quote: [General Curtis]LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?
- Robert McNamara in The Fog of WarPosts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not 100% sure what the point of contention even is on the "moral equivalence" argument. Is it about how morally good a person the average Jewish Israeli citizen is, compared with the average Palestinian?
I completely agree that the average Palestinian is less well-educated, more indoctrinated, subscribes to a less morally beneficial version of religion, and probably admires way more morally awful people than the average Israeli. Does this give the average Palestinian less moral standing, or make it less important to take his interests into account? I'm not sure I see why.
Also, on the issue of collateral damage and "targeting civilians." I just don't think this distinction holds up. If you take an action that you know will kill Billy and Susie, you have targeted both Billy and Susie in every morally relevant sense, even if Billy was the only one you really wanted to kill. By this definition, IDF soldiers have targeted civilians, although perhaps they've never solely targeted civilians (how important is that distinction, I wonder).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Were there any world leaders who weren't war criminals in WWII, Mucus?
Given reasonable assessments by the aggrieved parties? Maybe Mackenzie King and his Australian counterpart. Both probably didn't have authority to avoid Dresden and certainly didn't have input on the atomic bombs. The major strike against the former at least is the internment of Japanese Canadians, but while a gross abuse of human rights, that normally isn't classified as a war crime per say.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, on the issue of collateral damage and "targeting civilians." I just don't think this distinction holds up. If you take an action that you know will kill Billy and Susie, you have targeted both Billy and Susie in every morally relevant sense, even if Billy was the only one you really wanted to kill. By this definition, IDF soldiers have targeted civilians, although perhaps they've never solely targeted civilians (how important is that distinction, I wonder).
It's pretty darn important if, say, your enemy who has made it clear will return and target your civilians for that reason alone goes and hides in an apartment complex.
You know he's coming back, and when he does, it's quite likely he'll be bringing an explosive vest along with him to pay a visit to a bus or a pizzaria. What do you do then? Doing nothing is not an option. Attacking him in the moments before his attack is not an option, because how can you tell? Attacking him where he chooses to live, though...well, that's really all that's left.
Entirely different from going out of your home, finding civilians, and killing them. In both cases, you are morally responsible for killing civilians, yes, it's true. But one is obviously, by any rational moral standard, worse than the other.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other things being equal, I agree. If you kill 20 civilians to get at one bad guy, that might make you worse than someone who kills one civilian for no good reason. So sometimes you have to take it case by case and look at the numbers.
Also, one thing that technologically advanced countries don't do very often, and perhaps should do more often, is send ground troops instead of missiles. This happens with US forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan too. If we can kill a terrorist without collateral damage by losing half a dozen US troops, that might be a better decision all things considered than killing that terrorist, along with half a dozen civilians, in a Predator drone strike.
posted
These quotes by Ami Isseroff (Director of the Mid-East Web for coexistence) summarize the heart of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
quote:TEach side remembers only one part of the story, and actively dismisses the rest, which is a threat to their own self image, as a group, and as individuals. Two peoples are living a lie.
quote: Partisans claim that the brutal act, whether it is the massacre at Deir Yassin, or the massacre of Jews in Hebron, or suicide bombings, or brutality at checkpoints, is characteristic of their opponents, and proves that they are thoroughly evil and inhuman.
quote:There is no chance that such propaganda can bring about rapprochement or peace or justice, because the other side is never going to accept a false version of history in which they are entirely wrong and delegitimized, or accept that the "punishment" for their "misdeeds" is that they have to forfeit all their rights entirely. Reconciliation cannot be built on hate-mongering.
This matches my personal experiences with Palestinians and Israelis (and their supporters) to a tee. I have known Israelis (like Lisa) who are adamant that Israelis have done no wrong. They have done not even the minimum necessary to protect themselves from an evil, inhuman enemy that is bent on their total destruction and motivated by nothing but totally irrational hatred of Jews. They will insist that "Palestinians" not only haven't been injured in any real way, they dont' even really exist.
I have also known Palestinians who are equally adamant that the Arab peoples are absolutely innocent of any crime. They were forced from their ancestral homes in a reign of terror and have been brutally oppressed by Israel for no reason besides greed, imperialism and Jewish ethnocentrism.
The two sides can't even agree on the basic facts. Until these two peoples can accept that they are living a lie and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, there is no possibility of reconciliation or peace.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I agree, although I think that the middle ground of truth probably lies closer to the Israelis' version of things than the Palestinians', which is very radical and anti-Semitic. I take it this is Rakeesh's point.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Rabbit, I agree, although I think that the middle ground of truth probably lies closer to the Israelis' version of things than the Palestinians', which is very radical and anti-Semitic. I take it this is Rakeesh's point.
