When someone preaches one thing and practices another they lose all moral authority in my estimation. Americans like to think that America is better than other countries and America likes to preach about respect for Human Rights, rule of law, etc. Except that it’s all hypocritical show and America is as ready to torture or to break treaties as any other country. The correct response to such sermons is “fuck off”. Let us just forget all the moral posturing and say it like it is: that there is no morality on either side, that it is a raw power struggle between two sides which are no better and no worse than each other. That America is as ready to torture, kill innocents, lie, break treaties, invade countries as any other people or country and that America does not have any moral authority or high ground. But no, Americans will not accept that. Americans want to claim the moral high ground while still doing all those things they condemn. Just like Israel does with the Palestinians.
sailor, your first use of “Regards Shodan” to address Shodan was probably acceptable under the general premise that we do tolerate a certain amount of snide shots in this Forum. However, your subsequent repetitions of the same snarky appellation come way too close to harrassment. You made your point, now knock it off.
So so far sailor declines the opportunity to answer clear questions about retaliation in the abstract and no one is stepping up to the plate to attempt to answer what would be an appropriately proportionate response in this specific case (with sailor explicitlt claiming that such a question somehow is “framed wrongly.”)
I am left with attempting to answer these questions my self.
Retaliation is clearly sometimes in an actor’s best interest. It can prevent additional attacks both from the attacker and from others who might be considering attacks. It can motivate the use of non-violent tools of diplomacy. Of course retaliation can sometimes be against an actors best interest as well: it can continue as escalating cycle of attack and counter attack in which the original issue is long immaterial to the goal of “getting even”.
Retaliation can clearly be justified. IMHO it is less justified by the need for revenge (although I certainly understand that motivation) than the greater need for serving a longer term goal, such as mentioned above. However here the balance must be struck between how well a particular retaliation achieves those goals and the value of those goals, and how much harm the retaliation causes especially to civilian populations but even to military troops. If a particular retaliation gains little in achieving a long term goal at significant cost, especially to civilians, then it is not justified. If OTOH it it accomplishes very worthwhile long term goals well then more cost is justified.
Retaliations are not all morally equal. One that attempts to maximize damage to civilians is not the same morally as one that attempts to minimize that damage, for example.
Which brings us to the specific “disproportionate response” issue. If the sole issue was doling out revenge then perhaps counting each sides numbers of dead and somehow keeping them near equal in some body count scorecard would be meaningful. But again, revenge is the least important justification for retaliations - effectively achieving worthwhile long term goals while minimizing the cost in lives, especially civilian lives (second in importance only to your own citizens lives) is the more meaningful justification. That balance is the proportionality to be concerned about.
Now let us look for a moment from the Israeli POV and use that scale. IMHO hitting some Hamas military targets and destroying a few tunnels to the degree that it degrades somewhat the ability of Hamas to launch more effective rocket attacks and discourages future attacks, perhaps even motivating a return to a ceasefire, is a worthwhile goal and one likely to be achieved with a few days of very targeted bombing. Without question there is no way to achieve that goal without some several dozen civilian deaths and no option appears to exist for achieving those goals without those deaths. IMHO the balance is clearly that the cost of such an action is proportionate to the value of the goal. OTOH further bombing and/or ground assault gains little more in service of those goals and may even be counterproductive to them while increasing the numbers of civilian deaths and harm to the general population of Gaza. Further bombing therefore loses the proportionality test. But note that the proportionality that matters is not past harm to Israeli citizens weighed against number of Gazans dead; it is instead the importance of what is being accomplished vs the cost including the unavoidable civilian deaths. The cost of those civilian deaths must also include the value those deaths have to Hamas - further discussed below.
In this regard I consider the (incomplete, on and off again) chronic blockade of supplies into Gaza as somewhat disproportionate: IMHO it does not well achieve a goal and does that at an avoidably even intentionally large cost to a civilian population.
Now from the POV of Gazans: they don’t have many options at this point. They are impoverished. Hamas represented a change from a corrupt Fatah administration and we know how attractive the call for change can be. Turns out Hamas did not moderate once in charge and is making decisions that are not in the best interests of the Gazans but the Gazans have no real alternative at hand. Meanwhile the sales pitch is that the new and improved Fatah under Abbas hasn’t been so productive either and given two ineffective options few will choose the one that bows to the use of force upon them. Human nature and all.
And last of all from the POV of Hamas: they are uninterested in the best interest of the Gazans or of Palestinians as a group. They instead are most interested in preserving their own power base. Peace with Israel eliminates the main basis of their power and cannot be allowed to happen. Conflict raises their stature. Given the nature of asymmetric warfare no amount of conflict will destroy them and the bigger the Israeli response the more their stature is raised. Their long term goal is best served by provoking large and bloody responses by the Israelis - if not for that they’d just continue to be further marginalized. To them civilian deaths are not a bad thing - Israeli deaths are to be desired and provoked Palestinian deaths are a resource in the battle for significance. The morality of this calculus is bankrupt but the tactic is nevertheless effective.
Well sure, but what is your opinion founded on exactly? You don’t seem to have a really solid grasp of the history of the region, so where is it coming from?
Go back and re-read what I wrote. You will note I never said Israel is innocent. Your cite really shows nothing at all concerning the discussion we are having. That said, take a look at the very first one on the list:
Pretty funny, ehe? And do you know what happened next? Do you know what the Palestinians did? What Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc did? And what exactly this resolution was actually worth (hint: not even the paper it was written on, considering international response to enforcing it)?
No it wasn’t…and no it didn’t. The UN was the creation of the major powers…and it served the ends of the UNSC. America was ONE of the nations instrumental in it’s formation.
Frankly, it’s fairly ironic that you are dissing the UN and I’m defending it, since I think it’s a fairly worthless organization. And it’s pointless to bring this up, because resolution or no, the fate of Israel and it’s independence didn’t ride on a worthless resolution (ignored by it’s Arab neighbors and the Palestinians both at the time) but by force of arms. Israel (alone) WON it’s independence. The Palestinians threw their chance of a separate home land away, gambling on the whole pie instead of half (not that I think they would have gotten anything had they won, but that’s another discussion). They gambled…they lost.
Total horseshit. If America dominated the UN the way you say we’d always get our way. Unfortunately, reality sets in and we see that there are actually 5 members of the UNSC…and they have a fairly diverse opinion on what they want. And this rarely coincides with what America wants (especially Russia and China, but including France as well from time to time). To be sure, the UNSC is a club and it’s fairly stupid that these nations have veto powers and all the rest…but pointing to this doesn’t exactly make your point about Israel, ehe? Israeli independence wasn’t dependent on a UN or a resolution, considering that it’s right there in your cite, and yet we know what happened next. Well, I say ‘we’…I assume you know what happened next, but frankly I’m not fully sure.
I find it humorous that you seem to be doing the exact same thing, just from another direction.
Anyway, I’m drunk and going to enjoy the rest of my day. This discussion seems fairly pointless to me since I’m unconvinced you really grasp the history of all this stuff…and so I’m unsure how relevant any debate on this subject will be. Getting back to the OP, whether Israel is right or wrong in their current blockade of Gaze, the reality is that they ARE blockading Gaza…so, anyone stupid enough to run in a boat in the manner of our glorious former representative pretty much should be thankful that all that happened was the boat was rammed. Israel COULD have blow the boat out of the water once it reached the exclusion zone…especially given the behavior noted in the OP’s article.