Slashdot Mirror
Israel Thwarts Attempt To Smuggle Commercial Drones Into Gaza
An anonymous reader writes: The Jerusalem Post reports that the Shin Bet intelligence agency recently foiled an attempt to smuggle commercial multicopter drones into Gaza, Israel authorities announced on Sunday. The inspectors stopped an Israeli truck carrying toys at the Kerem Shalom Crossing, where drones of various types and sizes carrying high quality cameras were found. Additional attempts to smuggle commercial drones were intercepted by the Shin Bet in recent weeks. The drones were earmarked for use by Hamas group in Gaza. Close inspection of released images reveal what seems to be a Syma X5 FPV quadcopter. Those toy-grade multirrotors have a onboard wifi camera. Once you've downloaded the streaming app to your phone you are able to connect the on board camera to your phone and use it to give you FPV footage.
The world is such a sad place.
What exactly do they have to hide?
And why do they only ban them for Palestinians?
They should just let them have the drones, and put up WiFi jammers around the perimeter of the Strip so that the drones are useless outside of Gaza. These things can't have that much range anyway.
under house arrest in their own home.
They are not regular free human beings like you and me.
And the world allows this F'd up situation to continue.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Hell no.. omg what if the enemy could record the way we treat them? That can't get out to the world. Just look at the numbers: http://www.newsweek.com/gaza-a...
Silence is a state of mime.
...into Gaza? The mind boggles.
I wonder how far you can throw a terrorist?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
It's easy to cause more casualties on your own side, if that's what you're after.
Literally kids toys. I have a Syma X5 and the idea that they can carry any sort of weight is just pathetic - the battery is 500mw for God's sake :/ These are kids toys and it makes me infinitely sad that there are places in world run like KZ camps where kids can't fly these things due to the fear and loathing of adults.
My Syma X5 lasted maybe 10-15 flights before one of the motors started failing. I bought and installed a replacement motor and almost immediately two more motors started failing. "Toy-grade" is right.
Yes, that's...what these were intended for. To expose Israel crimes.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
...stay for the hate!
Dark Reflection
If my neighbor regularly launches explosives at me, why would I let them have drones with cameras to see where to shoot those missiles at? What does religion have to do with is?
When the "inmates" as you call them (even though they can come or go as they please) are prone to strapping on explosive to the drone and piloting into something like an Ice Cream parlor, or schools as Hamas does with rocketsl, why yes - it may be a good idea to limit the (rephrased) "animals" from having ways to kill yet more innocent civilians just because they are Jewish.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If my neighbor regularly launches explosives at me, why would I let them have drones with cameras to see where to shoot those missiles at?
Because if you have a neighbor that you think is bent on murdering you, and you're dumb enough to insist on living only 160 feet from him, then you deserve to get murdered for the good of humanity.
(According to another comment here, these drones have a range of a whopping 160 feet. They're not going to be flying far from Gaza with that kind of range.)
Drones would give Palestinian terrorists a distinct advantage in launching their attacks by providing crucial Intel. Drones could observe troop movement or the location of convoys,
Please explain how these drones would be used for all this stuff when they have a range of 160 feet.
If my neighbor bulldozed my house and there were no cops to call, I might lob explosives at him.
the very link from the story reveals you are making up figures. The range is 100 meters (~320 feet) (look at the specifications tab), not 160 feet as you said.... and 8 minutes, not 6.
So are you incompetent or lying?
Do you have any idea how far a drone can go in eight minutes? Even with the reduced flying time from carrying a half pound of C4, it could be hundreds of feet away in under a minute.
The fact you think this is a harmless toy with zero possible destructive possibility is alarming for a Slashdot poster.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The drone has a *control range* of 160ft.....but the camera can probably see much farther. I dunno if they can stream video to the control station, but if so:
1. Camera drone operator sits in a concealed/covered position, such as behind a low wall or in a building.
2. Drone flies up over the wall to observe Israeli troop convoy approaching.
3. Drone operator radios the IED team.The IED team is also in a concealed position, with a buried wire running to the IED.
4. IED team detonates at the drone operator's command when the lead vehicle reaches the killzone.
All fires and obstacles need to be observed. Small commercial drones enable forces to maintain a visual of the target without exposing precious personnel. They are definitely a useful force multiplier, even if "toy grade".
And I don't see any reason why the Palestinians should not have them.
Since Hamas provides the casualty numbers and affiliations and the numbers are dramatically skewed, they very clearly reflect that the numbers you laid out include a LOT of combatants labeled as civilians.
Including women; if you had bothered to read my ice cream link.
But here's the thing; Hamas has fired thousands of rockets at civilian targets. You are basically giving them CREDIT just because many thousands of Israelis are not dead who would have been, if it were not for a very good missile defense system...
If you really cared at all you would consider the count of attempted fatalities, not the final result.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Tits for tats, the stronger does it more, the weaker takes revenge and so it goes merry go round.
A total failure - human conditions are despicable - politicians, religious leaders and other brain amputated want-to-be bigwigs can't swing it and should live under those conditions for a while to get the taste of their idiocy. Fat chance it ever happens....
The trauma accumulated in the affected people will resound for generations and perpetuate if it ever get resolved.
Israel has not entered Gaza in any official capacity since pulling out nearly 11 years ago, except to smack Hamas down every time the bombing got too annoying to ignore. The blockades were not in place until Arabs voted Hamas into power in a democratic election. Perhaps those Arabs could take a little responsibility for their (in)action and remove Hamas.
Those same Arabs also destroyed a functioning greenhouse complex that was bought for and given as a gift to them. Their hatred over all things Israeli has destroyed their ability and desire to make an honest life for themselves.
well you know, they can lift at least 50 g
which just so happens to be about the fill capacity of one of them old WW2 hand grenades, the MK 2
with TNT, which coincidentally is exactly what they fill those qassam rockets with that hamas fires into israel.
but you know, no biggie, they'd almost certainly be targeting civilians.
The US felt the need to hit Japan twice with the bomb, since the Japanese simply refused to surrender and continued to attack American soldiers. Israel unilaterally left Gaza in 2005. They uprooted all of their settlers and soldiers - no Jews whatsoever in Gaza (even though Jews had been living in Gaza for centuries). What did the Palestinians do? They destroyed all the greenhouses and synagogues and elected into office a terrorist organization that had conducted over 100 pre-planned, organized suicide bomb attacks against Israeli civilians. The checkpoints and border walls (also enforced by Egypt BTW) are in place to prevent these animals from committing more terrorist acts against soldiers and civilians. This all goes away when the people of Gaza rid themselves of the Islamists who hold their future hostage.
I hate when news sources that don't have a f'ing clue what they're talking about believe the trumped up shit someone else tells them and rolls with it without doing ANY fact checking.
http://www.xheli.com/56h-x5sw-wifi-white.html
Explain to me again, why are you reading slashdot?
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Citation? Even if it were true, there is no comparison between organized genocide within the context of one's political platform (nazis) and self-defense (israelis). The comparison is intentionally provocative and hurtful and fueled by antisemitism.
The genocide will not be televised.
Have gnu, will travel.
1) the drone range is 100m, roughly 330 feet.
2) the spec sheet linked in the summary touts the ability to stream video live
3) the 100m range assumes no hanky/panky with the wireless controller and bluetooth ( http://boingboing.net/2005/07/... ) which might make the battery time (listed at 8m) more of the limiting factor. No idea what its airspeed is to help calculate a "true range", and no idea how antenna hacks for range might affect battery/flight time.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
The Israelis kill between 100 and 300 Palestinians for every Israeli that's killed; you don't think the friends and families of those casualties aren't going to want payback?
A group of shitheads in Afghanistan blew up two of our buildings; we in turn blew up two entire countries and we're still dropping bombs and shooting missiles in the region. Yeah buddy, we sure as hell have the moral high-ground.
Hell the USA hates Islam so much they go after Sikhs, just because they can't find a Muslim to assault.
Should the Israelis apologize for not dying enough? there are about 12000 people in Gaza who are armed and ready to kill Israelis. I hope they die before they kill anyone.
Yeah right these have a range of 200 ft and can carry maybe 3-4 ounces. They are toys only.
They kill 100-300 Palestinians for every Israeli that's killed on account of the fact that Hamas and Islamic Jihad's missiles are launched from within densely-populated urban neighborhoods. Retaliatory strikes (which every single country in the world would be justified to make when fired upon) are generally precision-guided toward the location of the rockets. The IDF have dropped leaflets, sent text messages, knock-knock bombs, etc. to warn Palestinian civilians of pending retaliatory strikes. Hamas forces them back into their homes, since greater civilian casualties result in more sympathy from idiot leftists in the West.
Doesn't do much damage without 2 lbs of cast iron around it. Your talking about a big firecracker.
Colonel Klink: Hoogaan!!
IDF soldiers had better be careful with their eyebrows...
Because if you have a neighbor that you think is bent on murdering you, and you're dumb enough to insist on living only 160 feet from him, then you deserve to get murdered for the good of humanity.
Wait, what??? So it's right for someone with murderous intent to get their way? But somehow it's also wrong/stupid of me to give him a target?
What about just not letting the one with murderous intent get their way?
They didn't blow up two buildings, they murdered over 3,000 civilians, and were trying for far more. It's interesting that you would focus on the material damage, it really shows where your priorities are.
We didn't 'blow up entire countries', as evidenced by the abundance of people who are now not living under despotic regimes (at least less despotic, but we tried), the bombs (in Afghanistan at least) were aimed at the groups that attacked us and had the intent and capability to attack us further. And against these groups, you're damn right we have the moral high ground. That's not claiming we're perfect, but do you really think that the Taliban has the moral high ground? Do you even know what that phrase means?
The USA doesn't hate Islam, ignorant rednecks hate Islam. And it's a special case of redneck that attacks Sikhs thinking they are Muslim. But there are overall very few attacks against Muslims or Sikhs in the USA.
quick googling, a nail weighs about 1 g. a full stick of dynamite is 190 grams. lets say you take 1/6 a stick of dynamite, and wrap 20 nails around it, you'd get something around 50 grams.
that's assuming you can't chop anything off that drone to lighten it.
taking a look at that thing, most of the casing appears to be superfluous, and those landing struts too.
you've got something like 4 3-4 inch landing struts made of plastic, which isn't probably that much lighter than water densitywise. i'd say they're something like 5-6 grams each, right there you've got another 20 grams to play around with.
the casing probably adds another 5-10 grams.
now you've got a quarter stick of dynamite and 20 nails.
the point being, yes a big firecracker, but a big firecracker can permanently disfigure someone, i wouldn't want to be in the vicinity of a weaponized toy.
also, that's assuming they don't have someone with the knowhow to ... overclock?... that thing.
that's exactly what i think of when i think of tnt.
you got me, super innocuous.
So if Israel stopped intercepting rockets fired into Israel, stopped halting suicide bombers from coming in and in general just let all the attempted murder, terrorism and killing of their civilians that is attempted by the other side, is it then okay for them to do what they are doing? Or if you have the capability to defend yourself with one some deaths and only lots of FEAR of death, and your enemy defends themselves in a way to up the death toll of innocents around them ... are you just stuck sucking it up and knowing that your people will simply have to die?