First, whether the middle ground lies closer to the Israeli side or the Palestinian side really depends very much on which Israeli or Palestinian you are talking to. There are moderates and extremists on both sides and I don't think the extremist Israelis are one whit closer to the truth than the extremist Palestinians. I have personally known more moderate Israelis than moderate Palestinians but over the past couple of decades the trend seems to have been toward extremism on the Israeli side and away from it on the Palestinian side. I don't know whether that's a biased analysis or not. It is consistent with both my first hand experience and what I see in the media.
As for Rakeesh's point, he is missing something very major. We aren't talking about two equal opponents in this conflict. The Israelis have one of the best equipped, best trained, largest (per capita) armies in the world. They are a nuclear power. The Palestinians have no army or any type of organized military. They use guerrilla tactics because it would be impossible for them to fight the Israelis on equal ground. The "rules of War" that deem Israeli tactics as more ethical than Palestinian tactics are rules that are only remotely reasonable in a conflict between equals. Outside that context, they are nothing more then "might makes right."
The real heart of the question is whether or not the Palestinians have legitimate reasons to be fighting the Israelis. If you agree that they do, how can you reasonably deny them the right to fight by the only means they have available while at the same time allowing the Israelis to use their massive military to oppose them.
[ April 01, 2010, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The "rules of War" that deem Israeli tactics as more ethical than Palestinian tactics are rules that are only remotely reasonable in a conflict between equals. Outside that context, they are nothing more then "might makes right."
In some ways you're right about this. For instance, insofar as rules of war allow for collateral civilian deaths, they are morally problematic and unfair to poorly-armed insurgent forces. That's what I was getting at above.
(I guess I worry more about the moral problems than the unfairness. Who says everyone who wants to fight a powerful government should automatically have a fair chance?)
But I can't accept that murder is a legitimate tool in any conflict except perhaps the most desperate fight for freedom. Certainly not in a conflict motivated mainly by nationalistic/tribalistic goals ("We must have a homeland") like this one is.
quote:The real heart of the question is whether or not the Palestinians have legitimate reasons to be fighting the Israelis.
Legitimate reasons to fight them with force, as opposed to nonviolent protest? Probably not, I'd say. I wouldn't normally agree that they deserve their own country, but they're so feisty that it seems like the best solution possible. Ideally what they should try to do is live in peace in Israel and lobby for the rights of equal citizens, which they do deserve. But that option is so far off the table that it's just fantasy.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Uuum its perfectly possible to fight a guerrilla conflict without stooping as low as the Palistinians, its called fighting a "People's War" which is principly limiting attacks to purely military targets and collaborators.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Ideally what they should try to do is live in peace in Israel and lobby for the rights of equal citizens, which they do deserve. But that option is so far off the table that it's just fantasy.
The fact Israel wants to be both a democracy and a Jewish state make this an undesirable outcome for both sides.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, I agree, although I think that the middle ground of truth probably lies closer to the Israelis' version of things than the Palestinians', which is very radical and anti-Semitic. I take it this is Rakeesh's point.
I would probably put it more strongly than that, but that's a fair analysis in general, yup.
----
quote: We aren't talking about two equal opponents in this conflict. The Israelis have one of the best equipped, best trained, largest (per capita) armies in the world.
How did Israel attain this status in the region, Rabbit? That's a point you're forgetting. They got it through repeated, very close conventional military struggles to do what Palestinian terrorists attempt in the modern day: wipe Israel out. The problem is, the Israelis were better at it. And they don't use their military to wipe out the Palestinians, to completely remove them from the region or kill them in the process. If they did...the Palestinians would all be dead due to the military superiority you're pointing out.
quote:They use guerrilla tactics because it would be impossible for them to fight the Israelis on equal ground. The "rules of War" that deem Israeli tactics as more ethical than Palestinian tactics are rules that are only remotely reasonable in a conflict between equals. Outside that context, they are nothing more then "might makes right."
They use guerrilla tactics because they tried and failed at conventional warfare, when it was more or less an even contest. And it's absurd to suggest that rules against explicitly targeting civilians, and civilians alone, are 'might makes right'.
quote: The real heart of the question is whether or not the Palestinians have legitimate reasons to be fighting the Israelis. If you agree that they do, how can you reasonably deny them the right to fight by the only means they have available while at the same time allowing the Israelis to use their massive military to oppose them.
Is that a serious question? How can we reasonably deny them the right to target civilians for death by suicide bombing? Men, women, children, old people, handicapped, the unborn, passersby, people just driving the bus that morning? Rabbit, is that really a serious question? If it is, I'll answer it bluntly: we can deny them that right because it's wrong to make war on civilians.
