up your ignorance.

If you’re going to give me word-salad, you might as well send me some bacon bits. And no, going from the specific to the general and back to another disparate specific is known as using the fallacy of composition to later invoke the fallacy of division.

The actual argument is that Hamas is a racist, theocratic, genocidal organization as proven by their own words. If you find any other racist, theocratic, genocidal organizations, you can pretty much just put 2 and 2 together and figure “Hey, Finn doesn’t like racists, theocrats or genocide. I bet he’s against them.”

That should save you some time.

364

I asked you if they should ask Hamas and you said yes? And then you go on about civilian areas. That would be everywhere. Palestinians voted a rogue military into power that uses people as shields and commercial buildings as military bases of operation. It’s already been pointed out that Israel uses drones and they have compensated for Hamas using people as a shields.

The problem here is that Hamas deliberately uses civilian infrastructure as a base of operations which means they hold NO value for human lives. We’ll just ignore the times they blew up city buses in terrorist attacks.

Any military officer would tell you if you don’t want your family hurt, don’t use them as a shield or use your house to wage war.

365

No, the purpose of a boycott is to encourage the boycotted party to reconsider their policy. This “turn on their leadership” thing seems a bit odd. It worked very well in South Africa. I see it as a more ethical means of change than paying for the bombing of civilians, either by rocket, suicide bomber or any other means. Again, it worked well in South Africa.

I no longer support Israel’s policies. I used to. I don’t anymore. I invite refugees from both sides to emigrate to California and by my neighbors.

366

I meant yes they can confirm. Obviously asking them would be meaningless. Asking them to talk might be a good thing though. But neither will do this.

The problem isn’t just that Hamas uses civilian infrastructure to hide behind, which they do, the problem is that civilians are in them when they are bombed in retaliation, killing civilians.
As to your statement that “if you don’t want your family hurt, don’t use them as a shield or use your house to wage war” I think that is correct as far as it goes. This needs to be thought through by the Israeli’s, not just their internet propaganda squad. If a Hamas member hides behind his/her or somebody else’s family (let’s call them civilians), a legitimate self-defender does not deliberately bomb the whole family. That’s what snipers are for. A sniper that has some collateral damage in that situation is not as dangerous as a bomb that kills everyone. Does Israel have this capability? Most certainly. Israel has snipers and even assassins to do this work. (At least according to my former friend who outed himself as one. Yuck. Yes, that is why he is a former friend.) Does Israel have access to drone recon planes? Yes they do. The US has since 1948 given over $100 billion in aid to Israel. http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_17.shtml (additional since 2003 estimated by me at $2 to $2.5 billion per year.)

But has Israel also hid behind families? They used to openly occupy Gaza, but then retreated to Israel and got shot rockets at, causing this invasion after a November break in the cease fire. Both sides are doing it. Both sides have vowed not to talk to the other. As a US citizen, that is not in my country’s best interest. It is in my country’s best interest to see both sides talking in good faith and to see all Middle East countries stop scapegoating their internal problems onto the Israeli/Palestinian question and stirring up dangerous malcontents like Bin Ladin. Dangerous malcontents exist in all societies at all times. Osama Bin Ladin (if he is still alive) is smart enough and with enough resources and other malcontents to do real damage. Chaos emboldens these lawless malcontents.

That will not happen as long as Israel has the unconditional backing of the US. The unconditional backing of the US isn’t changing anytime soon, regardless of the change in Administration nine days from now.

367

What is the process by which a boycott works to get them to reconsider their policy?

In South Africa it helped motivate change because it was fairly complete and it caused a massive inflation and monies moving out of the country. Import prices went way up. It indeed caused significant hardships to a civilian population that, in that case, were mostly the minority group that had the power to turn on the leadership, Whites, and by that means helped to effect change.

Of course it sometimes works. And it often doesn’t. See Cuba, North Korea, etc. Heck the vast majority of other boycotts. But the efficacy was not my question. Most of the time a boycott disproportionately hurts/impoverishes those least able to effect change in the hope that if those civilians are hurt enough the leadership will reconsider policy. Maybe good leadership will respond to that without having their population turn on them; bad leadership will always ignore it until the population does turn on them. I find it an ethically questionable tactic.

But okay. You consider that approach ethical. Fine. Then all I ask is that you keep some consistency to your position.

Which you do not seem to have.

368

Yet-a-gain, the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically says otherwise. You are not entitled to make up your own international law. It might make you feel better to dismiss international law and call those who support is propaganda squad’, but you’re still arguing in the teeth of the facts.
It’s also clear to most folks that when you demand that Israel engage in Herculean attempts to avoid civilian casualties that ,what you’re really saying, is that Israel has no right to self defense as long as Hamas based itself in civilian areas of Gaza.