Did you read the article and see the example of the "drones earmarked for use by "terrorist elements in Gaza" to gather intelligence on IDF movements" provided by the Jerusalem Post?
http://live.jpost.com/HttpHand...
What a joke, Is this a hoax or something? That thing looks exactly like a cheap Chinese drone my coworker bought. The thing requires constant attention to keep it airborne, you have to maintain eye contact with it and give constant control feedback at all times to keep it from crashing, it has no GPS powered autopilot, no automatic hover function, no route planning software and the camera feed is crappy to say the least. If Hamas wants to get it's hands on proper drones they'll smuggle proper ones in through tunnels from Egypt or they'll just build drones from smuggled COTS parts (keep in mind they manufacture their own home designed RPG launcher in Gaza) and there is essentially nothing that the IDF or Israeli customs service can do to stop them except keep bugging the Egyptians to do something about Hamas bribing their border guards.
Given that we've not taken it by forceful freedom, I'm inclined to think there's no oil of meaningful worth in this area. The Middle East is a big area, it's actually more than deserts interspersed with ponds of oil. I know it is expensive for people to travel but it's worth it. The Middle East has some beautiful things and some great people - Israel is one of those places that has lots of beauty, history, and good people.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Given that we've not taken it by forceful freedom, I'm inclined to think there's no oil of meaningful worth in this area. The Middle East is a big area, it's actually more than deserts interspersed with ponds of oil. I know it is expensive for people to travel but it's worth it. The Middle East has some beautiful things and some great people - Israel is one of those places that has lots of beauty, history, and good people.
Good food too. Especially Jerusalem. Go for a stroll on the old city. It helps to be an atheist, so you can see it from the perspective of an outsider rather than a combatant.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Muslims launch rockets at Jews, killing civilians. This is bad, because killing civilians is bad.
Jews launch rockets at Muslims, killing civilians. This is seen as different than the aforementioned case bacause:
a) Israeli rockets are "retaliatory", whereas Hamas is the instigator here, so it's okay. Of course, Hamas has been explicitly retaliating for Israel's annexation of Palestinian territory (and for the British/UN interference circa ~48 that enabled subsequent annexation), but $excuses. b) These are guided rockets, so it's okay. Of course, Israel denies Gazans the right to guided munitions, but $excuses.
c) Israel warns Gazans about pending attacks. Of course, Hamas has been warning Jews in Israel for a long time too, but $excuses.
Regarding the first point, it's disingenuous to paint either side as taking any "retaliatory" actions but not the other side. Both sides have been spinning this conflict as "retaliation" for decades, and neither side has a stronger claim to "retaliation" than the other. Both sides see their actions as retaliatory, and both sides see the other as the instigator. In other words, both sides are biased, and neither side is being objectively reasonable here.
Regarding the second point, I'm not saying that Hamas is "right" for shooting rockets into Israel. I'm merely pointing out that there's some degree of disingenuousness to blame Hamas for Palestinian civilian casualties because of where they launch their rockets from while at the same time refusing to blame Israel for Jewish civilian casualties because of where their rockets are launched from. If it is acceptable for Israel to kill Palestinians as collateral damage due to the inherent limitations of their weapons platforms, then that should equally apply to Hamas. There is no evidence that Hamas actually has the capability for guided missile strikes against valid military targets in Israel but is intentionally avoiding its use.
Regarding the third point, I'm not even sure how to approach this issue. What if Hamas "dropped leaflets" all over Israel saying "we're going to attack now -- leave or be killed"? Would Hamas then be absolved of any subsequent Jewish civilian casualties when Israel discourages its citizens from capitulating to the demands of the enemy? Now, I understand that this isn't an entirely fair analogy, as Israel's attacks are much more targeted than Hamas', and furthermore, Hamas has actually forced Palestinians to stay, not merely discouraged them from leaving. However, it's not clear to me how Hamas' despicable actions can serve as justification for Israel's despicable actions. Are we to hold the two up against the same standard? Is the bar for Israel really set that low?
They kill 100-300 Palestinians for every Israeli that's killed on account of ...
Let's not even get into the fact that Hamas' rockets kill more Muslims than they do Jews. That sure as shit isn't going to help the ratio. Let's just be honest with ourselves: this conflict has gone on for so long that it's no longer to expect any sense of humanity on either side. I propose a novel solution in the form of a massive terraforming project. Let's turn the land that made up the British Mandate of Palestine into the Israeli-Palestinian Sea. The engineering doesn't matter. Dredge it, nuke it, whatever. But once it's underwater, we'll finally have peace. Or suicide-bombing scuba-divers. Either way, win-win.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
"Retaliatory strikes"
Retaliatory? The "they started first" argument is morally corrupt, even before considering the legal situation.
I'd be pretty pissed off too if you tore down my home to build settlements
Aside the fact your statement is not true, l think Americans would be just as guilty (along with just about every nation that has grown over the years). Now just imagine a collective terrorist group made up of native american indians, mexican nationals and descendants of poor black sharecropper from whom you stole, who's professed purpose is to kill you... and does. Then imagine all the little twats on /. blaming you for the actions of said terrorists.
Perhaps you might start to understand the plight and difficult situation Israel exists in. Perhaps you might consider both sides to the story.
... these animals ...
Classic. Of course, even a lot of Israeli soldiers and Shin Bet former executives are seeing the writing on the wall. But somehow it escapes a lot of Israeli citizens that they're heading down a well-trodden path riddled with corpses.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Why tiny quad copiers? Fixed wing 25 kg Aerosonde drone crossed Atlantic in 2006. Hamas could launch from Greece, fly around and come in from Jordan, or wherever.
I wonder if we examine it a bit deeper, that it's not just a question of someone not reading the list of proscribed goods when sending toys. The JP article is rather light on details...
Another article on the site may be relevant by the way: "Report: Military Intelligence chief says without peace process, terror wave will grow".
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Because a dozen drones with 4 ounces each of PETN explosive wouldn't be enough to conduct a nasty terror campaign. Oh wait, that's exactly what they would do.
Yeah... if the Israelis were indiscriminately killing civilians the casualty lists would look a lot different. Instead they are overwhelmingly concentrated on the category of males between 14 and 32.
You make some very convincing arguments. Thank you for sharing those thoughtful views, I hadn't thought of the second or third points in quite that way.
One counter argument to your second point is that Hamas intentionally targets civilians; it is not an accident due to the inability to target military targets. For example, I'm sure you're aware of Hamas's support for the suicide bombings that occur. I have never heard of their suicide bombings being against military targets-- they are always against civilians to my knowledge, with the intent to cause the maximum number of civilian casualties.
I am aware that Israel has a draft, which means that every civilian-citizen is/will-be/has-been a member of the military, unless they evade the draft, and I would like to see Israel repeal the draft for this (among other) reasons.
Regardless, I still have no empathy for people that would
a) kill themselves for "the collective"
b) target civilians
Also, you might be on to something with the terraforming project! I think (hope) you were joking about nuking the region (as this would certainly cause more deaths than the current situation). But, if instead of sending money for weapons to our favorite allies in the middle east, what if we put that funding into expanding the Gaza strip into the Mediterranean sea and increasing clean-water supply?
There would be more land for the people of Gaza to live in and less disease/starvation, which I think is the major problem in the area.
But the politicians (both in the middle east and abroad), who gain their power through fear of the animal-enemy, will never let that happen. They are too afraid of being deposed to actually work for peace (also bribes from military contractors help, I'm sure).
If there's a whole bunch of murderous people living together, and you know about this, and they hate you and want to murder you, and you insist on moving in right next door to them all, then yes, you are stupid, and I for one won't mourn you when they murder you because you made yourself and easy target.
I don't see any reason either, even despite the use for intelligence-gathering. With such a short range, it's only going to be useful within the Gaza Strip. There shouldn't be any Israeli troops in there anyway, it's not their territory.
It would be much cheaper to use foam planes. These guys are plenty smart enough to build their own drones. Instead of a quadcopter with four motors, they would surely be smart enough to use a plane with one motor and four servos which cost about as much collectively as just one motor. You get just as much payload for half the money.
They're only good for surveillance, but they're not amazingly good for that, either. A kite will do the same job.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
and I suppose the cameras won't see beyond that 160' range either.... ;)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Cameras might see a few hundred feet more. So what? If they're inside Gaza, they're not going to see anything they don't have a right to see.
Well according to this Israeli generals son, you time is wildly inaccurate https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... So which animals are you actually talking about, make that adjustment in time lines and it looks pretty bad, using your language just makes it much worse for the side you support, your own language used against you. Yeah we know exactly why Israel wants to ban all Palestinians from being able to record and publish the organised abuses of Israel.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
There's a double standard that's applied here, and nobody seems to mind.
Muslims launch rockets at Jews, killing civilians. This is bad, because killing civilians is bad.
Jews launch rockets at Muslims, killing civilians. This is seen as different than the aforementioned case bacause
Because intent matters. It matters morally, and it matters as far as international law is concerned.
International law prohibits targeting civilians. Hammas is doing just that, in violation of international law.
International law prohibits using civilian facilities for military purposes. Hammas is doing just that.
International law does not prohibit targeting military and weapons. Despite what many in liberals believe, it does not prohibit this even when said militia and weapons are stashed in distinctly civilian locations (homes, schools, hospitals). It makes sense if you stop to think about it. If that were not the case, there would be an even stronger incentive to disregard the previous law.
International law does not prohibit hitting civilians, so long as they were not targeted. This strikes many as counter-intuitive, and I guess it would be, except for one small detail: It is impossible to conduct warfare without hitting civilians. There is not a single war in history that managed that. If you outlaw killing civilians, then every single army that has ever participated in any war is a war criminal, rendering the term meaningless. International law, therefore, settles for merely requiring a reasonable amount of care in the matter, a standard that any objective observer will tell you that Israel is exceeding by several orders of magnitude.
One more thing that international law does not speak about is casualties ratio. I think the 300:1 ratio quoted above is completely bogus and made up (actual ratio is closer to 20:1), but even if it were true, it is simply not a meaningful way to measure war. It reflects more on the relative resources and care each side gives to protecting themselves than anything meaningful. The only reason it is ever brought up is because Israel opponents figured it sounds alarming to laymen and can be used to bash Israel with. You do not hear it being brought up in the context of any other conflict.
So, no, there is no double standard at play here.
Shachar
The IDF have dropped leaflets, sent text messages, knock-knock bombs, etc. to warn Palestinian civilians of pending retaliatory strikes.
What a bullshit. Have you _seen_ Gaza? It's a fucking thin strip. Even if you wanted to get away from fighting, there's NOWHERE for you to go.
And we even haven't started talking about how Israel treats Palestinians on the West Bank.
Israel is busy flattening Palestinian houses to build illegal Israel settlements. But that's OK, right?
