Yes, that is why suicide bombers mistake buses for military transports and cafes for barracks. The children and babies could easily be midget soldiers cleverly disguised.
Shouldn’t the lesson than be, thou shalt not shoot rockets at someone that is massively more powerful than thou? Or do you feel Hamas bears no responsibility?
Are you seriously saying that, if Abdullah Muhammed Abdul-Akbar decided to run for the Prime Minister of the Gaza Strip, having a plank in his platform that was “If you vote for me, I will work for killing all the Jews!” is an extraordinary claim?
I’m sorry, but I refuse to accept that assertion. Back it up. I put the classic cite of the Hamas Charter as my starting evidence, and follow it up with Farfur The Mouse as evidence of the popularity of the stance.
(Yes, there was a real Abdullah Muhammed Abdul-Akbar. But he wasn’t Palestinian.)
I hate to bring Hitler into this, but…
Hitler did write what he was going to do with the Jews in Mein Kampf. No one thought he was serious, but in the end it turned out he was.
In fact most genocides start with the rhetoric of killing a whole population. Once the people talking about genocide grab power, their supporters start killing. Do you think everyone supporting Hamas doesn’t want the Jews dead? If they didn’t you’d think they would not support Hamas.
History tells us we shouldn’t take chances with this kind of talk.
If you don’t think Hamas is serious then how should we go about negotiating with them? They say they won’t stop until they kill every Jew, but they don’t really mean that. So what do they want then? Should Israel just keep giving them stuff until some indeterminate point where they stop killing Jews?
Regardless of what Hamas did afterward, the fact that the majority of citizens elected a party that wanted to destroy Israel doesn’t change. Right?
Clairobscur, nice post.
Aren’t you changing the subject now? Your original question was about your right to shoot back and I said no you didn’t have the right to shoot back if doing so caused vast damage to innocent civilians. Neither does Israel. Obviously it was stupid of Hamas to shoot the rockets but that has nothing to do with the morality of Israel’s response.
I think people need to remember that one of the main reasons that the Palistinians voted for Hamas is that the other party was seen as corrupt and self-interested, whereas Hamas is relatively honest, and does care about what happens to Palistine. AFAIR there was a massive scandal involving the other party just before the election.
Also, you have to remember that Hamas are rather like the American Democratic party, or the Republican party, in that both are so big as to encompass a huge range of views and opinions, and a single label for every member being ineffective. There are nutjobs in Hamas, but there are also a good few moderates within there as well.
Hamas encompasses a broad spectrum of opinion.
The question is whether the people of Gaza “deserve” the current problem.
The evidence offered was that they elected the group currently carrying out the missile attacks.
However, the election took place at a different time, (three or four years in the current Middle East can demonstrate a wide variety of changes of views), among different people (all of the PA, not just Gaza), and the political control of Gaza is currently under a subset of that political party that violently siezed power.
I think it makes a difference.
Like, say, in post 3?
I don’t really understand this debate. There is no such thing as moral justification for military actions. Wars aren’t fought over morality. International Law is as meaningful as the scribblings of a mad man on toilet paper. It’s only ever enforced upon the defeated party. (With very few exceptions.)
The only analysis as to whether Israel’s response was appropriate is a strategic analysis about whether it helped or hurt Israel’s overall position in this conflict; anything else is wholly irrelevant.
It’s not like the Allies were hand wringing over whether the German civilians deserved it when they were engaging in massive strategic bombing campaigns on German cities. The Germans certainly weren’t concerned about such issues when they were bombing the UK, both sides were doing what they thought would win a war, morality and “culpability” of the citizens of said countries had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Honestly civilians are a valid military resource and it’s not unwise to target them as such in certain types of conflicts. In other types of conflicts (like counterinsurgencies) it can be advisable to not engage in wanton butchery as it can lead to a situation where your only two options are complete annihilation or retreat due to an ever-growing and angry insurgency. In some situations complete annihilation may be in line with the overall strategic goals (this wasn’t the case in Iraq, as an example.)
Not going to bother with comments so far, just going to address the OP:
True, but a proportional response really isn’t possible for Israel. Hamas is launching their attacks from within the civilian population…deliberately. So, if Israel responds they will invariably hit civilian targets while attempting to engage Hamas para-military targets. No magic weapons after all.
It’s not so much a case that the citizens of Gaza deserve to die as that it’s a military reality…unless Israel does nothing citizens of Gaza are going to die.
I’m unsure really how much say so the average citizen has in all this. Hamas is the one’s with the guns after all. If they decide to set up a rocket launching position outside your apartment all you can really do is try and find someplace to hide yourself and your family. Also, ‘democratically elected’ means different things in different countries. Again, I have serious doubts that the average Joe in Gaza has much say in how things are.
Even if they DO support Hamas though I don’t think it’s a matter of deserve. And if Israel were targeting civilians for direct reprisal I’d have to say that they would be in gross violation of several international treaties (interestingly Hamas doesn’t usually get flack about THEIR gross violations though). However, that isn’t what is going on.