It's wrong to make war at all, true. It's wrong to make war on enemy combatants and get enemy civilians caught in the explosion. But it's most wrong to make war specifically on enemy civilians. It's cowardly, it's murderous, and most important of all: it doesn't work. It's certainly not going to work on the Israelis!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:sinflower, if you're not aware of Palestinian terrorists specifically targeting children as well as women, old people, adolescents, and people just minding their business getting some lunch, you're simply not paying attention.
I was speaking of specifically children versus adults, and not of those other subgroups of people that you find it morally wrong to target. If they are in fact targeting all of those groups, which include most of the entire Israeli population, then they are not specifically targeting children. However, if they are specifically and purposefully singling out children to attack, more so than they are attacking other civilian groups, then I would find that troubling. If that is the case, then rather than chastising me for "not paying attention," please present me with the evidence.
In the general case again, you're basing your entire argument on the tenet "targeting non-military persons (civilians) is morally wrong." I have already explained why I find this tenet questionable. Do you have any other basis of argument besides this one? If not, can you please elaborate why you have come to this particular belief and conclusion and support it so strongly? Thus far, you have stated it, but not really explained it.
quote:We aren't talking about two equal opponents in this conflict. The Israelis have one of the best equipped, best trained, largest (per capita) armies in the world. They are a nuclear power. The Palestinians have no army or any type of organized military. They use guerrilla tactics because it would be impossible for them to fight the Israelis on equal ground. The "rules of War" that deem Israeli tactics as more ethical than Palestinian tactics are rules that are only remotely reasonable in a conflict between equals. Outside that context, they are nothing more then "might makes right."
Exactly. Our perspective on what methods of war are acceptable are largely based on the what methods of war we are accustomed to. For a nation that is highly industrialized, a nuclear power, and with a highly trained traditional army, guerrilla tactics are not necessary, nor is emotional warfare (they already inspire terror through their very existence). However, for a people who-- I believe-- have every right to be trying to regain the country they have lost, and are significantly handicapped against their opponent in this attempt (the nation described previously), these tactics are what they must use.
Of course, that brings up the question of whether necessity for an action makes that action right. My answer is: no. However, I still haven't been presented with a convincing argument as to why their methods of warfare are wrong. The main argument I have seen is this: that "targeting" civilians is wrong, but purposefully engaging in military actions that you know will almost certainly result in the deaths of civilians is not wrong. The distinction made is that the moral difference is between having
1) the death of civilians or 2) the success of a military effort
as the end goal of an operation. However, I don't think this is an accurate representation of the situation. The end goal of the Palestinians isn't killing civilians, it's getting their land back. Similarly, the end of goal of the United States in using those two bombs wasn't killing civilians, it was defeating the Japanese in war. The end goal of any nation engaging in a war, their "target" as you can call it, isn't killing civilians, it's winning their war-- with the acceptance that civilians must die in the process. Once again, I fail to see why the Palestinians are different in this respect.
quote:For a nation that is highly industrialized, a nuclear power, and with a highly trained traditional army, guerrilla tactics are not necessary, nor is emotional warfare (they already inspire terror through their very existence).
No one is objecting to guerrilla tactics. 'Emotional warfare'? War already has plenty of ridiculous euphamisms, but that's got to be one of the worst and most absurd. Emotional warfare indeed.
quote:However, for a people who-- I believe-- have every right to be trying to regain the country they have lost, and are significantly handicapped against their opponent in this attempt (the nation described previously), these tactics are what they must use.
One could argue they have the right to fight to regain the country they have lost. I could take such an argument seriously, however much I would disagree with it in this case. But the right to make war on their enemy's civilians, just because the odds are against them in other avenues?
What you're really saying is that anything is permissible if the alternatives are too difficult. That's not an outlook I can get behind.
quote: 1) the death of civilians or 2) the success of a military effort
You're completely ignoring the most important question asked in any effort at all, much less a military effort: What is the chance it will work towards our goal?
quote:Once again, I fail to see why the Palestinians are different in this respect.
One group kills civilians in an effort to kill the people who are killing their civilians. One group kills civilians to terrorize the enemy into submission/retreat. The civilians they kill aren't the ones killing their civilians. Killing the civilians as they do don't lessen the chance of the other group's military coming and killing their civilians-quite the contrary.
What's there to fail to see?
quote:However, if they are specifically and purposefully singling out children to attack, more so than they are attacking other civilian groups, then I would find that troubling.
That's what you'd find troubling?
quote:If that is the case, then rather than chastising me for "not paying attention," please present me with the evidence.
Well, now that you've clarified yourself, to my knowledge Palestinians don't target children specifically. Just the unarmed and helpless civilians.
quote:If not, can you please elaborate why you have come to this particular belief and conclusion and support it so strongly? Thus far, you have stated it, but not really explained it.