There would be more land for the people of Gaza to live in and less disease/starvation, which I think is the major problem in the area.
I rather think you are misplacing the root cause here, and therefore a solution that will simply not work sounds reasonable to you.
The number 1 cause of the Palestinians in Gaza's problems is that they are under a regime that has no interest in their lives being better. Getting them more land would not change that.
Shachar
If there's a whole bunch of murderous people living together, and you know about this, and they hate you and want to murder you, and you insist on moving in right next door to them all, then yes, you are stupid, and I for one won't mourn you when they murder you because you made yourself and easy target.
We've seen that argument before: "She was just asking for it, getting blind drunk with a group of boys she didn't know..."
We've not actually seen that argument fly, but we have at least seen it before.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
During the last Gaza war there were a lot of Western News journalist on the ground in Gaza. They knew they were safe from Israeli attacks because Israel was being careful. By contrast there are no journalists in Syria, because they wouldn't be safe there. Always assess the objective facts before adopting an analysis.
The fear is that they would cross the border (for use in planning, coordinating or perpetrating terrorist acts), like previous Hamas drones had in the past, not that they would be used in the Gaza strip. When a terrorist organization is purchasing those things, they are generally used to commit war crimes, not to document them.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
Funny. When polled, 85% of Israeli Arabs (i.e. those Palestinian Arabs who didn't flee Israel during its War of Independence- plus their descendants) said that they would prefer their neighborhoods remain part of Israel than be swapped to a future Palestinian state. Sometimes the "fiction" is better than the "reality".
I love your use of "International Law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Israel is not the greatest proponent of "international Law" I'm sure my karma will take a hit talking about such hot button topics
I love your use of "International Law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Israel is not the greatest proponent of "international Law"
I'm sure my karma will take a hit talking about such hot button topics
I have no control over your karma. If it does take a hit, however, it will likely have more to do with you deliberately confusing two unrelated issues than with any hot topic buttons you may press.
I don't love what Israel is doing with the settlements, but using that in order to claim that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza, or to try and claim moral equivalence between Israel and Hammas, is simply wrong.
Shachar
The US felt the need to hit Japan twice with the bomb, since the Japanese simply refused to surrender and continued to attack American soldiers.
Ignoring the reasons for the attack for a moment, you clearly have no idea how war works. If one side does great damage t the other, all the soldiers don't just immediately put down their weapons and surrender. Even in Europe when Germany was defeated (twice) the ceasefire didn't come into effect the moment Berlin fell or even when the surrender was agreed, it happened later at an agreed time so that the message could be sent out.
The time between the two bombings was not enough to negotiate a surrender.
So, given your lack of understanding of how war works...
Israel unilaterally left Gaza in 2005
The problem is that large parts of Palestine are still occupied and settled. The borders from 1967 are the ones that the international community recognizes and which Israel can lay an legitimate claim to. It's pretty obvious that Israel is simply taking more and more land in an attempt to make Gaza impossible to live in, with the end goal of reaching the sea. If Israel really wanted to make peace it would withdraw to the 1967 borders and start negotiations in earnest.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I have no control over your karma. If it does take a hit, however, it will likely have more to do with you deliberately confusing two unrelated issues than with any hot topic buttons you may press.
I'm not sure that how one group of people treats another is unrelated to how they feel or respond.
I don't love what Israel is doing with the settlements, but using that in order to claim that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza, or to try and claim moral equivalence between Israel and Hammas, is simply wrong.
Shachar
There is a great amount of wrong on both sides, certainly enough to go around. International law also frowns on Collective punishment but that doesn't seem to stop the Israeli government when it suits them. I have not claimed moral equivalence.But it seems strange to be concerned with International law when Hammas is in the wrong but the Israeli government gets a free pass for their crimes or people are even accused of anti-Semitism for simply pointing out when this is the case.
it is retaliatory. There were no rockets, israel pulled out of gaza, there was a period where people weren't dying, the gazans elected hamas into power, blockade went up, rockets started firing. meanwhile egypt is also blockading gaza... because hamas is a dick.
hey if hamas rockets were shooting back at israeli forces, nobody would say shit. even during operation protective edge, when you've got israeli ground forces in gaza, i believe the qassams were still fucking pointed into israel. also, these party favors hamas was shooting into israel were ongoing for a period of years before any retaliatory strike from israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
you should probably read what AI and HRW have to say about the qassams at least. they are rabidly anti-Israel for the most part, and even they admit that every qassam fired constitutes a warcrime twice over. where they're fired from, and who their intended target is.
i'd like to someday... as an atheist. maybe not you know, when i have the risk of getting stabbed.
I didn't notice anyone stabbing me.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, or how it's related to my comment. Did I imply that Israel was indiscriminately killing civilians?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
One counter argument to your second point is that Hamas intentionally targets civilians; it is not an accident due to the inability to target military targets. [...] they are always against civilians to my knowledge, with the intent to cause the maximum number of civilian casualties.
Now, regarding suicide-bombings, this is at least a somewhat valid point. The typical suicide bombing is perpetrated against a large group of civilians. However, to simply assume that they're being targeted because they are civilians might not paint a complete picture. Is it not equally plausible that civilians appear to be targeted simply because it's more likely to find a large group of civilians congregated than a large group of military assets? I mean, practically speaking, would suicide bombing a military checkpoint be as effective? The IDF is well aware of the threat facing them, and isn't likely to allow a crazed Palestinian wearing bulky clothing to come anywhere near a military checkpoint. While it's easy to say that Palestinians should limit their attacks to military targets even in the case of suicide bombings, is that a realistic expectation, knowing that such attacks would rarely, if ever, be effective? I'm not suggesting that this justifies targeting civilians. I'm just pointing out that, from what I imagine their point of view must be, they're choosing to undertake these despicable actions as a last resort. That they'd be attacking the IDF directly if such attacks had any chance of being effective. Nobody thinks of themselves as evil incarnate. Even Hitler and Stalin thought they were doing what must be done for some perverted view of what the greater good is. Is it not overwhelmingly likely that the Palestinians view their struggle in a similar light? In my opinion, I think it's much more reasonable to assume that such attacks are conducted against civilians not to maximize the number of civilian casualties, but to maximize the number of total casualties (civilian or other).
Also, you might be on to something with the terraforming project! I think (hope) you were joking about nuking the region (as this would certainly cause more deaths than the current situation).
I'm not advocating for genocide. Naturally, we could drop leaflets for the year before the nukes fall, giving people relocation assistance if needed. I suggest this plan in jest, but seriously, I can't imagine an end to the bickering over the "holy land" for as long as it's holy and land.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
International law prohibits targeting civilians. Hammas is doing just that, in violation of international law.
Please cite evidence that Hamas' weapons have targeting capabilities with precision sufficient to target civilians and not military assets.
International law does not prohibit hitting civilians, so long as they were not targeted.
In light of the fact that Hamas' rockets have no guidance systems, I approve of your internally-contradictory argument.
So, no, there is no double standard at play here.
Have you ever heard the expression "leap of logic"?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Yes, it is a little different. But, on the other hand, the core principle is the same.
If I issue a general threat, say, that I will take any opportunity I can find to punch you, does that then make it okay if I proceed to attack you in the future? Of course not. So, what if I warn you that I'm going to punch you in the face in a few minutes, does that then make it okay when I punch you in the face in a few minutes? Is this more acceptable, since the warning was more specific, in terms of time and place? Of course not.
Both sides have issued warnings of violence. Both sides commit the violence that they have warned the other party about. One side points to their previous warnings in an attempt to deflect criticism.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
well the news says there be stabbings and rammings etc. etc. in jerusalem. better than bus bombs and suicide vests, but... you know, maybe after it quiets down might be better.
it is retaliatory. There were no rockets, israel pulled out of gaza, there was a period where people weren't dying, the gazans elected hamas into power, blockade went up, rockets started firing. meanwhile egypt is also blockading gaza... because hamas is a dick.
It's not clear what you mean when you say "it" is retaliatory. What is "it"? Hamas' rocket fire into Israel, which as you point out, is a retaliation for the blockade? Israel's blockade of Gaza, which as you point out, is a retaliation for the election of Hamas? You seem to be agreeing with my point that both sides' own actions are perceived by the actors as retaliatory and justified, but always perceived by the other side as instigation.
hey if hamas rockets were shooting back at israeli forces, nobody would say shit.
Then it's a surprise that Israel is complaining about these unguided rockets instead of providing Hamas with guided munitions that actually have the capability to target IDF with precision, right?
You should probably read the very article you linked. Particularly the part that explains the Qassam doesn't even have canted nozzles. Not only is the Qassam not a guided rocket, it couldn't be a guided rocket. You talk about "their intended target", when these rockets literally can not be targeted with any precision greater than "North". If Israel's blockade is preventing Hamas from having access to guided munitions, then Israel doesn't have much justification in complaining about where these unguided rockets fall.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
The news says a lot. I've been there several times and not felt it to any more dangerous that any US city.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
International law prohibits targeting civilians. Hammas is doing just that, in violation of international law.
Please cite evidence that Hamas' weapons have targeting capabilities with precision sufficient to target civilians and not military assets.
Hamas is using a range of weapons against Israel, ranging from mortars good for a few hundred meters to self propelling missiles with a range of a couple of hundred kilometers. By and large, the longer range the missiles, the less accurate they are.
What we see across the board, however, is that Hamas fires them without regard to where they are going to fall. The shorter range mortars are often fired at locations where there is no military target in range. Even with the longer range missiles, where accuracy is not really possible, Hamas is firing them with total disregard to where they will fall.
I could not find it right now, but I've seen video taken by the Hamas operative performing the launch. Around two launches in, the firing base shifts by 20 degrees or so (do the math to see how far off "target" that means for a couple of hundred of kilometers range). The operative just keeps firing, not making even a for the sake of appearances attempt to restore the original aim.
The reason is that Hamas is not setting a target for the missiles, and therefor doesn't care whether they hit it or not. Claiming that they are not targeting military targets because their weapons are not accurate enough is simply repeating propaganda. They are not targeting military targets because they don't really care whether they hit military or civilian targets. They are firing in order to disrupt Israel's civilian routine.
Not only that, we have seen, in the past, that when Hamas is interested in where weapons fall, they can exert at least some control. When Hamas is after making a show of firing at Israel, but not actually dragging the region into another war, they target their firing at open fields. When they do that, they manage the hit those fields just fine.
And what's even stranger to me is this. Why so willing to give Hamas a pass? Suppose that they do, indeed, run an extremely high risk of hitting civilians whenever the shoot. I would expect moral liberals to claim that that means they need to be extremely judicious about what constitute acceptable reason to pull the trigger. You, however, seem to suggest that absolves them from all responsibility. Care to explain that discrepancy?
At the end of the day, it all boils down to acceptable level of care. I said before that Israel's level of care is several orders of magnitude above what modern armies generally take. Hamas' is certainly below.
Shachar
hah... that's probably true actually. i'd imagine petty crime doesn't get very far when you've got military posted everywhere... hrm.
