Terr,
So, are you proposing that Israel should have killed 10,00 Palestinians in addition to the blockade.
I don’t follow your point.
Crane
Terr,
That’s true.
Crane
Later - gotta feed the family.
Crane
First off, how do you have any idea how many people would die from *unguided *rockets? Was there a study?
Second off, you’d need to figure how many rockets you’d have to send for a proportional response, based on the population density of the target areas. Which is what my demographic comment was about. Not about the split between men and women.
If you wanted a proportional response you’d be looking for a similar number of dead on each side, right? Maybe with a you hit me first multiplier.
Isn’t Hamas’s continual supply of rockets proof of its arms smuggling and offensive preparations, the very thing Israel is trying to interdict with it’s blockade?
I am asking you if doing exactly the same thing that Hamas is doing is “proportionate”.
Because of the population density, and of lack of bomb shelters.
I don’t think so. I think it is eminently “proportionate” when someone shoots at me to shoot back. And if my house is made of brick and his is made of straw, that is his problem.
In my opinion, exactly the opposite has been shown to be true.
Israel has made many offers, from detailed comprehensive regional peace plans, to simple three-day cease-fire offers. None have been accepted.
I’m with Little Nemo. You shouldn’t start a war you aren’t prepared to end, unless you are prepared to die.
I think all this talk of proportionality is ridiculous. The aim of war is to win it, and that happens by one side being stronger than the other. The United States doesn’t believe in proportionality, but quite the opposite, see the Powell Doctrine.
Launching rockets into Israel is an act of war, and once started, Israel doesn’t have any obligation to be ‘proportional’ (short of war crimes I guess, but war crimes are usually only assigned to the losers).
That said, both sides are contemptible. Hamas is worse, I suppose, since one of their goals is genocide against Jews.
Too late to add this to my previous post:
I disagree with this characterization. Apartheid is when a nation puts its own citizens in second-class lands and housing, with second-class opportunities.
The Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. They are in a defeated region under military occupation since the conclusion of a war.
It’s as wrong as saying that Germany and Japan, in 1946, were “apartheid” regions of the U.S. The terminology is completely wrong.
Part of the problem though is de-escalation of any of these policies is not met with Palestinians abandoning terrorism. Gaza has been given essentially complete self rule, there were thousands of Israeli settlers in Gaza–the Israeli military used force to remove the ones who refused to leave, giving back Palestinians 100% of Gaza.
Israel blockaded Gaza in response to Hamas taking power, but in 2010 they significantly reduced the blockade, allowing essentially all non-dual use civilian goods into Gaza. It’s unrealistic that Palestinians will get all of what they want on day 1 from Israel, but anytime Israel gives them anything they get spit in their eye for it.
Like I’ve said when continuing war doesn’t hurt Israel that much, but makes Palestine a hell hole, it’s illogical for Palestine’s leadership to not try to negotiate a graduated peace. Fair/just/who is at fault is honestly beside the point, it’s simply illogical for Palestine to continue the fight.
It is a guess then. But certainly, heavily dense areas will have more death per bomb than wide open areas with bomb shelters, anti-missile systems and better construction in general.
Your analogy would be closer to reality if you riddled his house with 30mm cannon fire and killed his family and the people in the house behind his.
Right, Hamas does nothing but make itself seem crazy when it can’t even maintain a three day humanitarian cease fire without launching a suicide bomb attack from one of its tunnels.
The farther back in history you go the worse types of Israeli behavior you find, while they’ve also misbehaved at times in the past 10 years, the modern history of this conflict is one in which Israel has made genuine efforts at trying things out to give the Palestinians some of what they want to see if it fixes things. Then when the Palestinians act up, Israel kills some of them.
It’s not pretty or really indicative of any long term resolution on the minds of either side, but it’s hard for me not to see Hamas/Gazans as the “more stupid” of the two parties. The only way Hamas’s actions make sense is if their actions are more about Hamas’s political power, its international supporters, and not about the well being of actual Palestinian citizens they purport to represent.
Israel has already conquered the West Bank and Gaza, they actually don’t want to have to occupy the land forever, that is why they aren’t just rolling in and taking it all over again. They’ve actually given Gaza almost complete internal self-rule and prefer it that way.
Yes, anytime someone compares the Israeli-Palestinian situation to Apartheid it’s likely they aren’t looking at it through a lens of an unbiased observer, but through the lens of someone who has picked sides.
I’m one who thinks both sides have valid things they “deserve”, but Israel is by far the most powerful. As the most powerful, they actually have the right to act the most unreasonably in negotiations. But instead it’s the reverse, while both Israel and Palestine are often very unreasonable by and large Israel is far more reasonable than Palestine in every negotiation, every brokered peace agreement, ever cease-fire, every attempted resolution etc. It’s an odd situation where the vastly weaker party is being the most unreasonable.
No, it wouldn’t. As I keep asking, is it “proportionate” to respond with exactly the same quantity and quality of weapons that you’re being attacked with?
People don’t know what proportionate response means, actually. They basically think it’s about the results and not the actual response.
Nonsense.
It would be proportionate to cause the same amount of human misery.
What is the virtue of a proportionate response?
Not being an asshole?
I don’t deny the right of self defense. But if you kill 200 times the number of people attacking you, and those people are almost all civilian, you’re diverting from self-defense into offense.
If I throw a rock at you, and you launch an RPG into my window (of my crowded apartment complex), you’re starting to lose the moral high ground.
Millions of Japanese died because they killed 2400 of us at Pearl Harbor. Was our response disproportionate? What is the virtue in that scenario of Roosevelt being concerned with the proportionality of his response?
One of the sad things about this discussion is that (for the most part) it really is a matter of picking a side. It resembles the abortion debate in this: there really isn’t anything anyone can say that is persuasive to the other side.
“Civilian deaths.”
“But rockets.”
There is a serious breakdown of communication, and we’re just stuck repeating the reasons for what we believe, without successfully addressing the fact that those reasons aren’t persuasive to people who don’t believe them.
If we can’t come to any kind of agreement…how can we ever expect them to?