Given that you would be 'troubled' at targeting children for death by suicide bombings, I'm frankly very doubtful what good it will do, but here's one core element of my belief:
It doesn't work. The only possible excuse, ever, for any sort of warfare is that it might work. And even that's a terrible excuse for killing people, though sometimes necessary. The more odious the killing, the greater the likelihood its effectiveness must be for it to be legitimate even in terms of the excuses we use to make war on one another.
Suicide bombings against Israeli civilians by Palestinians will never, ever, ever work to drive Israelis from the region. It won't even ever give the Palestinians a shot at a better deal in any sort of negotiation. There isn't a single measure of anything involving the Palestinian people as a whole that is improved by suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. It doesn't get them more land. It doesn't get them more respect. It doesn't get them more rights. It doesn't get them more political, economic, or military power. It doesn't get them any closer to forcing the Israelis out of the region. It doesn't bring their dead back to life. It doesn't make it less likely more of them will die-quite the opposite, in fact.
In fact, the only cause which is served by suicide bombings against Israeli civilians by Palestinians is really, really hating the hell out of Israelis. That's it.
Now, contrast this with Israeli military action. When the IDF launches an airstrike against a Palestinian terrorist, they stand at least a chance of killing that particular target and destroying any equipment that is there. That is one enemy that won't be bombing another bus station or pizzaria. Will it engender more hatred of Israelis by Palestinians? Certainly. But what are Israel's alternatives, exactly? Take no action? Make concessions? Negotiate? These things have been tried. They haven't worked. But what does work, however poorly, is making Palestinian terrorists dead.
It's terrible. It's desperate. It's not a long- and it's barely a short-term solution. But what else have you got?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:One group kills civilians in an effort to kill the people who are killing their civilians. One group kills civilians to terrorize the enemy into submission/retreat. The civilians they kill aren't the ones killing their civilians. Killing the civilians as they do don't lessen the chance of the other group's military coming and killing their civilians-quite the contrary.
What's there to fail to see?
I'm going to try to rephrase this to better understand it. All the repetitions of the word "civilian" are confusing me after the initial read. Tell me if I'm interpreting you wrong. So
1) Israelis' goal: End Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. 2) Palestinians' goal: Drive Israelis back and regain land.
And in addition
3) The Palestinians' actions will not improve their situation and will in fact make the Israelis more likely to kill Palestinian civilians.
First of all, I still don't see the moral difference here. Both of the groups want to achieve an end goal-- The Israelis the safe occupation of their land, and the Palestinians the safe occupation of what was previously its land. Both groups want to defend their own people. Both groups engage in military tactics that will result in the death of civilians on the other side. The only difference you offer is that the Israelis have been more successful.
In addition: I doubt that the main reason behind your staunch moral stand on the wrongness of killing nonmilitary persons, civilians, is because it "doesn't work." I doubt that that's even a significant reason-- because even if it worked, would you find it any less wrong? I'd still like you to explain your main reason.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... It's cowardly, it's murderous, and most important of all: it doesn't work. It's certainly not going to work on the Israelis!
I would agree with the first two, but the last seems dubious. Maybe suicide bombs won't work, but perhaps firebombing a city will. Maybe firebombing won't work but maybe an atomic bomb will. At some point, it does work and this is why this was done by the US to end WWII.
In this, you're not actually criticizing the Palestinians for their approach. You're criticizing them for not having a big enough bomb to use in their approach to accomplish what they want.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are civilians still innocent civilians when they are occupiers - at least from a certain point of view? Are civilians still civilians when they give aid to guerrillas? I don't think that those lines are as clear as we might wish them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:First of all, I still don't see the moral difference here. Both of the groups want to achieve an end goal
I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse with the things you don't see. The moral difference is that Israel would be content for Palestinians to live in the region, so long as they stopped bombing buses and lobbing rockets.
quote:Both groups engage in military tactics that will result in the death of civilians on the other side. The only difference you offer is that the Israelis have been more successful.
No. You're clearly not paying attention. The other difference is that when Israel kills Palestinian civilians, it is in a direct, measurably successful effort to stop their own civilians from being killed. When a Palestinian suicide bomber kills Israeli civilians, the same cannot be said. The opposite, in fact, is what can be said.
quote: In addition: I doubt that the main reason behind your staunch moral stand on the wrongness of killing nonmilitary persons, civilians, is because it "doesn't work." I doubt that that's even a significant reason-- because even if it worked, would you find it any less wrong? I'd still like you to explain your main reason.
I didn't say it was my main reason. And frankly, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion with you-our viewpoints are too alien to one another, and you've too consistently misunderstood - deliberately or not - what I've said so far. So thanks, but no.
----------
quote:In this, you're not actually criticizing the Palestinians for their approach. You're criticizing them for not having a big enough bomb to use in their approach to accomplish what they want.