No. IDF based still aren’t inside residential buildings.
Something tells me you’re also not really ignorant of the fact that ‘using civilians as shields’ or ‘hiding behind civilians’ means actually doing just that, as in, putting your rocket launchers right next to residential homes. And in Israel’s case, you’re using it to mean “having army bases within the country.”

Funny… you’re equating putting a mortar on a hospital’s roof with having a designated military base away from civilians.

Ah yes, the “unconditional” backing. Except, of course, all those times we didn’t back Israel or censured them and that, for instance, we still won’t put our embassy in Jerusalem. But that doesn’t fit with your narrative or sound quite as sexy.

369

What if someone voted for the losing candidate in all of the recent elections? Are they a valid target?

The idea of individual responsibility for group action when there is no clear participation by the individual doesn’t pass an test of rational behavior that I know of.

370

The boycott worked against South Africa because there weren’t big holes in it. North Korea and Cuba both big holes. Cuba has the whole world except for the US. Korea has us and extreme poverty. You seem to argue that a boycott by the US wouldn’t work in Israel. It would. Plenty quick. A matter of days.

As for consistency, you say it isn’t consistent. Consistent with what? You want me to apply this to the civilian population of Gaza or Hamas or what? I don’t trade with either, and neither does anyone else posting on this board. I don’t trade with the civilians because Israel has an effective blockade (as much in violation of international law as the US one on Cuba) against Gaza. I wouldn’t trade with Hamas on principle.

I don’t like what Israel is doing. I don’t like what Hamas is doing both are wrong. If I were in the shoes of either, and thankfully I am not, I wouldn’t be doing what either has done. But I kinda understand what Hamas is facing: complete desperation and complete anger.

It seems to me that Israel was on the verge of getting a good peace settlement when Rabin was assassinated. He was, in my opinion, assassinated, probably by a conspiracy that the actual shooter is only vaguely aware of, to prevent Rabin from making concessions. That was the best time and nothing as good is going to come Israel’s way in the foreseeable future. There are those in the US and in Israel and among the Palestinians who do not want peace. That is most unfortunate.

371

It’s been a long thread, perhaps I have confused you with someone else. I’ll just ask the question: do you think that Israel’s blockade of Gaza (trying to cause enough discomfort to a civilian population as to motivate change in political behavior) is ethically troublesome?

I have problems with it myself, but I see it as no different from any other effective boycott (no big holes). How many see Israel’s blockade as horrific but see other blockades and boycotts that attempt to do the same thing as just fine (so long as they agree with the end) is a curiosity to me.

372

No.

373

But of course. Everything and anything Israel does is ‘legal’ in the eyes of its “Fighting Fifth Column” keyboard advocates. Meanwhile, in the real world:

Gaza humanitarian crisis deepens

Breaking the lock-step? The horror! But that is just what this American MENA expert suggest:

If Obama Is Serious he should get tough with Israel. – Aaron David Miller

Self-hating Jew or unbiased American scholar?

Meanwhile, here’s a poignant piece on Aljazeera (yes, I know, the very face of Islamofascist :rolleyes: )

In the US, Gaza is a different war

More at source.

374

Here’s one woman’s opinion – I’d even venture to say she’s some sort of authority on the subject: UN rights chief urges Israel to end ‘illegal’ Gaza blockade

Who cares, right? After all, Mr Bush made sure the rest of the world knew exactly what the US thinks of its own creation, The UN: Now, more irrelevant than ever.

Bombs away. There is no law but the Law Of The Jungle.

Isn’t just Grand how we become more humane by the century? Hell, at this rate I doubt we’re more than two or three generations away from The End. Just like it says in some ancient farmers’ books. Hmmm…were they incredibly smart or are we incredibly stupid what with facilitating their Apocalyptic predictions?

Heck, this whole failure of The Human Experiment ought to make us think of how freaking smart those dinosaurs mustta’ been to have hung around as long as they did. 'cause even if I am not around to see it, I highly doubt we’ll even get close to their longevity.

Too much hatred.

375

RedFury,

I personally have no expertise in international law but my question remains about the ethics (which can sometimes be the same and sometimes very different than what is the law, whatever it actually is) and why so many who have no problem with many other embargos, boycotts, and/or blockades (all of which are the same basic critter - isolate a nation’s economy such that the civilians suffer and the leadership responds - either to relive said suffering or because the populus has turned on them), but find it completely reprehensible when the Israelis do it.

I suspect that many decide which action they personally feel is ethical or unethical based on if they believe the end is just or not.