1. yes, the blockade, after the election of hamas. Though that wasn't an instigation, that was more of a... 'well you just elected an organization that literally calls for our deaths.'
you forget that gaza shares a border with egypt...
which is currently pissed off that hamas has been smuggling things under their border too. and wants to build a big-ass wall.
why hasn't hamas shot rockets into egypt? same instigation after all.
2. ... guided is different than aimed is different than random. if you're toward a city, that's a choice and it doesn't matter if it's guided or aimed, it's targeting civilians.
you've got a direction, and you've got range. Any munitions that are aimed outside gaza are basically a war crime. and they've been trying to kill civilians for the better part of a decade over in gaza. just not terribly successful.
Online notepad is free tools in internet saved your notes online now.. this tools is by "Guinbox" is New social website >> Your need help? Go To guinbox and click Guin Help In footer Site or Send Mail to Webmaster GuinBox http://www.guinbox.com/note
Yes, they should move farther than 160 feet away from people who want to kill them. Is that really such a hard thing to do?
The nation-state of Israel existed on that land thousands of years before Christ and HE predates Islam by centuries.
Assuming there was any such person, you mean?
If ANYBODY is "occupying" the land, it's the descendants of Lebonese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Egyptian squatters who now call themselves Palestinians (There never WAS a nation-state called "Palestine").
No, stop, you're being an idiot. None of these people come from there. Therefore either all of their claims are equally valid or invalid, unless you count by number. Then the Isrealites were never more than a minority, and they should fuck off. But I don't count by number. I don't bother to count at all. Everyone should learn to coexist without having to harm one another over beliefs, and anyone who can't manage that can fuck off. As far as I'm concerned, that's everyone in charge of and cheering for any establishment in that region.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes, it is a little different. But, on the other hand, the core principle is the same.
Not even close.
If I issue a general threat, say, that I will take any opportunity I can find to punch you, does that then make it okay if I proceed to attack you in the future? Of course not. So, what if I warn you that I'm going to punch you in the face in a few minutes, does that then make it okay when I punch you in the face in a few minutes? Is this more acceptable, since the warning was more specific, in terms of time and place? Of course not.
The actual warning does not make the punching okay. If, however, the punching is already okay, then the warning makes the difference between intent to cause harm and incidental harm. As I told you elsewhere, intent is everything in those matters.
Israel, for the most part, is hitting civilian targets only when there is a valid military reason to do so (there are some cases that seem genuinely at odds with that statement, but they are the exceptions, not the rule). As far as both international law and the standard that just about any other army in the world employs, that is the end of the story. Israel takes the extra step of warning the civilians at that location to clear out, so that they do not get hurt.
The advance warning is not what makes striking someone's home legitimate. The fact that Hamas was storing missiles in that home is what made striking it legitimate. The warning is what makes complaints against Israel about killing civilians absurd at best and malicious propaganda at worst. Just about any other army in the world would classify that home as a legitimate military target and bomb it. In any other army but the IDF, it is considered bad tactical policy to let a target know in advance that it is about to be hit.
Both sides have issued warnings of violence. Both sides commit the violence that they have warned the other party about. One side points to their previous warnings in an attempt to deflect criticism.
I hope it is clear to you why I find this sentence completely and utterly incorrect.
Shachar
The reason is that Hamas is not setting a target for the missiles, and therefor doesn't care whether they hit it or not. Claiming that they are not targeting military targets because their weapons are not accurate enough is simply repeating propaganda. They are not targeting military targets because they don't really care whether they hit military or civilian targets. They are firing in order to disrupt Israel's civilian routine.
You have not cited any evidence that Hamas could set a target for their missiles. If you do some reading, you'll find that Qassam rockets are their most advanced, and these rockets don't even have canted nozzles, and really are not capable of being targeted even in theory. If you believe this claim is merely propaganda, I invite you to provide any sort of evidence to the contrary.
Not only that, we have seen, in the past, that when Hamas is interested in where weapons fall, they can exert at least some control. When Hamas is after making a show of firing at Israel, but not actually dragging the region into another war, they target their firing at open fields. When they do that, they manage the hit those fields just fine.
Due to the population distribution in Israel, it is more likely than not for unguided rockets to hit open fields, as open fields make up a majority of the land area in western Israel. See for yourself on Google Maps. There is no reason to attribute to intention that which can be adequately explained by random chance, as it is evident that simply firing off a rocket in an arbitrary direction is likely to have it hit an open field.
And what's even stranger to me is this. Why so willing to give Hamas a pass? Suppose that they do, indeed, run an extremely high risk of hitting civilians whenever the shoot. I would expect moral liberals to claim that that means they need to be extremely judicious about what constitute acceptable reason to pull the trigger. You, however, seem to suggest that absolves them from all responsibility. Care to explain that discrepancy?
That's precisely the double standard I'm talking about. First of all, I'm not giving Hamas a pass on this -- I want them held to the same standard as Israel. At no point did I defend the actions of Hamas (or Israel). In fact, I explicitly called them out as despicable, but for some reason you see this as a pass for Hamas. Well, why is everyone so willing to give Israel a pass? Suppose that they do, indeed, run an extremely high risk of hitting civilians whenever they shoot. I would expect moral liberals to claim that that means they need to be extremely judicious about what constitute acceptable reason to pull the trigger. You, however, seem to suggest that absolves them from all responsibility. Care to explain that discrepancy?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
1. yes, the blockade, after the election of hamas. Though that wasn't an instigation, that was more of a... 'well you just elected an organization that literally calls for our deaths.'
Hamas' charter calls for an end to the Israeli state (a political organization). This is only nominally different than Israeli foreign (domestic?) policy that calls for the destruction of Hamas (a political organization). Neither side is openly calling for genocide (although there are individuals on both sides doing just that).
you forget that gaza shares a border with egypt...
which is currently pissed off that hamas has been smuggling things under their border too. and wants to build a big-ass wall.
why hasn't hamas shot rockets into egypt? same instigation after all.
This is speculation, but I'd guess it's got a lot to do with sharing [to some extent] a common social and religious identity. Or, in other words, bigotry against Jews. But, again, this is speculation. Besides, you seem to be drawing Egypt into the discussion for reason other than to say "well, look, Egypt shits all over these people too, so why are they angry at Israel?", which I don't find particularly insightful.
2. ... guided is different than aimed is different than random. if you're toward a city, that's a choice and it doesn't matter if it's guided or aimed, it's targeting civilians.
you've got a direction, and you've got range. Any munitions that are aimed outside gaza are basically a war crime. and they've been trying to kill civilians for the better part of a decade over in gaza. just not terribly successful.
Thank you for personally demonstrating the double-standard I'm talking about. Israeli bombs dropped on Gaza are all gravy, but "any munitions that are aimed outside Gaza are basically a war crime." Fantastic.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Except you're comparing a single weirdo to a whole city full of angry people. You can complain about the city full of angry people all you want, but you're not going to change them, especially when you keep shooting at them and oppressing them with troops, they're just going to get angrier and angrier. So if you want to move next door to that and risk getting killed, go right ahead.
To use your rape analogy, it's a bit like a pretty women going by herself, without guards, into a prison full of violent-conviction men who haven't had sex in years. You can fume all you want about how she "didn't ask for it", but in that case, she really did.
Not even close.
Strong argument.
The actual warning does not make the punching okay. If, however, the punching is already okay, then the warning makes the difference between intent to cause harm and incidental harm. As I told you elsewhere, intent is everything in those matters.
So, justified retaliatory strikes are okay? Like, when Hamas launches rockets into Israel, it's okay for Israel to retaliate with force. And when Israel imposes a blockade on Gaza, it's okay for Hamas to retaliate with force. Or, is there more of a, shall we say, double standard?
Israel, for the most part, is hitting civilian targets only when there is a valid military reason to do so (there are some cases that seem genuinely at odds with that statement, but they are the exceptions, not the rule). As far as both international law and the standard that just about any other army in the world employs, that is the end of the story. Israel takes the extra step of warning the civilians at that location to clear out, so that they do not get hurt.
As I said before, these same things can be said of Hamas. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you're suggesting that there can be a valid military reason for hitting civilian targets. However, it appears that you only believe this is the case when Israeal is attacking Gaza, and not the other way around. This makes it seem like you have one standard for the IDF, and another for Hamas.
The advance warning is not what makes striking someone's home legitimate. The fact that Hamas was storing missiles in that home is what made striking it legitimate. The warning is what makes complaints against Israel about killing civilians absurd at best and malicious propaganda at worst. Just about any other army in the world would classify that home as a legitimate military target and bomb it. In any other army but the IDF, it is considered bad tactical policy to let a target know in advance that it is about to be hit.
Ah, the "it's retaliatory" argument! If you read my original post in this thread, you'll find that I already addressed how both sides can (and do) claim their actions are retaliatory and provoked by instigation from the other side. Also, on the subject of the "absurdity" of Israel's killing of civilians, you might want to read all of the accounts written by IDF soldiers, which you dismiss as propaganda, about the systemic use of Palestinian civilians human shields in the IDF. It's the unwillingness by people to take a critical look at both sides which only further escalates this issue.
I hope it is clear to you why I find this sentence completely and utterly incorrect.
It's not. Can you please elaborate?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
You have not cited any evidence that Hamas could set a target for their missiles.
Maybe not for their missiles, but definitely for their mortars. Please re-read what I said. They are perfectly capable of aiming mortars, and they do so at civilian areas. I am extrapolating to say if they target civilians with their aimable weapons, there is no reason to assume they are not doing so with their non-aimable weapons. All of this is, of course, assuming that we ignore (which you seem to be doing, for some reason) their intent as clearly stated by Hamas leaders in every opportunity.
There is no reason to attribute to intention that which can be adequately explained by random chance, as it is evident that simply firing off a rocket in an arbitrary direction is likely to have it hit an open field.
What I am saying is that there is a high correlation between periods in which you see reports claiming that Hamas is not interested in escalation right now with rockets falling in open fields. I am not using the mere fact of open fields falls as proof. I am claiming that the correlation suggest intent. It also suggests intent to the contrary.
That's precisely the double standard I'm talking about. First of all, I'm not giving Hamas a pass on this -- I want them held to the same standard as Israel. At no point did I defend the actions of Hamas (or Israel). In fact, I explicitly called them out as despicable, but for some reason you see this as a pass for Hamas.
You are drawing moral equivalence between a party intentionally targeting civilians and a party doing everything it can to avoid hurting them. You assume the worst about Israel (they hurt civilians, therefore they intended to hurt civilians) and the best about Hamas (their weapons are incapable of being aimed, therefore they did not intend to hurt civilians). That is the only double standard I've seen in this discussion so far.
Well, why is everyone so willing to give Israel a pass? Suppose that they do, indeed, run an extremely high risk of hitting civilians whenever they shoot. I would expect moral liberals to claim that that means they need to be extremely judicious about what constitute acceptable reason to pull the trigger. You, however, seem to suggest that absolves them from all responsibility. Care to explain that discrepancy?