The two cannot be separated, Mucus. Their approach is wrong. If someone approaches a 7/16' nut with a 3/16' wrench, I would criticize them for approaching the problem incorrectly. This is speaking strictly in pragmatic terms, you understand.
But even if they adopted a greater scale, the approach would still be wrong. Firebombing a city wouldn't work-the Israelis would certainly retaliate, to the much greater woe of the Palestinians for years to come. An atomic bomb definitely wouldn't work-Israel is widely known to have a very specific response to that kind of attack ready to go.
---------
quote:Are civilians still innocent civilians when they are occupiers - at least from a certain point of view? Are civilians still civilians when they give aid to guerrillas? I don't think that those lines are as clear as we might wish them.
I agree the lines aren't as clear as desirable. For me, though, innocence doesn't enter the matter when dealing with the restriction against making war specifically on civilians.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) Israelis' goal: End Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. 2) Palestinians' goal: Drive Israelis back and regain land.
And in addition
3) The Palestinians' actions will not improve their situation and will in fact make the Israelis more likely to kill Palestinian civilians.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm sure sinflower doesn't recognize this but what she has has done is to pair the moderate Israeli position with the extremist Palestinian position. Plus, you have phrased the moderate Israel position in the most positive possible light. That is in no way fair.
We should either compare the extremists positions.
1. What the extremists in the Israeli camp want is a Jewish religious state that stretches from the Euphrates to the Nile. link (That is our Lisa's blog).
2. What the extremists in the Palestinian camp want is to drive the Israelis out of the region.
or we could pair the moderates
1. What moderate Israelis want is a Jewish state (with its capital in Jersusalem) which can provide a secure refuge for all Jews.
2. What moderate Palestinians want is self determination in a country in their homeland (with its capital in Jerusalem).
To be even handed, you also really need a parallel to your point three for Israel.
4. The Israelis' actions (including military assaults, laying siege to Gaza, expanding settlements in disputed territory, brutality and border crossings and so forth) will not improve their security and have in fact made the Palestinians more anxious to launch terrorists attacks against Israeli civilians and fuel anti-Jewish sentiment throughout the world.
[ April 02, 2010, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
4. The Israelis' actions (including military assaults, laying siege to Gaza, expanding settlements in disputed territory, brutality and border crossings and so forth) will not improve their security and has in fact made the Palestinians more anxious to launch terrorists attacks against Israeli civilians and fuel anti-Jewish sentiment throughout the world.
Personally, I agree these things don't improve Israeli security. But I don't think it's a given. I don't think the same thing can be said of suicide bombings. It is a given that those will not improve Palestinian security.
quote:This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm sure sinflower doesn't recognize this but what she has has done is to pair the moderate Israeli position with the extremist Palestinian position.
Given Palestinian veneration of suicide bombers, it becomes difficult to really get a handle on just how moderate the middle really is, to be honest.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Ideally what they should try to do is live in peace in Israel and lobby for the rights of equal citizens, which they do deserve. But that option is so far off the table that it's just fantasy.
The fact Israel wants to be both a democracy and a Jewish state make this an undesirable outcome for both sides.
I also think it's wrong to have a country with an established religion.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I agree these things don't improve Israeli security. But I don't think it's a given. I don't think the same thing can be said of suicide bombings. It is a given that those will not improve Palestinian security.
You don't agree its a given because you still don't accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievances against Israel. The two sides have far more in common than you admit. I know of no human situation where punishing the many for the crimes of few does not lead to hatred, resentment and retribution. I think that is a given.
Look into the history. Look at the claims made by each side. The first thing you will recognize is the extreme disparity in what the two sides believe are the facts. Its really astounding. Then as you do further research you will find that a good portion of the claims made by Palestinians and Israelis are over blown or overly simplistic, but that both sides have legitimate grievances that the other side refuses to acknowledge. As long as that continues, the status quo of terror attacks by Palestinians and oppression by Israelis is inescapable.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given Palestinian veneration of suicide bombers, it becomes difficult to really get a handle on just how moderate the middle really is, to be honest.
How many Palestinians have you known, personally? I know quite a few and none of them venerate suicide bombers. That caricature of an entire people based on a few extremists is grossly unfair and bigoted.
I should also point out that there are many in our society who venerate people killed in battle, even those killed in what can accurately be deemed suicide missions. The distinction between those two is based on an imaginary line you've draw that allows you to maintain the illusion that we are good and our enemies are evil.
It is irrational to believe that the Palestinians are ever going to accept that fictional view of reality. It is irrational to believe that peace and security for Israel are possible as long as Israel and its supporters continue to insist that the Palestinians are entirely evil and must surrender all their rights as punishment.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't agree its a given because you still don't accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievances against Israel.
