Incidentally, Dr. Carroll was incorrect, according to the Geneva Conventions, when she said
The Geneva Conventions prohibit the deliberate killling of civilians for the purpose of terrorism, but they do not prohibit attacking a military target located among civilians, even though that attack may also cause civilian casualties.
Yes december,
By the letter of the convention Israel was justified, just like the US were justified in the honest mistake in Afghanistan. That doesn’t make that we cannot disagree with the morals of that.
In practice it is very easy to understand Israel. Philosophically seen it gets a little harder. Don’t you say?
Though it is debatable about how large an area may be destroyed, and how much ‘collateral damage’ sustained, in order to destroy said target. E.g. is it OK to nuke Baghdad to get Saddam? But that’s another thread, I guess.
Be that as it may, I think we are all agreed that the morality of Dr O’Carroll’s position doesn’t depend on whether we share her views on the morality of the Israeli action. It is enough that we recognise her views as morally defensible, which they plainly are.
Not to mention that if anyone knows about terrorism and bombings of civilians, it would be the Irish. 
I mean, do they think that most Irish citizens would agree with them?
Note, I’m not making a generalization, but all you have to do is look at on and off conflict in Ireland over the past century…
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure “military targets” do not include individuals being targeted for “extrajudicial execution”, but instead are military installations or facilities in support of troop movement or supply (rail depots, munitions factories, processing facilities, convoys, etc.). Throwing bombs at a high density residential building to assassinate one occupant is a rank perversion of the term “military target”.
Attacking civilian areas with bombs to get at one person, at a minimum, strains the definiton of “military target.” It was a classic sledgehammer solution to a thumbtack problem.
I would say no. Of course, international law is like a whole bunch of children on a playground where the adults are all occupied elsewhere. The Geneva Convention places great emphasis on minimizing civilian casualties - that much is clear. Nuking a city maximizes civilian casualties.
Ironically, maybe this woman’s comments have actually been the best PR for Israel, because anything that divorces honest Israeli public sentiment from the abhorrent, atrocious actions of Israel’s current government, can only be a good thing.
Though I imagine working for the Israeli embassy she is supposed to represent the government’s views rather than the people’s. Still, if a people don’t stand up to their government when it commits atrocities, then there is no democracy.
Here’s a hint to sympathizing with Israel’s actions philosophically. Try coming up with an alternative approach, given the actual current situation. As far as I can see there is no good alternative, so Israel has to choose one of the bad ones.
december, isn’t that the same as what Sparc said? That it’s easier to understand the practical reasons for Israel’s approach than the theory? Or is the philosophical standpoint behind these particular tactics just fine? Can perceived necessity be a valid philosophical reason on its own (as opposed to a valid practical reason)?
Apologies for the hijack. Maybe that should be a different thread.
Actually, istara, Sharon’s government won a landslide victory and still enjoys something like a 60% approval rating, so I’d say that the current Israeli government does represent the will of the Israeli people. We’re a democracy, we’re accountable for our actions - so please don’t patronize us.
The general consensus among the Israeli establishment and public is that the attack was a necessary action that went badly due to failed intelligence and a flawed decision making process. The Israeli Ministry of Defense claims that Shehada had been planning several “mega-attacks” on Israel, to be carried out in the next few weeks; they also claim that several times in the past they knew his location, and failed to attack because of the risk to surrounding civilians. I believe them. You may choose not to.
And Sparc - I try not to mix philosophy with politics.
As to the OP, I respect Dr. O’Carroll courage in speaking her mind.
I also think that whoever hired her in the first place should be fired.
Which in your case Alessan in re this specific question, I have the utmost respect for. I tend to favor real politics in my own constituency as well. That doesn’t justify december’s attempt to philosophically justify real politics.
Or not. You decide.
(emphasis mine)
Empty rhetoric, Beagle. You’re saying that an entire nation should be accorded a double standard because one of its founders made a comment, early in his career, smacking of dreamy-eyed idealism.