The sad thing is that the civilians in Gaza are simply caught in the middle and so soak up the majority of the causalities in this conflict. If anyone deserves the lions share of the blame here it’s pretty obvious that it’s Hamas, who are basically manufacturing this entire situation. They are deliberately provoking Israel and then they are doing it in such a way that any Israeli response will have to cause some level of civilian casualties.
No. Even if a vast majority of them did willingly elect Hamas (and I seriously doubt this was the case), they don’t deserve to be directly targeted. They don’t deserve to have their families killed so that some fanatic group of Muslim extremists can make a point or a large body count for propaganda purposes.
I remember reading a book years ago where one of the characters asks the other one something like ‘Why don’t the peasants revolt? Why do they put up with this?’ To which another character answered ‘Because the nobles have all of the weapons and the training to know what to do with them…the peasants would be slaughtered…and to what end? Would it really improve their lot in life?’. Same here. Or, to be sure, the Palestinian’s COULD revolt if they were willing to take the kinds of punishment they would take. However, I’m unsure if the majority of them feel it would improve their lot in life. People take risks…but only if they THINK it will help them or their families in the long run. Personally I think it would…but then I don’t live there nor would I be one of those risking my life or that of my families.
Our situation is somewhat different from that of Gaza and Hamas for a variety of different reasons which seems kind of pointless to get into. There is no good analogy between the situation in Gaza and that in Iraq so it’s kind of silly to even get into it. I haven’t read the whole thread yet (just skimmed) but I’m sure someone on this board will feel duty bound to bring Bush into all this, even when there is no point.
IMHO not very much. Organizations like Hamas and the PLO…lots.
-XT
I’m with you. But Israel shouldn’t simply remove all of their West Bank settlements, they should convey to the Palestinians a willingness to do so contingent on an end to violent attacks.
Israel could start by removing a few settlements to prove they’re not bluffing, then one for each, say, month that goes by with no attacks. Meanwhile there needs to be increased dialogue at all levels, not just the top.
Yep, the issues seem to have been conflated. Even while people do have to accept responsibility for their governments and the initial election of Hamas, for whatever reasons was a problem, the civilized world has accepted that the way to hold a nation militarily responsible for its acts is to kill/destroy its military. Even if there was a referendum passed with 99.9% support of all Gazans the day before the war in Gaza started where Hamas ran on the platform of "We will bring war to Israel and to our own population, we will do our best to kill as many Jews as possible. Vote for us to lead you. ", then it would still be wrong to target Palestinian/Gazan civilians.
Of course, the debate has been muddied as usual, with the normal demands that while Hams may be wrong for starting a war, Israel cannot respond unless they have pixy dust bombs which only seek out Hamas members.
We shouldn’t confuse the fact that targeting civilians is abhorrent with the fact that legitimate self defense against military targets is legal even if it entails civilian casualties. And whether the fraction was 1/3 or 2/3 militants to civilians, it still represents a surprisingly surgical campaign in a densely populated area like Gaza where Hamas/Islamic Jihad set up their positions specifically to draw fire down on civilians.
For what it’s worth, I also disagree with DSeid on the notion that the overall objective of the campaign must justify the overall prosecution of the war. (Stop me if I’m reading your commends wrong, D)
As I argued in a similar thread, it’s not a question over the overall campaign but if the individual targets are valid and if they were hit with the most efficient use of force. :
Been done. Totally In Gaza. Where were those rockets fired from ?
Finn, no you read me right and we do disagree.
Let me make the argument by way of an absurd extreme case -
A rocket launcher with limited range is stored under a large children’s hospital with a census of several thousand. The only way to destroy it is with a bomb big enough to bust through the reinforcements around it and that will destroy the whole hospital and a few blocks around it. Warnings are ignored or the staff is forbidden from evacuating by Hamas.
By your reasoning the magnitude of civilian loss is immaterial if it is as small, as efficient, as hitting the target allows. I’d think that launcher should be left alone; it isn’t worth the unavoidable losses that would be incurred by hitting it.
I am skeptical of Israel’s ability to conduct “surgical strikes”, especially after reading reports like this and this and especially this. I am also interested to know how Israel differentiates rocket attacks between “official” Hamas militants and enraged, revenge-seeking Gazan who now legitimately have a bone to pick with Jewish State.
- Honesty
I’d certainly agree with you about the moral dilemma of that situation, and that from a moral perspective it’s wrong to hit the hospital simply to take out one rocket launcher.
By the same token, however, I cannot accept that international law should be interpreted in such a manner. Not the least of which because I feel that it would then create a situation whereby the most effective means of attacking another nation is simply to put your rocket launchers on hospitals as standard operating procedure and station your soldiers in schools.
And that, if it’s a war crime to bomb rocket launchers on hospital roofs (or hospital basements) , then the only answers are either to do nothing or to invade and fight house to house, rooftop to rooftop, and room to room in the hospital itself as you work your way to the launchers.
