I think there could be, now, if Rabin had not been assassinated in 1995. (And that was not the deed of a Palestinian.)
Let’s make this more simple to eliminate wiggle room. Would you have been willing to go along with THESE SPECIFIC BOMBINGS if you knew they would kill your own children?
Are you planning to use that as a major plank in your argument, i.e. if not for Yigal Amir, an Israeli Jew, there’d now be peace in the region?
Geez, Hamas kills Palestinians all the time, but the Jews do it once and they’re the bad guys?
I’ll play along and say “no”, though the relevance to Israel/Hamas is unclear.
By the way, Dio, if a death-row escapee is pounding on your child’s kneecaps with a ball-peen hammer and is gradually working his way up, with the intent to smashing your child’s hips, spine, ribs and skull, would you take a human life to stop him? Would you take his life? Do only psychopaths contemplate taking a human life? Don’t fight the hypothetical or wait for the translation, answer me now!
I didn’t know that Egypt and Israel have been getting into a war every eight years since Camp David, as they did before it.
My point is that if Rabin had lived and the Oslo Accords had been fully implemented, there would now be peace, with or without any sudden change of heart in the Palestinians; and it’s not the Pals, but one of an Israeli nationalist faction, who fucked all that up.
Them we’re agreed that Israel was out of line.
The danger is that would become permanent, like the DMZ in Korea. A two-state solution requires a Palestine that is at least economically viable, which requires some trade and intercourse with the much richer Israel. Best-case scenario, the two develop a relationship like Mexico and the U.S. (N.B.: I still think a one-state solution is better; it is the only solution that does not require the West Bank settlers to move.)
This is an asinine analogy. The targets of these bombings did not have hostages. They did not constitute a threat urgent enough to justify murdering children.
This new word “Pals” I’m reading here is giving me the same neurological response the “Japs” does.
We are? I don’t see Israel killing its own citizens to get at the guys launching rockets at Israel, so the analogy’s relevance escapes me.
Hey, I answered your hypothetical even if I didn’t see the point. And I’d argue that a guy waving a rocket launcher vaguely in my direction sees me as a hostage, so please answer my hypothetical.
I take it that you are against having the troops in Afghanistan.
So, indiscriminately launching rockets into areas populated with noncombatants on purpose is different than calculated strikes against combatants that result in noncombatant casualties?
Weird. I thought you used to serve in the US military. I simply cannot fathom how you cannot see the difference there.
One side is attempting to kill ANYONE they can with continuous (and agreed, largely, almost laughably, unsuccessfully) rocket attacks, the other side is TRYING to target the launchers of the rockets, those that made the rockets, the buildings they suspect house supporters of aforementioned people, and they kill innocents in the attempt to kill those responsible.
Do you not see the difference?
What’s the difference netween killing your own children and killing somebody else’s children? How is there any moral difference?
I would try to kill anyone who was physically hurting my child, but that particular hypothetical has no application to this discussion.
Why do you feel that combatants sheltering themselves among innocents is not having hostages?
It seems so because it is. You don’t use air strikes when you are trying to spare bystanders; you use them when you don’t really care who you kill.
The Israelis don’t appear interested in giving them much of anything. That make compromise unlikely.
And to the extent that they realize that they aren’t going to get what they want, that simply gives them more reason to strike out; it’s not like they have anything to lose.
According to the Israeli government. Why should we believe them any more than Hamas ? As I just said; air strikes aren’t a weapon you use if you want to cut down on innocent casualties.
As far as I can tell, this is simply a matter of two bands of homicidal fanatics pounding at each other, neither caring who dies in the process. Neither side is in the right I think.
I’m not trying to kill anyone’s children and I didn’t initiate the sequence that began with my child getting killed and the ongoing threat that more of my children will be threatened and killed if I do nothing.
Besides, what’s the moral difference between killing children and adults, anyway?
Try to kill, or would you kill? Is there any moral value in trying to stop him without killing him, but inadvertently killing him anyway?
Not different. I said it was the same.
Nope. Intentionally killing innocent people is intentionally killing innocent people. Yes, I did serve in the military, but not during any kind of conflict and not in any position where I would have been actively engaged in combat. I was also very young and had not spent any time thinking about these kinds of ethical conundrums.
Because the innocents were not being held agaisnt their will.