With pleasure.
To be clear, I am not saying Israel is absolved from responsibility. Quite the contrary. I'm saying Israel should be judicious about pulling the trigger. I'm also claiming that Israel is far more judicious about that point than anyone has the right to demand. I'll explain:
Suppose Hamas stops shooting at Israel. What would happen? I claim that would would happen is that Israel would not be shooting at Gaza, and if the quiet continued for longer periods, the siege on Gaza would gradually lift. These are objective variables (level of fire and level of siege), and if you will find historical data you can see the correlation quite clearly. This makes Hamas shooting distinctly non-self defensive.
One might claim that non-defensive fire is still occasionally justified, but when discussing risk to civilians, such fire must, surely, be justified by a higher bar of care than purely defensive warfare.
Now suppose that Israel stops shooting at Gaza. Again, we don't have to speculate about what would happen. Just look at what happened during the Sharon and beginning of Ulmert terms. What happened was that Hamas continually increased its level of firing at civilians all around the Gaza strip. The only thing that caused that fire to come down again was operation cast lead. This marks Israel's use of fire clearly self defensive.
People keep saying "Israel has the right to defend itself" (usually, adding "but..."). This is simply not true. Israel's government does not have a right to defend Israel's civilians. Saying so suggests that they also have the right n
One more thing.
You keep referring to Qassams being miserable unaimable weapons. This is, to a certain degree, true (the Qassams of the early days are not the same as what they are producing today). It is, however, ignoring the fact that Qassams are far from all the Hamas has. It also has actual ground to ground missiles produced by Iran and smuggled into the Gaza strip. When looking at the missles that targeted Tel Aviv, these were not Qassams. Tel Aviv is simply out of Qassam's range.
Shachar
I think I answered most of your points in my other answer. I'll just add a couple of things here:
Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you're suggesting that there can be a valid military reason for hitting civilian targets.
No. What I'm saying is that civilian facilities can also be legitimate military targets, if they are used as such. It is legitimate to hit those. Hamas is making no such claims when firing at Sderot.
Ah, the "it's retaliatory" argument
No. It's about taking down a military target. I do not consider "retaliation" as a valid excuse to risk civilians, by either side, and I do not believe I used it as an excuse here.
Shachar
Maybe not for their missiles, but definitely for their mortars. Please re-read what I said. They are perfectly capable of aiming mortars, and they do so at civilian areas. I am extrapolating to say if they target civilians with their aimable weapons, there is no reason to assume they are not doing so with their non-aimable weapons. All of this is, of course, assuming that we ignore (which you seem to be doing, for some reason) their intent as clearly stated by Hamas leaders in every opportunity.
I see no evidence that, given the choice between aiming mortars at military targets or civilian targets, they choose civilian targets. There is evidence that, in the absence of military targets, they aim mortars at civilian targets, but that's not the claim you appear to be making here. If you indeed did mean to accuse Hamas of attacking civilian targets when there are no military targets available, I can't argue against this accusation, as it is accurate to the best of my knowledge. That being said, this is not the same as choosing civilian targets over military ones. Regarding public statements made by Hamas leadership, I see no reason to assume that these are factual statements about intent or necessarily indicative TTPs, as their primary role is one of propaganda.
What I am saying is that there is a high correlation between periods in which you see reports claiming that Hamas is not interested in escalation right now with rockets falling in open fields. I am not using the mere fact of open fields falls as proof. I am claiming that the correlation suggest intent. It also suggests intent to the contrary.
I'm unaware of such correlation. I'm well aware that Hamas' rocket fire from Gaza sometimes dwindles dramatically, and sometimes escalates dramatically, in line with the political situation there. I'm aware that rocket fire in general decreases when Hamas is not interested in escalation, but I've seen no evidence of rocket "misses" increasing during these times as well. I'd be very much interested in seeing any sort of study of this alleged phenomenon.
Suppose Hamas stops shooting at Israel. What would happen? I claim that would would happen is that Israel would not be shooting at Gaza, and if the quiet continued for longer periods, the siege on Gaza would gradually lift.
This is an entirely baseless assumption. Let us use the West Bank as a case study for what happens when Palestinians abandon violent resistance and instead acquiesce to the demands of the occupying powers. Instead of leaving them alone or allowing them to form a sovereign state, Israel continues supporting policies of oppression and slow annexation. Currently, 18% of the West Bank (by land area) enjoys some limited amount of autonomy (Area A), while the rest (Areas B and C) are policed by Israel. Even Area A is still subject to IDF raids, implying that the entirety of the West Bank is still under the full military authority of Israel. Suppose Hamas does stop shooting at Israel. Why do you expect Palestinians there would fare any better than those in the West Bank?
So, no, Israel does not have the option to simply not fire. Israel's commitment to its own residents safety is higher than its commitment not to harm civilians in Gaza. Hamas can provide no such justification, as Hamas choosing not to fire will decrease, not increase, the risk to Gaza's residents.
And similarly, does Hamas not have an obligation to combat the occupying forces, even at great cost of human life? If Israel is justified in accepting civilian casualties in order to protect the Israeli state, is Hamas not justified in accepting civilian casualties in order to protect the nascent Palestinian state? Why is it assumed that it's entirely reasonable to expect Hamas to simply give up the fight against Israel in the name of saving civilian lives, but so unreasonable to expect the same of Israel?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
More information needed. The three rockets fired from Gaza in July 2014 that struck around Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv were Qassam M75 rockets. It's not clear why you think Tel Aviv is out of Qassam's range.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
1. hrm, wasn't sure of the particulars, but I'm going to make a judgement call. I would say the destruction of a marginally democratic state is less preferable than the destruction of a largely tyrannical one.
the last election in gaza was the one that put hamas into power after all.
also, i would say that the hamas charter is slightly more ambitious, it also calls for setting up an explicitly islamic state after the destruction of israel. i think that's called conquering.
2. yes, because for the large part the bombs dropped by israel have stood to international scrutiny. Like legitimate international scrutiny. The civilian to militant casualty ratios are in keeping with or better than any other urban conflict.
Literally nobody is saying the hamas rockets aren't war crimes, every single one of them is; recognized by the UN when they deem to mention them at all. People debate whether a dozen out of a thousand bombs dropped by israel are beyond the pale, and when they do they are not asking whether they targetted the civilian population rather than a military one for the most part, they are asking whether or not the military target warranted the number of civilian casualties.
it's frankly astonishing the cognitive dissonance. does anyone actually believe, that if israel's intent was to kill gazans... they wouldn't all be dead?
it's an open secret that Hamas has a control center operating in one of the largest hospitals in gaza. the IDF know it, the journalists know it, but it's a fucking hospital, so israel decided that the civilian casualties would probably outweigh the tactical benefit.
keep in mind that in operation cast lead, everybody was saying OMG the civilians, so many civilians dead, so few militants dead... and the idf was saying, no our numbers are right.
and later, when hamas had to appease the gazans, and basically say "we didn't abandon you when israel came knocking" they released casualty figures in keeping with those that the idf claimed throughout. hamas lied, and the idf didn't... what makes you think this time is any different?
war crime actually means something
First the easy part of the answer. Qasam 3 has a range of 16 kilometers. According to this article (enhanced map) the missiles beyond that range are not Qassam (in particular, the M75 you mention is also called Fajr-5, and is produced in Iran).
As for everything else: While I participated in enough discussions here to be appreciative of the fact that this discussion has not deteriorated to name calling and ad hominem attacks, and for that I really do feel I should commend you, I still feel we are failing to communicate on some really fundamental level. It feels to me like you are set in your opinion that the sides are morally equivalent, and are searching everything I say for evidence to support that conclusion, rather than examine the evidence set in order to reach the most likely conclusion. In particular, I am failing to impress the concept that choosing to target civilians is different than having to target civilians due to them being in the way to military objective.
For example, when you say:
There is evidence that, in the absence of military targets, they aim mortars at civilian targets, but that's not the claim you appear to be making here.
I can only shake my head in disbelief. I feel like nothing I have tried to say made any impact. That thing you say I was not trying to say is precisely what I actually was trying to say. Hamas fires whether there is a military target in range or not. As such, claiming that when there happens to be a military target somewhere in range, then it was targeting that, is simply apologetic. The very fact that they will fire whether there is a military target in range or not is proof positive that targeting military isn't what they're after.
I'd be very much interested in seeing any sort of study of this alleged phenomenon.
I don't have such a study to offer you. The statement this relates to is based on my personal conclusion based on listening, as events happened, to the news. Accept it or don't. My word is all I can offer.
This is an entirely baseless assumption.
No, it is not. It is based on exactly what I offered you. When the fire level goes down, Gaza's siege lightens up. I really don't want to open the west bank debate up, because I think you are mischaracterizing both how the West bank is behaving and their situation, and considering we're failing to make points that convince the other, I don't want to prolong this discussion needlessly. I will offer this. I think even you will agree that standard of living in the west bank is miles ahead of Gaza, and if that's not because of the relative low intensity of violence emanating from there, I'm hard pressed to think what you think the cause is.
But what I really find I am failing to impress upon you is that intent matters. If you could tell me what evidence, if presented, would convince you that the sides are not morally equal, maybe we can advance this discussion to somewhere where meaningful exchange of can take place. If not, I'll settle for "I had a discussion on Slashdot with someone who wholly disagrees with me, and managed to keep it civilized", and call it a small win.
Shachar
First, most of the people using Slashdot are using the Gregorian calendar. That Calendar is pegged to the life of Christ.
Wrong. It's pegged to the insistence of the church.
Mohammed, on the other hand, walked the Earth about 7 centuries AFTER Christ.
Who cares? I thought we were arguing about genetics, as daft as that is it's less daft than arguing about religion.
Incidentally, there's more evidence for the Existence of Jesus than for many figures in history that anti-Chrsitians never question.
What? No. It's all from one source, or second-hand hearsay — a historian recording that someone told them that someone told them blah blah blah. There is no non-biblical evidence for the existence of Christ.
I would also note that people who frequently insist that Christ is just an imaginary character generally lack the guts to risk their lives by making the equivalent attack on Islam
I give a fuck. I don't know if he existed or not. If he did, he was a child molester. Next shitty argument, please.
Additionally, the relative numbers of the populations mean nothing in this discussion; those numbers only highlight the polygamous nature of Islam.
No, they absolutely are relevant. When someone is a come-lately minority, they don't get to claim dominance over a region. At least, not without powerful allies. Don't pretend that might makes right, though. It only makes what is.
Finally, your resort to expletives is a common phenomenon among those who lack a rational argument.
Cry me a river or three. I give a flying fuck.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. hrm, wasn't sure of the particulars, but I'm going to make a judgement call. I would say the destruction of a marginally democratic state is less preferable than the destruction of a largely tyrannical one.
The discussion I was trying to have was more of a close look at facts than an exchange of subjective opinions. What you (or I) find preferable isn't really relevant in that context.
the last election in gaza was the one that put hamas into power after all.
