You could turn that around. What obligations does Hamas have towards the citizens of Israel which has effectively declared war on the Palestinians? What obligations do the Iraqis have towards the citizens of the USA which has effectively declared war on Iraq? They are all the same. No doubt the peoples bear some responsibility for the actions of their governments. If it is OK to kill innocent Palestinian civilians then it has to be ok to kill innocent civilian Israelis and innocent civilian Americans. If it is OK to withold basic human necessities from innocent Palestinian civilians then it has to be ok to similarly treat Israeli or American civilians.
In order to avoid that kind of thing nations have arrived at treaties and conventions which forbid that kind of thing. And then those who can get away with breaking such treaties and conventions ignore them at their convenience but will complain bitterly if others do the same.
In my view, Israeli and American citizens have the same rights to life and safety which they give to others. Which is not much.
Wait…what? Hamas tosses bombs at Israel, who retaliates. This after Israel gave up the Gaza strip TOO the Palestinians. When Israel has opened the crossing, Hamas has generally responded with attacks, so Israel closes the borders again and we cycle back to default. Hamas attacks Israel (usually directly attacking civilian targets with inaccurate weapons like rockets) using positions in and among Palestinian civilians, and when those civilians are killed this is Israel’s fault.
And you don’t see any difference in the positions, you really think you can just turn things around and it balances out? Seriously?
One other thing…look at a map some time. You will note that there is ANOTHER country that borders Gaza. Unless Israel has invaded Egypt when I wasn’t looking, that would mean that humanitarian aid COULD be brought in from Egypt. No?
gonzo, the Israeli version of events is that they attempted to check them out and received no response to their hails, that instead the boat went into evasive maneuvers.
The boat captain claims instead that there was
So we have agreement that the Israeli Navy had concluded that the boat was involved in terrorist activities. Each of us will have to decide for ourselves whether we believe that the Israelis are truthful about having tried to contact first and perhaps the boat captain was wanting to provoke damage to the boat to create a PR incident, or if the Israelis are untruthful and that the captain would have allowed inspection if only he was contacted first.
sailor, which country on this planet has not been “criminal” by any reasonable standards? Especially in times of conflict? By your standard all “soldiers fighting in any conflict” are “brainwashed” … any leaders or governments “who prolong wars are guilty” and any “peoples who elect and support such governments and their wars are also guilty”. Since all “sides are criminal” then there is no reason to ever help anyone. “[T]here is not one who is totally innocent” so always “[l]et them sort it out themselves.”
You are entitled to that perspective but I’ll stick to a different one.
BTW, I know that you believe that you have documented a claim that Israel has kept the Gaza locked down from all supplies for many months but you have not. Israel has restricted supplies to be sure … but to varying degrees at various times in a very on and off again fashion from their POV as a response to Hamas activities. Certainly imposed economic embargos have been a commonly used diplomatic weapon by many countries. As a weapon I would agree that it is of questionable ethics, but in international diplomatic circles it is a well accepted one, suggested at the level of the UN many many times in a variety of circumstances.
Neither have any obligations to each other. Israel has no obligation to allow trade or travel across its borders and neither does the functioning government of Gaza, which right now is Hamas. Israel should expect Hamas to take care of Israel and the people of Gaza should have no expectation of help from Israel. Each has an obligation to look out for the best interest of its people. Is each honestly trying to exercise that obligation?
In the case of Israel I believe that its leaders are trying to honestly exercise that obligation even if they sometimes do so in ineffective ways. My critiques of Israeli actions as unlikely to achieve its objectives stand but I recognize the limited set of options they have. Withdrawal from Gaza was met with more violence from Gaza and kidnappings. Hamas continues to be explicitly committed to the obliteration of Israel.
In the case of Hamas I can only see that its leaders are acting in the best interest of preserving there own power and influence and perhaps to staying true to some perception of a noble goal - ridding the world of Israel and returning all of the land to a mythic Islamic paradise - righting perceived past injustices by driving Israel out. But I see no evidence that they are at all interested in looking out for the best long term interests of the people of Gaza. Oh I know they have an active social arm that distributes food and services. But I am talking of the best interest served by a long term peace settlement and having children who can look forward to having a future other than living in squalor off of hand-outs. Children who have more to look forward to in life than possibly harming the “other” next door.
The problem with using retaliation as a justification is that conflicts would always spiral out of any control. There has been plenty of killing on both sides and if both sides are entitled to retaliate for their dead I can’t see how this conflict will ever be solved. As far as I am concerned both sides are bad, even if in different ways, and they deserve each other.
Regarding the closing of the Egyptian border I am not sure I know all the reasons for which it is closed but I also condemn this and the Egyptian government has come under strong criticism for this which clearly is counter to the will of the Egyptian people. The Egyptian government, under strong pressure from America, has made peace with Israel and I guess this is part of their cooperation. I think it is wrong.
Of course, it could well be that if Egypt were to open the border to allow human aid to pass the Israelis would just bomb the shit out of it and then say it was arms or bombs and the same people here would justify it.