Well,this is an excellent foundation for a conversation. I do accept that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. Thanks for telling me what I think, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should also point out that there are many in our society who venerate people killed in battle, even those killed in what can accurately be deemed suicide missions.
Obviously it's not the suicide part of suicide bombing that people have a problem with. Palestinians can commit suicide all they want. It would even be OK for them to suicide bomb Israeli soldiers, if in fact they have good enough reason to fight in the first place.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or 1870. Doesn't matter. Which side has the responsibility to make it better?
That's an important point. I do think the onus is on the Israelis to be scrupulous. That means no torture of prisoners and, ideally, no predictable collateral killings.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By 1870, it was all over - and had been for a hundred years, and most of the Indians were dead. This is still early. If it does get to 1870, it will be all be on Isreal's head. And America's, again, for supporting them.
quote:You don't agree its a given because you still don't accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievances against Israel.
Well,this is an excellent foundation for a conversation. I do accept that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. Thanks for telling me what I think, though.
I'm sorry that I mis-read you, it was not evident to me from what you said. Perhaps you can explain why you don't think its a given that Israeli actions (like for example bombing civilian areas or blocking shipments of food and medicine to Gaza) are going to provoke more terrorists attacks. If you agree that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, why don't you see it as a given that they will respond with violence even though you see it as a given that Israelis will respond with violence when they are attacked? I can't follow your reasoning on this.
[ April 02, 2010, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... An atomic bomb definitely wouldn't work-Israel is widely known to have a very specific response to that kind of attack ready to go.
Of course, you're missing the point of the progression. A response to that kind of attack can only function if the bomb is not large enough to wipe out that response in the first place. At some point, there is a bomb big enough to ensure that there is no retaliation, even if the only Israelis left are overseas.
Of course, I disagree that it would ever need to reach this point anyways. There is a non-trivial rational fraction of the Israeli population who would decide to leave after X million Israelis are wiped out.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it ironic when a group that uses the Old Testement as a historical and moral backing for wanting a particular piece of land then complains about the morality of the military actions of their enemies.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: By 1870, it was all over - and had been for a hundred years, and most of the Indians were dead. This is still early. If it does get to 1870, it will be all be on Isreal's head. And America's, again, for supporting them.
I think we may be talking about different things. I was talking about the US expanding into the west. Settlers moving into new territories - even some that had been promised by treaty to Native Americans and, once there, staying there. The Native Americans attacking the settlers (civilians?) and the army moving in to protect them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... An atomic bomb definitely wouldn't work-Israel is widely known to have a very specific response to that kind of attack ready to go.
Of course, you're missing the point of the progression. A response to that kind of attack can only function if the bomb is not large enough to wipe out that response in the first place. At some point, there is a bomb big enough to ensure that there is no retaliation, even if the only Israelis left are overseas.
Of course, I disagree that it would ever need to reach this point anyways. There is a non-trivial rational fraction of the Israeli population who would decide to leave after X million Israelis are wiped out.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if Israelis had a boomer in the Med or the Gulf somewhere.
And I absolutely believe that if Israel was totally wiped out, they'd blow whoever did it off the face of the earth. Can't say I'd blame them either.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, missing the point of the progression. Imagine a simultaneous attack with MIRV, or a meticulously designed virus, or who cares really as long as it works. The point of the hypothetical is not to be realistic, it is to explore the various propositions that various people have brought up to justify the use of weapons of mass destruction.
For example: 1) the use of a WMD is justified if there are valid military targets in the area 2) the use of a WMD is justified if it works (to end the war) 3) the use of a WMD is justified if you warn civilians to leave beforehand These are three that have been brought up in this thread.
In the hypothetical, all three conditions are fulfilled, for sure if the Palestinians manage to nuke the whole of Israel there will be valid military targets caught up in the blast, for sure the Israelis have been warned to leave multiple times, and there is bound to be a hypothetical where "it works" and the war is ended even if it requires the death of every Israeli near a retaliatory weapon.
So the question remains, in this hypothetical would people seriously contend that in fairness the Palestinians have satisfied the same conditions that have been previously used to justify the use of WMDs and thus are morally in the clear? Obviously, I believe that people wouldn't, although I'm open to being surprised by an affirmative answer.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: By 1870, it was all over - and had been for a hundred years, and most of the Indians were dead. This is still early. If it does get to 1870, it will be all be on Isreal's head. And America's, again, for supporting them.
I think we may be talking about different things. I was talking about the US expanding into the west. Settlers moving into new territories - even some that had been promised by treaty to Native Americans and, once there, staying there. The Native Americans attacking the settlers (civilians?) and the army moving in to protect them.
So was I. and that certainly wasn't over by 1770. The battle of the little big horn wasn't until 1876. Chief Joseph's and Nez Perce flight to Canada and last battle was in 1877. The Wounded Knee Massacre was in 1890.