Now that’s not totally unacceptable. I am not rigid about the rule that the ends do not justify the means as an absolute. Sometimes certain ends are acceptable for certain means and not for others. But I do wish people were honest about it and not such sanctimonious hypocrites. A high ranking UN official complaining about using a blockade as a tool of international diplomacy - when economic isolation is a major tool in the UN’s toolbox, used time and time again - usually to little effect? What crap.

Meanwhile, you may be interested to see who agrees and who disagrees with the position that the incoming American administration may indeed need to exert pressure to extract some significant movement from the Israeli administration and fast. It falls out along some potentially surprising lines. See here.

376

Well, I quoted it. There’s not really all that much wiggle room, although of course it’s good to see that it’s still GD legal to accuse Jews and/or people who aren’t anti-Israel of being traitorous fifth columnists. I’ve always liked that feature.
Anyways… it’s quite clear that blockades are, in fact, not illegal under international law. In fact, they’re explicitly allowed (and the UN itself has authorized the deaths of over a million human beings through embargo). Or as you put it “what crap”.

No, it’s quite clear that international law is not, in fact, international crime.
That that which is specifically allowed by international law is not that which is specifically prohibited by it. Further, it’s clear that the UN Human Rights Council and the Commission before it are not anywhere nearly as interested in human rights as they are in condemning Israel.
That Red would cite someone associated with the UN human rights council is a joke. but it’s in keeping with his argument’s context.

The UN Human Rights Council and Commission have included members like Zimbabwe, Sudan Saudi Arabia, and China… showing what they really think about human rights. One could also note how many years, for instance, the situation in Congo has largely gone ignored. Or China. Or Sudan. Or Afghanistan. And so on, and so on, and so on.

In the middle of 2007, for example, all of its specific resolutions condemning a country were directed at Israel. All of them. In 2006 it made Israel a permanent item of discussion at each and every single session. All of them. It was so glaring that Human Rights Watch, no friend of Israel, pointed out that they were singling Israel out while not even pretending to look at the human rights violations of Palestinian groups. The Council has also passed resolutions dealing with Israel and Hezbollah without discussing Hezbollah. And while they were focusing on Israel, HRW pointed out that there were at least two dozens urgent situations that they should be looking into.

Things were so bad in 2006 that even Kofi Annan pointed out that the Council was focusing on Israel to a degree that they had effectively been ignoring Darfur. In fact, in November of 2006 a resolution condemning the Khartoum regime for the ongoing genocide in Darfur was rejected. They accepted a resolution condemning Israel for holding the Golan, though.

In January of 2008, the council explicitly justified Palestinian terrorism, saying it was merely an inevitable result of Israel’s occupation and couldn’t be dealt with without a unilateral Israeli withdrawal (obviously not caring that such a withdrawal would mean rockets falling on Tel Aviv). The same justification of Palestinian terrorism set up a specific moral equivalence between indiscriminate rocket fire and targeted killings, between suicide bombings and specific military incursions. It called them all “terrorism”.
In 2008, Falk was appointed U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories. This is a man on record as comparing Israel’s occupation to the Nazis’ actions.

It’s worth noting that the Commission was reformed into the Council, partially because its monomaniacal obsession with Israel made it clear that it wasn’t about human rights, but about slamming Israel.

So when a discredited Council calls the 4th Geneva Convention’s rules, “war crimes”, most people should take notice of what that implies.

377

Just a quick mention that I didn’t ignore this and run away, I just found it profoundly depressing how easily some in this thread accept mass destruction and loss of life in the Middle East as long as they are not Israeli and how much certain people in this thread have sucked up anything from the well-oiled Israeli propaganda machine, accepting without question everything that they say.

Ask yourself one thing, why are the Israelis STILL not allowing foreign journalists into Gaza?

Quite honestly, until they start letting foreign journalists in I will not believe a word that the Israeli government/forces says and the longer they leave it the more sceptical about their claims from now and before I get.

What have they got to hide?
Not to mention the incredibly one sided view of history.

Very, very depressing.

378

Ah yes. Those drones. Obviously didn’t make up their own minds. They’re just sucking up Israeli propaganda.

Perhaps they’ve been paying attention? Maybe they know full well what will happen and the PR uses that it will be put to?
Perhaps they remember the outrageous and systemic release of staged, fabricated, fraudulent and blatantly obviously false photos and news stories coming out of Lebanon during Israel’s war with Hezbollah?