The fact is that what Israel is doing is wrong and the fact that Egypt may be helping does not make it right. It just makes Egypt wrong as well.
Yeah yeah. We got it. Everybody is wrong. All the Palestinians, all the Israelis, all Americans, everyone everywhere … we got the point.
As to retaliation … is it your position that no one should ever retaliate? Any retaliation by any one is bad? If you do believe that there are circumstances in which retaliation is justified please share, in an abstract manner, what would justify retaliation and what constitutes appropriate retaliation.
Would you agree that what the Palestinians are doing (and have done) is wrong, and the fact that what Israel is doing may be wrong does not make it right?
If you’re going to use that construction, then why use “What Israel is doing is wrong…what Egypt is doing is wrong”, instead of “What Kadima is doing is wrong…what the National Democrats are doing is wrong”?
You are missing my point entirely. I am not expressing any personal opinion on whether retaliation should be allowed. I am saying that if one side is allowed to retaliate then the other side has to be equally allowed to retaliate. That’s all I’m saying. It seems pretty simple to me.
Because that’s not the difference here. The difference would be “What the Jews are doing wrong” not “What Israel is doing wrong”. The Palestinians are not Hamas, and Hamas is not the Palestinians. Obviously, Hamas is SOME of the Palestinians, but as long as people casually conflate the two, there will be NO solution to this whole giant clusterfuck. Hamas is an organization that is the government of Gaza, not “the Palestinians”. Israel is the government of Israel, not “the Jews”. If you would not use one, you should not use the other.
Since I have already said as much I don’t know why you feel the need to make me repeat myself. Is it like I really mean it when I condemn the Israelis but I don’t really mean it when I condemn the Palestinians? WTF?
In this conflict both sides are in the wrong even if for different reasons.
I don’t see your point, If the elected government of Israel is responsible for its actions, and liable to be condemned for them, why not the elected government of Gaza and the West Bank?
“Of course, it could well be that if Egypt were to open the border to allow human aid to pass the Israelis would just bomb the shit out of it and then say it was arms or bombs and the same people here would justify it.”
If you can use “the Israelis” when you’re talking about the Israeli government, why can’t you use “the Palestinians” when you’re talking about Hamas?
sailor believe it or not I am really trying to understand you. It just doesn’t seem simple when you say that you are not offering an opinion about “whether retaliation should be allowed” and then go on to explain that it should be “allowed” so long as the other side retaliated first (“if one side is allowed to retaliate then the other side has to be equally allowed”) Whatever.
So let’s keep this simple and just ignore what I think you said that you don’t think you did (even though I’ve provided your quotes on each occassion). We’ll start from here:
Is retaliation ever in an actor’s best interest? If so is it ever justified? Is every retaliation morally equal to any other?
Many of those critical of Israel’s current actions accept that Israel was justified in retaliation and would in fact have been foolish to allow rocket fire on its citizens to go unanswered but fault Israel for what they determine to be a “disproportionate response”. Do you believe that Israel’s only acceptable response to rocket fire was to do nothing other than perhaps to open borders with Hamas or are you among those who believe that response was acceptable but that the current response was disproportionate? What would be an acceptably proportionate response?
jayjay hits upon a key point, I think. (Although Captain Amazing does as well.) Hamas is not the Palestinians or even the Gazans and they are not aiming for the best interests of either of those groups. Israel’s tactic is apparently to try to have the Gazans experience very clearly a natural consequence for having chosen Hamas as their leadership and for the actions that their chosen representatives undertake on their behalf. I personally believe that the current approach is ill-advised. The best approach would be to deal with Hamas in very measured doses that do not elevate their importance in any way while marginalizing them by making major concessions in return for delivered security to Abbas and the West Bank contignecy. Keep bombing the tunnels used to bring in weapons. Retaliate for rocket attacks in very understated manners. Understandably do not allow free travel across your shared border. But show the Palestinian people that another approach is more productive.
If you could trouble yourself to read for comprehension, you would have seen the note that my post was addressed to jayjay. I am not addressing your points, because they don’t make a whole lot of logical sense.
You allege that you think that both sides deserve condemnation, yet confine yourself nearly, although not exclusively, to condemning the Israeli side only. You claim that neither side deserves to be helped, but condemn the blockade that prevents one side (to an extent) from being helped.
I’ll assume you know that my screen name is not “Regards Shodan”, and that you are making a childish attempt to stir up trouble by pretending that it is.
I think the difference is (for me, at least…I can’t speak for anyone else) that I don’t consider “the Israelis” to be at fault. In fact, many Israelis disagree with this offensive (or at least the disproportionality of it).
So, for me, the actors here are Hamas on one side and the Israeli government and the IDF on the other. Not “the Palestinians” and “the Israelis/Jews”.
jayjay I’ll ask you as well - what would be an appropriately proportionate response?
I’d also ask you for some support for your belief that "many Israelis disagree with this offensive (or at least the disproportionality of it). My impression is that for now the Israeli public strongly supports the effort.