Yes, Hamas was the democratically elected government of Gaza, in an election that international observers generally agree was free and fair. Of course, since then, Hamas has basically suspended any meaningful sense of democracy, so their current reign may or may not have any sort of mandate from the population at large, but again, we seem to be drifting quite far from the original topic of the double standard as it relates to hostilities between Hamas and Israel.
also, i would say that the hamas charter is slightly more ambitious, it also calls for setting up an explicitly islamic state after the destruction of israel. i think that's called conquering.
Indeed. Of course, Israel also openly calls for the destruction of Hamas and openly supports the installation of a regime friendly to Western interests. Isn't that also called conquering? Or, is this yet another example of the double standard at work?
2. yes, because for the large part the bombs dropped by israel have stood to international scrutiny. Like legitimate international scrutiny. The civilian to militant casualty ratios are in keeping with or better than any other urban conflict.
By legitimate international scrutiny, you mean global outrage (legitimate or not) that is only blunted by the US's vetoes on the UN's Security Council? But, appeals to authority really aren't relevant in a discussion that's intended to stay rational. There's really no way to argue that use of white phosphorous stands up to legitimate international scrutiny any more than Hamas' rockets do.
Literally nobody is saying the hamas rockets aren't war crimes, every single one of them is; recognized by the UN when they deem to mention them at all. People debate whether a dozen out of a thousand bombs dropped by israel are beyond the pale, and when they do they are not asking whether they targetted the civilian population rather than a military one for the most part, they are asking whether or not the military target warranted the number of civilian casualties.
If by literally you mean figuratively, then sure. It's quite likely that Hamas themselves are saying that their own rockets aren't war crimes, regardless of whether they say this earnestly or not. Either way, again, nobody is denying that what Hamas is doing is wrong. The issue that I'm talking about assumes this as an axiom, even. My point is that there is a double standard that is applied when comparing Hamas' actions against Israel's, and your own statements demonstrate that better than I could myself.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
summary execution of dissidents and accused peoples without trial is also indicative that it's no longer really holds to "democratically elected" any more. that term falls away i believe once expected elections are not being held.
Indeed. Of course, Israel also openly calls for the destruction of Hamas and openly supports the installation of a regime friendly to Western interests. Isn't that also called conquering? Or, is this yet another example of the double standard at work?
yeah, if by that you mean that they unilaterally withdrew all physical presence from gaza. at most israel is calling for establishing a puppet state. more realistically, just a government that can treat its own population however it wants, and isn't actively trying to kill israeli civilians. i don't think they conquered jordan or egypt and they're pretty happy with those neighbors.
By legitimate international scrutiny, you mean global outrage (legitimate or not) that is only blunted by the US's vetoes on the UN's Security Council? But, appeals to authority really aren't relevant in a discussion that's intended to stay rational. There's really no way to argue that use of white phosphorous stands up to legitimate international scrutiny any more than Hamas' rockets do.
sometimes appealing to the authority of others is all we can do, i'm nowhere near able to collect my own information after all. i'm appealing to the fact that the worst the UN has to complain about, not vote on so the security council doesn't really come into play, is a handful of instances. unrwa is unique, the UN bitches non-stop about israel, and the UN human rights council is stocked with countries that delight at pointing at israel to distract from their own human rights violations.
and we're still talking only a handful of "maybes" out of thousands of bombs dropped. or do you think UNRWA and the UN human rights council are covering for israel too?
white phosphorous is legal under international law in many situations. just never against civilian targets, or from the air onto military targets in civilian zones apparently. and the IDF decided the ass-ache wasn't worth it so forewent using it this time round.
If by literally you mean figuratively, then sure. It's quite likely that Hamas themselves are saying that their own rockets aren't war crimes, regardless of whether they say this earnestly or not. Either way, again, nobody is denying that what Hamas is doing is wrong. The issue that I'm talking about assumes this as an axiom, even. My point is that there is a double standard that is applied when comparing Hamas' actions against Israel's, and your own statements demonstrate that better than I could myself.
as literally as literally can be, as long as you exclude those directly involved. fine, with that caveat :)
by your stance, there's very little difference between the stances of north korea and south. just two sides with a disagreement.
First the easy part of the answer. Qasam 3 has a range of 16 kilometers. According to this article (enhanced map) the missiles beyond that range are not Qassam (in particular, the M75 you mention is also called Fajr-5, and is produced in Iran).
Today I learned. Although, The commander of the Iranian Guard said that Iran did not supply Gaza with a Fajr-5 missile but transferred the technology to manufacture it to the Palestinians. Not that this materially affects your point - just adding it in as an aside.
As for everything else: While I participated in enough discussions here to be appreciative of the fact that this discussion has not deteriorated to name calling and ad hominem attacks, and for that I really do feel I should commend you, I still feel we are failing to communicate on some really fundamental level. It feels to me like you are set in your opinion that the sides are morally equivalent, and are searching everything I say for evidence to support that conclusion, rather than examine the evidence set in order to reach the most likely conclusion. In particular, I am failing to impress the concept that choosing to target civilians is different than having to target civilians due to them being in the way to military objective.
Several points, here. First, I don't intend to portray both sides as morally equivalent - I seek to portray both sides as not being held to the same standard. Both sides don't need to be morally equivalent to be morally reprehensible. There is this sense that any criticism of Israel is intended to say they're "worse than" Hamas or something along those lines. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Israel being terrible and Hamas being terrible are two distinct issues and should be treated as such. Second, you speak of examining the evidence set in order to reach the most likely conclusion. That's at odds with my usual approach - limiting discussion to facts and their necessary (not likely, but necessary) implications. Once we reduce conversation to likelihoods and opinions, particularly regarding a subject as thorny as this, we're not likely to reach any sort of agreement. Third, while you highlight my unwillingness to accept the difference between choosing to target civilian and having to target civilians due to them being in the way to military objective, you're really missing my point. Aside from really twisting the word 'target' to fit this context (by your definition, was the Semperoper "targeted" during the bombing of Dresden?), you're effectively looking at two reprehensible things and suggesting that the less reprehensible one is totally okay since they're not as bad as the other. I believe that's not justified by reason.
I can only shake my head in disbelief. I feel like nothing I have tried to say made any impact. That thing you say I was not trying to say is precisely what I actually was trying to say. Hamas fires whether there is a military target in range or not. As such, claiming that when there happens to be a military target somewhere in range, then it was targeting that, is simply apologetic. The very fact that they will fire whether there is a military target in range or not is proof positive that targeting military isn't what they're after.
I did re-read what you wrote, and while this may be what you were trying to say (indeed, I said as much myself), it's not what you were actually saying. That's why I brought it up myself, in an effort to infer what you might have been trying to say. I understand that this can seem somewhat pedantic, so I'll take this opportunity to apologize for splitting hairs - it's a prominent part of my personality that many find annoying. In my defense, I see it as insisting on precision in language and my intent isn't merely to frustrate. Either way, regarding the actual issue of Hamas firing on civilians in the absence of valid military targets, I don't understand how you can mistake my words for support or apologism. I
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
summary execution of dissidents and accused peoples without trial is also indicative that it's no longer really holds to "democratically elected" any more. that term falls away i believe once expected elections are not being held.
Come on, seriously? I myself pointed out the questionable current standing of the current Hamas administration. No need to "correct" me.
yeah, if by that you mean that they unilaterally withdrew all physical presence from gaza. at most israel is calling for establishing a puppet state. more realistically, just a government that can treat its own population however it wants, and isn't actively trying to kill israeli civilians. i don't think they conquered jordan or egypt and they're pretty happy with those neighbors.
Israel is calling for the end of Hamas, Hamas is calling for the end of Israel. There are those who falsely paint Hamas' stance as a call for death to all Jews, much like there are those who falsely paint Israel's stance as a desire to kill all Palestinians. If you can say with a straight face that Israel is "at most" calling for "establishing a puppet state", then I can say the same about Hamas. To disagree that both sides are being disingenuous is to support the double standard which I complain about. Comparing Israel's relationship with Jordan and Egypt to their relationship with the Palestinians is also absurd - there is a sovereign Egyptian state, there is a sovereign Jordanian state, and there is no sovereign Palestinian state.
sometimes appealing to the authority of others is all we can do, i'm nowhere near able to collect my own information after all. i'm appealing to the fact that the worst the UN has to complain about, not vote on so the security council doesn't really come into play, is a handful of instances. unrwa is unique, the UN bitches non-stop about israel, and the UN human rights council is stocked with countries that delight at pointing at israel to distract from their own human rights violations.
You alleged that for the most part, the bombs dropped by Israel have stood to legitimate international scrutiny. I pointed out how they have been denounced for their military campaigns by international organizations. The conversation has devolved to "organization X says they're okay", "but organization Y says they're horrible". Since your original statement was rather vague ("for the most part", lack of quantifiers, etc.), there's no sense in debating this point further.
and we're still talking only a handful of "maybes" out of thousands of bombs dropped. or do you think UNRWA and the UN human rights council are covering for israel too?
It's this willingness to overlook Israel's transgressions that encourages accusations of bias. So, since they only commit war crimes occasionally, they're beyond criticizing?
white phosphorous is legal under international law in many situations. just never against civilian targets, or from the air onto military targets in civilian zones apparently. and the IDF decided the ass-ache wasn't worth it so forewent using it this time round.
So, they took a break from committing this particular war crime, and now they're beyond reproach?
by your stance, there's very little difference between the stances of north korea and south. just two sides with a disagreement.
As far as I know, indeed, there's very little difference. They both threaten each other with mass violence in retaliation for perceived aggressions. The only reason this might seem like an absurd proposition to you is that, based on your worldview, you don't think it is possible for DPRK to reasonably perceive RK as aggressive. You see DPRK as aggressive, and RK as merely arming itself to defend against DPRK threats. However, from the other side, it's just the opposite. DPRK is arming itself to defend against RK threats. This inability to acknowledge that different sides are likely to perceive the situation through their own lens of bias, rightly or wrongly, isn't likely to lead you to particularly insightful observations.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
so their current reign may or may not have any sort of mandate from the population at large,
that qualification is why i corrected you.
Israel is calling for the end of Hamas, Hamas is calling for the end of Israel.
yes, now, gaza is not the same thing as hamas. if you were to say, hamas called for the destruction of the conservative movement. or called for a coup d'etat in israel by the arabic minority. you'd have something. If hamas weren't a thing, israel would keep chugging along, if israel didn't exist neither would hamas.
It's this willingness to overlook Israel's transgressions that encourages accusations of bias. So, since they only commit war crimes occasionally, they're beyond criticizing?
no, since they're only accused of committing war crimes relatively infrequently, it can't be their intent. unless they're incompetent at killing civilians.
So, they took a break from committing this particular war crime, and now they're beyond reproach?
for that particular accusation yes.
i'm almost done because this seems pointless.
regardless, if you're going to compare the two, actually compare the two. war-crimes are a legal definition that the international community has agreed to, with the actual realities of war at the back of their minds. They also reflect the moral stance that the global community takes on the ubiquity of collateral damage in a war.