If you want to get technical about it, the US is still in violation of dozens of treaties we made with various Indian nations. In 2006 the UN demanded the US cease and desist from violating treaties with the Western Shoshone, the US natually ignored the order and is continuing to give Western Shoshone lands to mining companies. So if you thought the Black Hills gold incident was a thing of the past that we would never repeat in todays America, think again.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... An atomic bomb definitely wouldn't work-Israel is widely known to have a very specific response to that kind of attack ready to go.
Of course, you're missing the point of the progression. A response to that kind of attack can only function if the bomb is not large enough to wipe out that response in the first place. At some point, there is a bomb big enough to ensure that there is no retaliation, even if the only Israelis left are overseas.
Of course, I disagree that it would ever need to reach this point anyways. There is a non-trivial rational fraction of the Israeli population who would decide to leave after X million Israelis are wiped out.
Yeah Mucus it is widely believed in military analyst circles (I know a few) what Israel has at a minimum three dolphin-class nuclear cruise missile carrying submarines 2 on active patrol and 1 on standby each carrying probably at a minimum 5 warheads there is no way that they couldn't respond, standard operating procedures with strategic weapons is to automatically launch them once communications with Tel Aviv is lost with written and signed orders given to the commander by the current PM in charge to ensure legality.
So once communications are lost LAUNCH ZE MISSILES.... But I'm le tired...
IP: Logged |
posted
It was over when the end was in sight. It wasn't like in 1870 there was any uncertainty as to how it would all turn out. In 1770, there was still some uncertainty. Like now, in the Middle East.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possession is 9/10 of the law, is it not? Russia is unlikely to give back vast areas of Finland it stole in the 1940s, China is unlikely to give Tibet any form of independence, Brazil is unlikely to give anything back to the original Indian people and the Israeli people should not be expected to give back anything it has taken. I suppose it would be different if you had two groups of people who could get along, but as long as the leadership of the nations surrounding Israel have burning hatred to Israel then it would be unwise for Israel to make any concessions that could pose a threat to it.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The moral difference is that Israel would be content for Palestinians to live in the region
How generous of them, considering it was the Palestinians' region in the first place.
quote:
No. You're clearly not paying attention. The other difference is that when Israel kills Palestinian civilians, it is in a direct, measurably successful effort to stop their own civilians from being killed. When a Palestinian suicide bomber kills Israeli civilians, the same cannot be said. The opposite, in fact, is what can be said.
So the moral difference is between offense and defense, in your view? I disagree. This conflict was not started by the Palestinians. The Israelis initiated the conflict by taking the Palestinians' country, not the other away around.
Each nation has the wellbeing of its own people in mind. Israel wants to protect the wellbeing of its own people. So do the Palestinians. The quality of life & the likelihood of having long lives, not cut off by warfare, would be higher for the Palestinians if they weren't refugees with no home or country, no?
quote:This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm sure sinflower doesn't recognize this but what she has has done is to pair the moderate Israeli position with the extremist Palestinian position. Plus, you have phrased the moderate Israel position in the most positive possible light. That is in no way fair.
Understand that this is not my point of view. I was trying to rephrase Rakeesh's statement in a way that didn't misinterpret his point of view. As much as he thinks I'm trying to deliberately misunderstand him, I'm not.
quote:Brazil is unlikely to give anything back to the original Indian people and the Israeli people should not be expected to give back anything it has taken. I suppose it would be different if you had two groups of people who could get along
You think Israel would give land back if only the Palestinians would get along with them? Really?
quote:So the moral difference is between offense and defense, in your view? I disagree. This conflict was not started by the Palestinians. The Israelis initiated the conflict by taking the Palestinians' country, not the other away around.
Even if I granted the idea that the Israelis started the conflict by 'taking the Palestinians' country' - and I don't, I think it's partially incorrect and too simplistic - just because someone wrongs you does not give you carte blanche to wrong them back in any way you see fit, which seems to be the core of your justification for suicide bombings targeted against civilians here: they started it.
quote: Each nation has the wellbeing of its own people in mind. Israel wants to protect the wellbeing of its own people. So do the Palestinians. The quality of life & the likelihood of having long lives, not cut off by warfare, would be higher for the Palestinians if they weren't refugees with no home or country, no?
Actually, those Palestinians who choose to live in Israel under the Israeli government are also cared for by that same government. Now, of course, on equal grounds with equal respect? No. But you can't say the same thing at all in the reverse.
quote:You think Israel would give land back if only the Palestinians would get along with them? Really?
They've been willing to give some land back even in the midst of being suicide bombed. So yes, really.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: which seems to be the core of your justification for suicide bombings targeted against civilians here: they started it.