Of cameramen and journalists going on guided tours led by Hezbollah and then uncritically reporting their findings, including one moron who reported that Hezbollah was not based out of civilian areas… in the same article where he talked about Hezbollah had captured and was using a Lebanese apartment complex ? Of cameramen and journalists seeing scenes deliberately created and re-enacted, including but not limited to the bodies of children being put into ambulances over and over again to get the best camera angle… and then submitting them as if they were authentic stories? Of posed, pristine children’s toys, bridge’s gowns, etc… next to or actually inside bombed out, rubble strewn buildings, without a spec of dust on them? Claims that an ambulance was hit and penetrated by an Israeli milssile, but escaped with a simple small hole int he roof and floor? A US News and World Report cover captioned with Hezbollah guerilla poses at the site of an Israeli attack near Beirut", the same photo showing up in Time with the caption “wreckage of a downed Israeli jet.” And, even a cursory examination of the photo showed that what was “attacked” and what was “wreckage” was actually a pile of tires in a garbage dump that someone had set on fire?

Maybe doctored photos put out by Reuters itself with laughably obvious use of the Photoshop Clone tool that any third rate editor could, and would, have caught?

Gee, I wonder.

379

I’m not really sure how you can come out so confident in your position that Israeli attacks in Gaza that kill civilians are protected under international law so long as they are attacking Hamas military targets. The analysis regarding proportionality as a matter of international law is fuzzy, to be sure, but I don’t think a definitive conclusion can be reached unless you have information regarding the value of military targets that has not been reported in the press.

I suspect your argument regarding The Second Stone’s hypothetical lies in Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (please let me know if I’m mistaken) which states :

However, Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention expands upon this principle, specifically in Article 51(8):

Those legal obligations with respect to the civilian population referred to in 51(8) include a prohibition on ‘indiscriminate’ attacks in Article 51(4), which are defined to include (among other things):

Thus, we are back to proportionality. Clearly a large number of civilians have been killed in the recent conflict in Gaza. However, the proportionality analysis is not a mere tit-for-tat comparison of the dead. As far as I can tell Israeli attacks have been aimed at Hamas military targets. The question is whether the military advantage gained by such attacks is great enough to justify the civilian deaths, injuries and property damage caused thereby. I don’t suppose we can know exactly how advantageous such attacks have been to Israel, and even if we could, the analysis is fuzzy. How do you value the military advantage gained by killing a Hamas military commander through bombing an apartment building against the lives of innocent families who live in the same building or nearby who would be killed in such an attack as well? International law does not provide us with an easy way to balance these counterweights.

It is important to note that this analysis applies whether or not Hamas has committed war crimes (surely it has), regardless of how effective Hamas’ attacks have been and regardless of the number of attacks. I’d also add that Israel is obligated, under Article 57 of AP1 to:

which further reinforces the proportionality requirement, but adds little color in terms of what proportionality means. Article 57 also requires other precautions be taken to protect civilian populations. Israel has been reported to be taking some precautions (e.g. dropping leaflets) but whether they are taking all feasible precautions to minimize loss of civilian life (as is required) is unclear. For example, if Hamas is hiding weapons in a mosque, Israel should not attack the mosque during prayer time if the same military objective can be achieved by attacking the mosque at a time when much fewer civilians could be expected to be present.

A counter-argument might be that the Additional Protocols do not apply to Israel as it is not a signatory, however this is not very convincing as the Additional Protocols are widely accepted to be part of customary international law (i.e. universally applicable).

In sum, I can’t see how one could come to a conclusion either way regarding the legality of these actions under international law without knowing all the facts, many of which are understandably not available to the public. However, I think the proportionality principle is pretty clearly applicable.

380

Because international law makes clear that attacking military targets is valid despite the presence of civilians. As you pointed out, the situation is:

It also goes on to clearly state:

So as long as there is a viable military objective, attacked with the minimal amount of force required to eliminate it, civilians don’t render the target immune from attack.

Further Article 147 of the 4th GC makes clear that military necessity justifies the “extensive destruction and appropriation of property”.

57 of the AP1:

Using the smallest viable military force to remove rocket launchers and mortars rather obviously, then, cannot be called “excessive” unless you can find a more effective method with less collateral damage. As of yet, as far as I’m aware, nobody on the face of the Earth has come up with a method that would accomplish the valid military means and, at the same time, be more humane.

If you accept that nations have a right to self defense, the fact that preventing the launch of ordinance at your civilians is a military necessity becomes clear.
From that, it’s clear that a nation can defend itself against the weapons, soldiers and command structures of the enemy. And further, that the concrete military advantaged which is gained by applying the minimal amount of force required to accomplish it in keeping with both the letter and intent of the law.

And this applies no matter who the combatants are. Removing weapons that have targeted your civilians is a concrete military necessity, as is killing or disabling the troops and command structure of that enemy. Destroying those as precisely as possible complies with the dictates of the GC.