Did I misread Yassin’s original proposal that Israel would withdraw completely and Hamas would consider a cease fire? Or did he modify that? Because if that is what he proposed, it’s an idiotic deal and I wouldn’t take it either. If it was “you withdraw, we’ll cease fire,” great, but if it was “you withdraw, we’ll think about a cease fire,” no dice.
Chula, you’ve addressed the other side of equation, but not the one targetted in the OP. Are you saying that, in example 1, the criminal bears no responsibility for the victim’s death? That Sheik Shehadah bears no responsibility for the civilian deaths? That the government that stocked its military facilities with children as human shields is not in any way responsible for their deaths? I agree that the direct killer bears responsiblity, but it’s a question of degree.
The remarkable thing about it was that it was the first time Hamas had even suggested the possibility of a deal; prior to that offer, they said they would settle for nothing less than the total destruction of Israel. It was the first peace feeler they’d ever made, and in response, Israel carries out a grisly public assassination with 15 killed and 150 injured.
You’re right - I was addressing a different point.
I can’t see how I would have any responsibility whatsoever for someone else deliberately killing my family or neighbors. Just because you know that someone is likely to commit a crime, is it your responsibility to do whatever I can to prevent the crime?
Anyone questioning the morality of Israeli leaders who decided to take out Shehada with the obvious “colateral damage” will also have to question the allied bombing of Berlin and the horrific nuclear devastation in Japan. Both cases involved massive and relentless destruction of innocents, and in both cases there was little justification in terms of threat to the civilian population on the home front. But in Shehada’s case, Israeli civilian lives are sure to be saved.
This is war, and anyone who follows Neville Chamberlain’s lead in by assuming that an opportunity for peace was lost has no comprehension for the depth of racial hatred that exists in the area.
What amazes me is that the moral concept of refraining from civilian casualties is expected and understood to be a constraint on the Israeli’s by the Palistinians, yet this morality does not translate to the bombing of Israeli civilians as a direct target.
You would be responsible, Chula, if you were the target, knew you were the target, and deliberately hid among your family and friends because you thought it might protect you.
Yes, it’s a very positive step and I was happy to see this, but on the other hand, it seems a little meaingless to me in that it’s asking Israel to give up something for only the possibility of maybe getting something in return. Israel’s timing sucked, but I can’t blame them for not taking this offer as a cue to immediately withdraw either.
I think you’re taking the offer too literally, g8rguy. It was a signal that Hamas was ready to negotiate a peace that involved co-existence with Israel. It was also an opening position. It was the start of a dialogue, and Sharon killed it as effectively as he did Shehadah.
Oh, probably. I’ve had problems being too literal in the past, and I can quite easily buy that I’m being too literal again now. In any event, we’ll assume that you’re right that it was a genuine offer, and we both agree that Sharon killed it, and then we’ll let the rest of the world get back to the morality of human shields, 'kay? 
Come on Tars, I don’t pick on San Fran…
And no, you are not talking the same thing and you know it. My combat time I would think is way ahead of yours but if you really wanna put up veriafible dates, places and times with your military serial number, I can play that game. Read the rest of the thread for gosh sakes. It is not about black and white, good or evil, it is about a WAR… Silly pollyanna stands just look so … YMMV
FWIW, from the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 28:
Odd… i responded to this and it vansished. Okay, trying again. You probably win on real military experience, as mine consisted of telling the army of recruiters that i wasn’t interested. (but had I still been in high school during Sept 11th, i’d probably be in the army now training for making biological agents in an underground lab while telling people i’m a barber.) What military areas were you in, if you don’t mind me asking? Was Urban Ops discussed? I’ve heard they have higher casulty rates, but i’d still prefer all deaths to be from combatants rather than bombing housing indescriminantly while trying to justify the needs of the many logic. I also don’t see this as a war situation, more of a police action, and judge it as such. If the SFPD were to torch an apartment complex because Al Qaeda Bob was sleeping there I’d be against that as well. But this is all IMO, of course.
Good call Tars. I’m old, and my military was in the 60’s. My sons was a lot mopre recent. If you can even think of being in high school on 9-11, then you are way younger than I and at least the idea of you voting does not scare me as much as some young folks I know. (that is a compliment coming from me)
Unfortunatly, what happens in fights, be they World Wars or what ever you consider this particular one to be do not go according to the best of plans.
A couple of sayings that are really VERY true.
No plan survives the first 5 minutes of battle.
The more complicated the plan, the less chance of it working.