I hapen to believe that everybody has a right to live wherever they were born and raised, no matter where that is, no matter what the circumstances were under which their ancestors arrived there. YMMV, I’m sure. You believe that people should be exiled from the only home they’ve ever known for the crime of being born?
As for “goals”… since when do democracies have long-term goals?
I don’t know; I don’t have a child. However I wouldn’t have supported an attack by my government like Israel’s. Limited strikes probably but this kind of massive retaliation, no.
In any case I don’t think that people who are in the line of danger are the best judges of what is moral or what is wise. I doubt your reaction would be either if you were a Palestinian in Gaza whose family was killled by Israeli troops.
And even from the purely Israeli perspective I don’t think the attacks have necessarily been beneficial. For one thing I believe 13 Israelis have been killed which is a lot more than were killed by Hamas rockets launched from Gaza before the attack. Secondly I suspect the attack will make it a lot harder for Arab states to support sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program. That in turn will make it more likely that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons some day. Hamas may lie down low for some years and nurse its wounds but it will have no shortage of recruits and my hunch is that it, or some even more radical group, will come back a lot harder against Israel some day in the future.
Yes of course I would. First, you have to deal with the psychological aspect. If I change my life, then the terrorists win, to use a cliche. I’d be damned if I let someone keep my kid from going to the playground. Second, the actual statistical risk of injury or death from a Palestinian rocket is very small. These things are inaccurate, unaimed, and aren’t very powerful. I haven’t had success in finding a cite for the number of Israeli deaths per year from rockets, but from what I remember it’s less than a dozen a year. What is the actual risk of injury and death to an Israeli child from a Palestinian rocket?
I’ve said this in another thread, but this “what would you do” stuff is nonsense, because it goes both ways. If had lost my families home town, lived in a tiny blockaded country, and watched 400+ of my countries children die, then I’d fight whomever was responsible for that. I would love to have F-22s and tanks to do so, but if I don’t, then I hurt them anyway I can. If I stop fighting then that means my land is gone, I’m stuck in the shithole that is Gaza, and the foreigners get away with killing children. Maybe this makes me evil, but I think that if most people looked deep down, they would do the same thing.
You tell me. What would you do if your family fled their homes in '48, and now you’re stuck in Gaza?
Okay - please can someone explain something to me that appears to never be mentioned in these kinds of threads.
According to the Independent in thisarticle during the 22 day offensive over 1300 Palestinian were killed including 700 civilians. 13 Israeli’s, 10 soldiers and 3 civilians, were killed during the same period.
So if my maths serves me correctly, that’s 233 Palestinians civilians for every 1 Israeli civilian. When you’re faced with numbers like that it really brings back memories of brutal dictatorships that threatened “for every one of us killed, we will execute [proportionately larger number] of yours”.
However sensible the reasons for attacking Gaza may have been, it’s a joke to call this a war when the numbers look like that. How does Israel justify this to itself? Do they not think the Palestinians are people too?
Thanks - that reinforces my point that, in the world that you desire to see, at least, these kids aren’t going away. Natural births, immigration to the West Bank, or whatever, it still has the same effect in terms of locking in the future.
No. You notice that several of the end-states I’ve mentioned don’t involve withdrawal of Israelis from the West Bank. Which ones are you OK with?
Attacks on the West Bank? I assume you mean Gaza.
I disagree with your assessment. I do not see how any reasonable person could expect any attacks on an enemy deliberately operating among densely populated urban environments to not generate civilian casualties.
Your opinion is the equivalent of stating that the Israelis have no right to self-defence.
Not sure if The Guardian is a reliable source, but “The deaths brought the tally of civilian fatalities from rocket strikes to 19 since 2002, when militants in Gaza first began firing missiles at Israeli towns.” So, two dozen, more or less.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re right.
The population of Gaza is ~1.5 million people. It’s about 25 miles long and 5 miles wide. You can do the math on population density. Yeah, Hamas has so many choices as to where to operate.
How’s that? Was the apparently indiscriminate attack on the densely populated Gaza strip Israel’s only option? Was it that, or nothing? If so, your equivalence claim would be justified. Otherwise, thanks for playing.
This is basically the response Hamas is trying to get by hiding its military targets among its own people. But ISTM that the brunt of the responsibility for civilian deaths goes to those who are trying to maximize them, not the folks who dropped hundreds of thousands of leaflets warning people they were going to bomb their area.