Look, I just want to thank you two for keeping a civil and informed conversation on such a hot topic. It makes me glad for not having left Slashdot behind.
I opened my browser to write to NoImNotNineVolt how I think the public forum has run its course, and they I think we should take this discussion to private channels, and then you come along....
Several points, here. First, I don't intend to portray both sides as morally equivalent - I seek to portray both sides as not being held to the same standard. Both sides don't need to be morally equivalent to be morally reprehensible. There is this sense that any criticism of Israel is intended to say they're "worse than" Hamas or something along those lines.
That's where I feel your intentions and actions diverge. Any time I tried to say "Israel is abiding, for the most part, with reasonable moral and legal standards", you tried to force that same justification on Hamas. The comparison is as much yours as it is mine.
Second, you speak of examining the evidence set in order to reach the most likely conclusion. That's at odds with my usual approach - limiting discussion to facts and their necessary (not likely, but necessary) implications.
You do not have all the fact. I do not have all the facts either, but I do believe I have more of them. If we wait until we have all the fact we will never be able to draw a conclusion.
Also, it does not feel like you are doing here what you claim that you usually do. It seems to me that you take the facts surrounding Hamas firing, and try to fit them to the theory that they are just trying to show resistance, while at the same time taking Israel's firing and try to show them to be comparable. Neither interpretations sit well with the likely, never mind necessary, interpretation of the facts.
Third, while you highlight my unwillingness to accept the difference between choosing to target civilian and having to target civilians due to them being in the way to military objective, you're really missing my point. Aside from really twisting the word 'target' to fit this context (by your definition, was the Semperoper "targeted" during the bombing of Dresden?), you're effectively looking at two reprehensible things and suggesting that the less reprehensible one is totally okay since they're not as bad as the other. I believe that's not justified by reason.
(I'm assuming you are talking about the Dresden bombing during WWII by the British).
While I do have an opinion on that incident, I just realized that it is based on extremely partial facts. As such, I do not wish to make it public. I think we have enough people making judgement based on ignorance, and I do my best to not join their ranks whenever possible.
Regarding your second point, what I have actually been trying to claim here is that Israel's actions are no more reprehensible than one can possibly expect under the objective circumstances demand. That is why I started this thread off from intel. law. Now, you might claim that you don't care about what intl. law says, and that any situation where civilians are killed is reprehensible to you. That's a fine point to hold from the safety of a home with no one firing at you merely for being who you are and living where you live. In essence, you're saying "I don't want to live in a world where what Israel is doing is the most moral choice they can make, and therefore it's not". That fails to consider the alternative option, which is that you live in a world that is less rosy and nice than you think it is.
In my defense, I see it as insisting on precision in language and my intent isn't merely to frustrate. Either way, regarding the actual issue of Hamas firing on civilians in the absence of valid military targets, I don't understand how you can mistake my words for support or apologism. I explicitly said "I can't argue against this accusation, as it is accurate to the best of my knowledge".
Please keep in mind that not everyone who argue this subject with you are native English speakers.
But, much like Hamas positions its forces in a way that prevent Israel from striking them without causing a PR disaster, it can be similarly said that Israel positions its forces in a way that keep them re
that qualification is why i corrected you.
What qualification? I don't see anything being corrected, I see you repeating what I had said myself. Either way, you haven't clarified what this even has to do with the subject being discussed.
yes, now, gaza is not the same thing as hamas. if you were to say, hamas called for the destruction of the conservative movement. or called for a coup d'etat in israel by the arabic minority. you'd have something. If hamas weren't a thing, israel would keep chugging along, if israel didn't exist neither would hamas.
I see a collection of words, but I'm not sure that they're strung together in any meaningful sense. No, Gaza is not the same thing as Hamas. One is a geographical area, and the other is a political state. Hamas is calling for an end to Israel (the political state), not Israel (the geographical area). This should be obvious to anyone that understands that it is not feasible to end the existence of a geographical area. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the latter part of your statement. If Hamas didn't exist, Israel would continue to exist, and if Israel didn't exist, neither would Hamas? Aside from this statement being vague to the point of meaninglessness, it's not even clear what basis you have for making it.
no, since they're only accused of committing war crimes relatively infrequently, it can't be their intent. unless they're incompetent at killing civilians.
While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't understand why you're presenting it here as fact. It's certainly not impossible for a state to intentionally commit war crimes relatively infrequently while simultaneously being competent (whatever that means in this context) at killing civilians. I cite the United States as a counterexample to your claim.
for that particular accusation yes.
This too is not based on a rational argument, and as such, is yet another opinion.
i'm almost done because this seems pointless.
Indeed, sharing one's opinions often is.
regardless, if you're going to compare the two, actually compare the two. war-crimes are a legal definition that the international community has agreed to, with the actual realities of war at the back of their minds. They also reflect the moral stance that the global community takes on the ubiquity of collateral damage in a war.
Are you saying that by comparing the two, I'm not actually comparing the two? I'm not sure what that even means. Furthermore, I'd like to correct you and say that war crimes are not "a legal definition", they're actions carried out during the conduct of a war that violate accepted international rules of war. I'm not sure what the rest of the rhetoric was intended to convey. Something about war crimes being bad?
I'm not sure how any of your latest response has been related to the discussion I was hoping to have about a double standard being applied to the actions of Israel and Hamas, but I commend you for your interest in the subject nonetheless.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
What qualification? I don't see anything being corrected, I see you repeating what I had said myself. Either way, you haven't clarified what this even has to do with the subject being discussed.
the may or may not part of your original quote, having a vote lapse almost certainly means they no longer have a mandate. "may or may not" is a qualifying statement.
Hamas is calling for an end to Israel (the political state), not Israel (the geographical area).
israel is a political state, not a political entity. hamas is a political entity. that's what i was trying to point out. i also think there's a qualitative difference between getting rid of a democratically elected political entity and getting rid of a tyrannical one. Israel's government is the one that the majority of people living in israel ostensibly want. Getting rid of it would be trying to override their will with your own. hamas was the democratically elected will of the people at one point, probably not any longer. And Israel was never about getting rid of it, just no longer engaging with them as a political entity. I think if israel's goal was to get rid of hamas, conquering gaza would not pose much of a challenge.
the second part was just indicating that israel has a duty to its people, hamas wouldn't exist as a political movement if israel weren't around. it's their sole thing.
While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't understand why you're presenting it here as fact. It's certainly not impossible for a state to intentionally commit war crimes relatively infrequently while simultaneously being competent (whatever that means in this context) at killing civilians. I cite the United States as a counterexample to your claim.
fine, fact, israel has nuclear weapons, israel has more advanced weaponry than hamas, israel has conquered gaza before. if their express purpose was to kill civilians they have the means to do so, in much greater number than what we've seen. They have the means to figuratively erase gaza from the map, if it were their desire.
This too is not based on a rational argument, and as such, is yet another opinion.
fine, it was not a war crime when committed, in the fashion that white-phosphorous was used. and the point is moot in the current conflict because the IDF has stopped using white-phosphorous altogether in the most recent conflict.
Furthermore, I'd like to correct you and say that war crimes are not "a legal definition", they're actions carried out during the conduct of a war that violate accepted international rules of war.
i'm lazy, i was using "legal definition" as a shorthand way of saying, yeah there are actual international guidelines on what constitutes a warcrime or not. Typically if your a signatory of various statutes, and sometimes even if you're not. the set of actions defined as "war crime" is delineated somewhere in some way.
the "double standard" exists because hamas has committed thousands of war crimes, as defined by the international community, and israel may have committed a dozen.
because asymmetric war looks like this, massive losses on one side and small losses on the other.
because urban warfare is messy and often-times civilians get caught up in the mess.
First, I'll admit that there was too much hyperbole in my last post. "Morally bankrupt" was a bad choice of words.
Second, I'll concede that I agree with your characterization of Hamas' goals.
Third, I'd like to address two related points you made, but in a much abbreviated form as compared against my previous word salad that slashdot ate:
Israel's actions are no more reprehensible than one can possibly expect under the objective circumstances demand
So, if you want to substantiate your claim, what I'd like to hear from you is how you think Israel should have handled things. What would a non-morally bankrupt version of Israel do in its place?
So, remember that I just wrote this up, all nice and well-phrased. I'm not doing that again, and for that I apologize in advance.
I'll just say that I agree with the first of these statements, and that I think Israel should have handled things as they have, for the most part. Perhaps in the wake of Rabin's death they could've really stayed committed to the two state thing, done a bit more to combat settlers in the West Bank. The few failures that they did see seem unavoidable to me, and not systemic either way. The human shields thing, you're always going to have a few assholes in any military. It's not like it was a policy advocated for by the top brass. But either way, these are small potatoes.
The important part of your first point here, though, is the "can possibly expect under the objective circumstances" bit. Without that, one might say that Israel's actions could be less reprehensible if they went the 100% non-violent route, and refused to retaliate in any capacity. However, that wouldn't be reasonable, and that's not expected of even the most selfless societies. By general international standards, retaliatory violence seems to be sanctioned, and whether or not it is reprehensible at this point seems to be a matter of debate. It's generally agreed upon that any response ought to be proportionate, so consequently in the case of an existential threat, pretty much anything goes. This is why Israel was able to allay concerns over its nuclear weapons program by offering a credible promise to not be the first to use them. But today, with Israel openly calling for its destruction (and having the means to bring it about), it is Hamas that faces the existential threat. And while that shouldn't justify their reprehensible actions, it should at least put them in context.
I would just like people to consider for a moment that, had earlier military conflicts turned out differently, the people that today offer an uneasy defense of (or are at least unwilling to demonize) Hamas' indiscriminate rocket fire and suicide bombings might instead be defending Israel's use of nuclear weapons in their own existential fight. Because it very much is a matter of context and circumstances.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I wrote up a long reply, but then slashdot ate it.
I'm writing this in an external text editor to aleviate this risk. I would also point out that most mail clients have automatic draft save these days.....
First, I'll admit that there was too much hyperbole in my last post. "Morally bankrupt" was a bad choice of words.
Second, I'll concede that I agree with your characterization of Hamas' goals.
I lost you. You concede that Hamas is not only deliberately firing at Israeli non-involved, but using Palestinian non-involved as, literally, cannon fodder, and yet you say:
it is Hamas that faces the existential threat. And while that shouldn't justify their reprehensible actions, it should at least put them in context.
Except Hamas core charter is reprehensible. From your claim to another poster that Hamas is against Israel, and not against Jews, I deduct you have not read it. Statements specifically againt Israel are, in fact, quite scarce there. Statements against Jews, not so much. Choice quote for emphasis (but it is far from being the only example):
Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."
So a racist fanatical organization with a reprehensible charter is doing reprehensible things. You claim it is because Israel has the means to destroy it. Sadly, I think you are wrong. Either way, I think your "context" is a little narrow.