No, actually it's been the core of your moral distinctions--that the Israelis' actions are more moral because the Palestinians started it and the Israelis are "only acting in defense." So, following upon your assumption that who started it matters, I stated that even so the Israelis wouldn't have some sort of moral advantage.
But in my opinion, both sides have taken offensive and defensive actions. So--still no moral distinction.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of talk has gone on about how Palestinians intentionally target Israeli civilians, whereas Israeli military only injure Palestinian civilians as collateral in operations where they are intending to take out Palestinian militants. And overall, so far I think Rakeesh has done a fantastic job in this area, so I just want to echo what he's said so far. Well done, Rakeesh.
But there was one more thing I wanted to add, Sinflower, with regards to that moral equivalency you've been rocking. I don't think Rakeesh has mentioned it yet. Not only is the disparity of targets significant, but there's also the matter of human shields. Palestinian militants frequently hide amongst non-combatants, intentionally putting their own civilians at risk. Many sympathetic civilians welcome them, as well. The Palestinian militants, in this way, force Israel to either seriously endanger Palestinian civilians, or simply wring their hands and give up.
Sinflower, it kind of seems like you think the only morally acceptable action for Israel to take is to do the latter, and simply accept that Palestine has the right to destroy them.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like many of you are arguing against points I never made.
For example, I never made any statements about what Israel should or should not do.
All I've done is defend against this notion that the Palestinians are somehow less moral than the Israelis in this conflict. I've also stated that the line between "civilian" and "combatant" is not as clearcut as some would claim (which your argument actually supports, Dan Frank).
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: All I've done is defend against this notion that the Palestinians are somehow less moral than the Israelis in this conflict. I've also stated that the line between "civilian" and "combatant" is not as clearcut as some would claim (which your argument actually supports, Dan Frank).
It's true that my argument does support the idea that the line between civilian and combatant is not totally clearcut.
For instance, many Palestinian "civilians" are actually complicit in the terrorist acts of the "combatants," and willingly shelter and hide the combatants, thus creating scenarios where it is virtually impossible to assault the "combatants" without endangering "civilians." Nevertheless, most human rights groups I am aware of, and even the Israeli government, still track their deaths as civilian casualties, and try to minimize them.
Yep. Morally equivalent for sure.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, actually it's been the core of your moral distinctions--that the Israelis' actions are more moral because the Palestinians started it and the Israelis are "only acting in defense." So, following upon your assumption that who started it matters, I stated that even so the Israelis wouldn't have some sort of moral advantage.
It's becoming almost impossible to believe you're not deliberately misunderstanding me.
My moral distinction is that the Israeli military is more moral than the Palestinian terrorists because, when the Israeli military kills Palestinian civilians, it is most often in pursuit of a military objective: killing terrorists. Furthermore, these terrorists abet these civilian deaths by making their bases in densely populated urban areas. It's a political/military win-win for them. They get the strategic benefits of hiding in a dense urban area, making them more difficult to find and when they are found, it's nearly inevitable there will be civilian deaths when they are attacked-further inflaming their host population.
When Palestinian terrorists kill Israeli civilians, though, it is not in pursuit of military objectives. Bombing a bus does absolutely nothing to make things better for the Palestinians-quite the contrary. And the political objectives suicide bombings serve are, in my opinion, evil-they make war on civilians in order to make war on civilians, even though doing so will not be effective even in the short-term.
But anyway, you've made it quite clear that you feel the Israelis started it, and furthermore, that their military superiority makes targeting their civilians understandable. You've even specifically stated that the only thing that would trouble you would be the deliberate, systematic targeting of children.
quote:It seems like many of you are arguing against points I never made.
Where have I done so? In fact, where is this 'many'? If it's happened so often, certainly you can offer a few examples.
quote:I've also stated that the line between "civilian" and "combatant" is not as clearcut as some would claim (which your argument actually supports, Dan Frank).
You have stated it, but not actually supported it. But even if you had, you've also said you wouldn't be troubled by targeting them anyway.
A parent riding the bus with their kids on the way home from school =/ combatants. They do = civilians. How's that for clearcut?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lemme put it another way: the IDF measures the success of a mission by two things, was it successful and how few civilians did it hurt; the Palestinian terrorists (and those who laud them) measure it by how many, to paraphrase The West Wing.
And that reasoning is another foundation for my thinking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The great uniter. Obama reduced our nuclear stockpile in proportion to Russia. Hooraay, all over the news. Bush reduced it from 6k to 2k,...not news. Bush was a war monger. Obama's reduction is nothing in comparison to Bush's. Bush cut nuclear weapons by 60% and it didn't even get one days headlines.
Russia signed a new contract to sell nuclear tech to Venezuela this week. Of course, peaceful means. Afterall, Obama's people love Chavez almost as much as Che and Mao.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