So the question is not “do the Israelis not think Palestinians are people too?” but "why does Hamas value a PR victory over the lives of their own people?’
Regards,
Shodan
Your earlier quote: “They sat there and accepted hundreds of rockets and dozens of civilian deaths for months, and still people condemned them for the invasion.”
So you’re saying that (a) Israel’s invasion was in response to civilian deaths “for months” back in 2002, and (b) that condemnation of this as a justification for Israel’s invasion was wrong?
If not, please clarify the relationship between the civilian deaths over a period of months, and the invasion.
“Indiscriminate”, not. According to figures cited above, roughly half of casualties suffered by the Palestinians were military.
Given the density of population, that’s an impressively discriminate record. Exactly how would you propose that a country respond to attacks by militants hiding among a dense civilian population without causing any civilian casualties?
You are not allowed to invoke magic in your answer.
Would more Israeli deaths make the situation better? War is not a game. There is no moral obligation to have equal casualties to the other side. Rather the opposite - the moral obligation of a government is, first and foremost, to defend its own civilians. Waging war in a manner not designed to inflict undue suffering on enemy civilians is also a moral consideration of course, but you cannot determine that by a crude score-card of deaths.
By your account, WW2 was, for the Americans, one of the most unjust wars ever. Just think: hardly any American civilians died in that war at all.
So you don’t make an omelette without breaking eggs? I see. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.
Which would be what?
Omelets are a tool of Satan.
Meanwhile, the bluster seems to be ramping up quite nicely and along rather predictable lines. We’ve had children being born and not forcibly relocated, even on land that’s never been privately owned by any Palestinians, described as “colonialism”. Moving right along to describing military occupation while Arab citizens of Israel have full property and citizenship rights as “apartheid”. To etch-a-sketch morality whereby if Israel suffers much fewer casualties than the Gazans, then Israeli must not think Palestinians are people.
Anybody care to place bets on how long it’ll take until someone talking about a “Palestinian Holocaust”?
Bah. Anyways, on the actual subject of the OP: it’s true that Hamas can and will spin the ceasefire. Then again, they can and would have done that anyways. It’s also true that no matter what Israel did, we’d still have these silly bits of rhetoric designed to strip Israel of its right to self defense and which term even pinpoint military strikes “indiscriminate” if they don’t utilize weaponized pixy dust capable of distinguishing Hamas members from civilians.
It may have been better to wait for a negotiated truce, but if Israel decided that they wanted to wind down the operation, then it doesn’t make much sense to wait for that truce. All things considered, this is probably the best possible outcome.
At 12,000 per square mile, each person has a square 48.19 feet on a side.
Ah yes, but I am not a member of the Israeli government. Which means that I am free to assign equal value to innocent Palestinians and innocent Israelis. The numbers show that Israeli actions have a much greater impact on innocent Palestinians, to the tune of a 100 to 1000 times.
Yet you are attempting to assign moral judgment to the actions of the Israeli government, so some attempt to understand the context, history and the moral imperatives operating on them is necessary, no?
After all, how many innocent Americans were killed by the Germans and Japanese in WW2? Adopting your method, one would presumably state that, since far more innocent Germans and Japanese were killed than Americans, America was the villian of WW2, since “I am free to assign equal value to innocent [Germans and Japanese] and innocent [Americans]. The numbers show that [American] actions have a much greater impact on innocent [Germans and Japanese] …”.
Meanwhile, come on, this is the Dope. Even a basic understanding of populations should tell us that people don’t form a homogenized carpet of average distribution over an area. Folks can notice, in fact, that population density in Gaza is anything but homogenized. And Hamas could have, if it wanted, set up shop in a less heavily populated area and moved the surrounding population out. There is certainly no need, in any case, for Hamas to deliberately set up military forces inside the refugee camps.
Notice, for instance, the large swaths of white space? Those are formely Israeli areas which are now mostly unoccupied. But of course, Hamas isn’t based out of those places. It uses civilians as human shields.
I don’t expect some people to do the required background reading to learn about the situation before they opine on it, but come on folks. What sillyness are we engaged in when we simply take the population and divide by the landmass and then use that to ‘prove’ how people are distributed?
I don’t think I need to explain the difference between WWII and the Israel/Palestine situation.