I believe that, in many ways, war is and never can be moral, as we use the word. I believe, then, that the best solution is to try to end wars as quickly and decisively as possible once it is clear that they must be fought in the first place. So while we can agree on the lack of morality inherent in the inevitable conduct of a viable war against a dug in target that uses civilian shields, I think that the final analysis must conclude that it’s legal. Of course, battlefield commanders should have the discretion to decide what targets are worth hitting and which have too high an incidental cost in civilian lives. And unless (say) it was a rocket with a biological warhead in the basement, I’d say it was almost definitely a target that should be skipped.
But I’m wary of codifying such distinctions in international law. Both as it would legitimize and entrench such tactics around the world and because of the inherent sliding slippery slope. We can agree that a rocket in a hospital basement shouldn’t be hit, but where do we draw the line? Fifty civilian casualties for a guided missile? Five for a rocket? Three for a sniper’s nest?
Honesty: why don’t you give us better cites. Your first only talks about a zoo with no eye witness accounts of who did anything. I do know that there’s video proof of Palestinians militants having boobytrapped a zoo in Gaza. It’s not beyond the pale that there was actual fighting in/around a zoo. Your second cite is unsurprising. Even in fairly spread out areas, friendly fire is still a concern, to say nothing of other targets that get hit by accident. The third, IIRC, had 6 casualties out of 1600 people at the facility.
Your question is also rather nonsensical. There is no obligation to differentiate between Hamas militants and other militants firing rockets. If you fire a rocket a another nation, you’re a valid target of war. Good use of the phrase “Jewish state” though. Certainly relevant to the context.
You may not be able to accept it, but that is exactly how international law is written and is meant to be interpreted. The slippery slope argument is unconvincing, this is the entire reason the whole proportionality calculus is brought into the equation. No reasonable argument could be made that the military advantage anticipated from the removal of one rocket launcher would justify blowing up a hospital. The illegality of this action does not “create a situation whereby the most effective means of attacking another nation is simply to put your rocket launchers on hospitals as standard operating procedure” because the military necessity of attacking a hospital when it is serving as the sole rocket launching base for an enemy is obviously much greater than if the hospital just happens to have a rocket launcher in the basement, thus changing the analysis under the proportionality test. Barring means less damaging to civilians sufficient to achieve the same military objective, the argument for the legality of striking a hospital in that scenario is much stronger.
I’m a bit confused by the use of terms like “another nation” and “another government” to designate the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.
AFAICT, the Palestinian territories are not a nation, and the Palestinian Authority is not the government of a nation-state. The territories are effectively controlled by Israel.
From the Palestinian point of view, Israel is not “another nation” minding its own business on its own side of the border, but rather an invader illegally occupying and controlling their lands. From their viewpoint, that makes the Hamas offensives an insurgency fighting for liberation, not an aggressor attacking a victim.
This is not to say that I agree with Hamas aims or tactics, but I don’t think that disapproval of Hamas is an excuse for using Orwellian doublespeak. If Palestine is a nation and Hamas is its government, then it’s entitled to full control over its own borders and its own activities, including the acquisition of a military arsenal if it chooses. If it chooses as a nation to make war on a neighboring nation, then it must take the consequences.
If Israel is not willing to relinquish control of Palestinian activities or territory up to the point of full national autonomy and sovereignty for them, then we shouldn’t be referring to them as a “nation” or a “government”. They are armed insurgents using violence and terrorist tactics against what they would describe as an occupying power.
But that same logic can be applied the other way round : if any collateral is legal as long as the intended target was military in nature, then bombing that hospital is absolutely legal and not punishable, and a MnNamara-style commander can make that decision if he feels it’s justified. Hell, the same commander could be justified (in a legal sense) in razing the whole city if he has incontrovertible proof the launcher is in there, only no ones knows exactly where. Based on the available data, that’s minimal force to get the job done, no ?
So yes, I believe at some point, a line should be drawn - even if it’s an absurd & arbitrary line like “3 for a sniper nest”, even if it allows some bastard to protect his sniper nest with 4 babies and a puppy. If there is no guideline for proportionate response, or acceptable collateral, how can anyone argue what is proper and improper use of force, or what constitutes disproportionate response ?
And for that matter, how can anyone prove or disprove what is/was the minimal use of force for a given target ?
I sometimes wonder why people expect so much from Israel. Do you really want them to discriminate between the people shooting at them? Maybe get a megaphone and try to communicate with the group shooting AK-47s at them and figure out if they have a legitimate claim to revenge?
“Hey mate! Listen, I know you want to kill us, but if you could just stop firing for a moment and tell us whether your hatred for us started before or after the Gaza invasion. If the hatred started after… stop the shooting! If the hatred started after, is it because of a war crime committed by us or is it simply because you had a change of heart?”
“He isn’t responding, so I’m going to mark him down as hating us before the invasion. Ok, we can commence fire now…”