Third, I'd like to address two related points you made, but in a much abbreviated form as compared against my previous word salad that slashdot ate:
Israel's actions are no more reprehensible than one can possibly expect under the objective circumstances demand
So, if you want to substantiate your claim, what I'd like to hear from you is how you think Israel should have handled things. What would a non-morally bankrupt version of Israel do in its place?
I'll just say that I agree with the first of these statements, and that I think Israel should have handled things as they have, for the most part. Perhaps in the wake of Rabin's death they could've really stayed committed to the two state thing, done a bit more to combat settlers in the West Bank.
I disagree with the first. I think Netanyahu's handling of Arafat antics in 1995 were completely justified, and indeed brought down the level of terror in Israel's streets. I also disagree with the second, in that I think the words "a bit" in it should be striken. Israel needs to get the settlers' behavior under control, and do it soon. There are some encouraging developments on that front, but they definitely started too late.
With that said, we seem to agree that Israel's behavior, while very far from ideal, is very close to optimal (i.e. - the best one can hope to achieve under a very complex situation where "the right thing to do" is only known in hindsight).
The human shields thing, you're always going to have a few assholes in any military. It's not like it was a policy advocated for by the top brass. But either way, these are small potatoes.
Again, a correction. By "human shield" I'm assuming you mean sending relatives of militants to negogiate surrender (strangely, the only documentation I found about it is in Hebrew). Things there are both better and worse than you describe.
On the worse part, it was done as policy. While it might have started as some field initiative, it was a systematic thing. On the better part, it seems there was only one person killed as a result, and it has been outlawed in Israel over a decade ago. I definitely mark it down as one of "we're trying to figure out things as we go along, and
First, I'll admit that there was too much hyperbole in my last post. "Morally bankrupt" was a bad choice of words.
Second, I'll concede that I agree with your characterization of Hamas' goals.
I lost you. You concede that Hamas is not only deliberately firing at Israeli non-involved, but using Palestinian non-involved as, literally, cannon fodder, and yet you say:
it is Hamas that faces the existential threat. And while that shouldn't justify their reprehensible actions, it should at least put them in context.
Except Hamas core charter is reprehensible. From your claim to another poster that Hamas is against Israel, and not against Jews, I deduct you have not read it [yale.edu]. Statements specifically againt Israel are, in fact, quite scarce there. Statements against Jews, not so much. Choice quote for emphasis (but it is far from being the only example):
Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."
I did not concede that "Hamas is ... deliberately firing at Israeli non-involved" in the statement quoted here. I conceded that (in your own words) "Hamas has two main goals that it is trying to gain with firing at Israel. The first has to do with internal politics. It is firing, because the Palestinian society, for reasons that have a lot to do with Hamas, sees not firing as surrendering to Israel. The second reason Hamas opens fire is in order to trigger Israel's response, thus causing civilian Palestinian casualties." This statement was about Hamas' goals, not their actions.
While I think I understand your desire to increase the scope of this discussion to Hamas' charter (which I have indeed read and commented about extensively on slashdot), I'm not sure how that's relevant in this context. Whether or not Hamas faces an existential threat is only tangentially related to its charter. Its charter is not the proximate cause for its existence being threatened, the IDF is. Whether or not Hamas' charter is in turn responsible for Israel's threats is immaterial to this point. I'm open to having a separate conversation about their charter, but I don't think it's relevant to the double-standard point I've been trying to make.
So a racist fanatical organization with a reprehensible charter is doing reprehensible things. You claim it is because Israel has the means to destroy it. Sadly, I think you are wrong. Either way, I think your "context" is a little narrow.
That's not accurate. I claim that Hamas (a racist fanatical organization with a reprehensible charter) is doing reprehensible things for the two reasons you stated earlier (among others): maintaining a public image of resistance (for domestic consumption) and also as PR events to garner sympathy (for international consumption). I claim that Hamas faces an existential threat because Israel has the means (and has expressed a desire) to destroy it. These are two separate issues which you seem to be conflating here.
Third, I'd like to address two related points you made, but in a much abbreviated form as compared against my previous word salad that slashdot ate:
Israel's actions are no more reprehensible than one can possibly expect under the objective circumstances demand
So, if you want to substantiate your claim, what I'd like to hear from you is how you think Israel should have handled things. What would a non-morally bankrupt version of Israel do in its place?
I'll just say that I agree with the first of these statements, and that I think Israel should have handled things as they have, for the most part. Perhaps in the wake of Rabin's death they could've really stayed committed to the two state thing, done a bit more to combat settlers in the West Bank.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Whether or not Hamas faces an existential threat is only tangentially related to its charter. Its charter is not the proximate cause for its existence being threatened, the IDF is. Whether or not Hamas' charter is in turn responsible for Israel's threats is immaterial to this point. I'm open to having a separate conversation about their charter, but I don't think it's relevant to the double-standard point I've been trying to make.
I do not see how it is irrelevant.
You are claiming double standard. That's a very high bar to pass. You need to show not that as far as you're concerned, the two are equivalent. You need to show that as far as anyone reasonable is concerned, that is the case. As I said in the very first sentence of my very first response, it's all about intent. Hamas charter and public statements are as indicative of its intent as its actions.
You are free to not consider it as relevant, but you cannot claim no one should. If not because it is morally correct and mandated by common sense, then accept it as a legitimate consideration because that is the criteria that international law uses.
I'm not sure what "the first" is, in this context.
I'm sorry. I did not quote your sentence I was replying to. "The first" here referred to Israel supposedly abandoning the two state solution after Rabin's assassination.
That's the (arguably pedantic but logically sound) point I was trying to make.
It is not pedantic. It is deliberately blind. I've actually already answered that point, but I'll repeat myself: The no-retaliation option is not open to Israel, because:
A. Israel has tried it for over six years, with no positive outcome. It would be immoral to suggest Israel should continue to do something which does not work.
B. It is morally reprehensible for a government to abandon its citizens like that
You are merely suggesting that Israel do another reprehensible thing instead of that one.
No, I'm talking about literally using Palestinian civilians as physical shields to protect IDF forces from Palestinian attacks.
I have great issues with breaking silence methods and reliability. Either way, I think we are in agreement on this case. If it happened, it is reprehensible, and the people in charge of it should go to prison. I think we are also in agreement that this is not a result of a centralized policy, but some horrid decision taken in the field. One of the issues I have with breaking silence, BTW, is that they take great measures to prevent the IDF from reaching the people responsible and charging them with committing war crimes, because they are not, in fact, interested in seeing these cases stopping.
It's generally agreed upon that any response ought to be proportionate
Generally agreed by whom? Can you give me another conflict where that has been a criteria? Please read what I said about this point in my first reply to you.
Generally agreed by the two of us, at least, I don't know.
You answered my question about the wrong point. I was referring to your statement that it is generally agreed that any response ought to be proportionate. I challenged that statement, saying that is a standard which is not applied to other armed conflicts.
--
You made a point about double standard, listing several possible outcomes, but you failed to list the one I'm most interested in. Do you agree with the following statement:
It is possible to believe that Hamas actions are, for the most part, reprehensible and Israel's are, for the most part, not, without applying a double standard.
If you agree with the above, then we're set. If not, please specify why the intent standard (i.e. - what was your intent in pressing the trigger) does not make that precise
Whether or not Hamas faces an existential threat is only tangentially related to its charter. Its charter is not the proximate cause for its existence being threatened, the IDF is. Whether or not Hamas' charter is in turn responsible for Israel's threats is immaterial to this point. I'm open to having a separate conversation about their charter, but I don't think it's relevant to the double-standard point I've been trying to make.
I do not see how it is irrelevant.
You are claiming double standard. That's a very high bar to pass. You need to show not that as far as you're concerned, the two are equivalent. You need to show that as far as anyone reasonable is concerned, that is the case. As I said in the very first sentence of my very first response, it's all about intent. Hamas charter and public statements are as indicative of its intent as its actions.
You are free to not consider it as relevant, but you cannot claim no one should. If not because it is morally correct and mandated by common sense, then accept it as a legitimate consideration because that is the criteria that international law uses.
Again, whether or not Hamas faces an existential threat is only tangentially related to its charter. Whether or not there is a double standard is related to Hamas' charter. Hamas facing an existential threat is not the same thing as a double standard being applied when comparing Israel and Hamas. Hamas' charter is relevant in the context of a statement about the double standard. It is not relevant in the context of a statement about Hamas facing an existential threat.
In the context of the double standard (which is not the context of my original statement about Hamas' charter's relevance), this is a perfect example of the double standard, as described in my first post in this thread. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of [the state of] Israel. Israeli legislation calls for the destruction of Hamas. And yet here we have Hamas being demonized, and Israel's stance being overlooked, despite both calling for the destruction of the other.
That's the (arguably pedantic but logically sound) point I was trying to make.
It is not pedantic. It is deliberately blind. I've actually already answered that point, but I'll repeat myself: The no-retaliation option is not open to Israel, because:
A. Israel has tried it for over six years, with no positive outcome. It would be immoral to suggest Israel should continue to do something which does not work.
B. It is morally reprehensible for a government to abandon its citizens like that
You are merely suggesting that Israel do another reprehensible thing instead of that one.
I disagree with your statement that the no-retaliation option is not open to Israel, and neither of your stated reasons support that statement. They support a much weaker statement: that the no-retaliation option is not acceptable for Israel. However, I said as much myself, when I made explicit "however, that wouldn't be reasonable, and that's not expected of even the most selfless societies". The fact that such an option is not reasonable does not mean it is not possible.
Furthermore, I submit this as the second example of the double standard in your post. You claim that it Israel cannot abandon its violent struggle against Hamas (whether this is because this would not stop the violence or whether it is because they have a duty to their citizenry or whether for other reasons), but you deny these same sympathies to Hamas. Is it not true that despite abandoning violent resistance, the West Bank has no more sovereignty today than they did before they adopted a moderate stance, and so their policy didn't work? Consequently, would it not be immoral to suggest Hamas should do something which does not work? Is it not true that it would be reprehensible for Hamas to abandon its citizens' popular desire to resist Israel? Yo
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
This thread is becoming long, and the /. interface awkward to use for replies. As such, I'm trimming down the points of discussion. I believe your other points merit discussion, but I don't think this is the right venue for that discussion any more. If you wish to get an answer to your other points, feel free to contact me by mail.
In the context of the double standard (which is not the context of my original statement about Hamas' charter's relevance), this is a perfect example of the double standard, as described in my first post in this thread. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of [the state of] Israel. Israeli legislation calls for the destruction of Hamas. And yet here we have Hamas being demonized, and Israel's stance being overlooked, despite both calling for the destruction of the other.
Your reasoning makes no sense to me. In order to better understand it, please answer a hypothetical. Suppose a group was formed in the USA that calls for the armed overthrowing of the federal government, backed by actual acts of violence. Suppose the FBI declares the group illegal. Would you say the same reasoning applies, with the same conclusion, here? Would you say any attempt to portrait one side as right is a double standard?
If not, please explain what makes Hamas vs. Israel different, in your eyes. If you think the hypothetical lacks details that are needed for you to answer, please add the missing details that would drive you to claim the same double standard applies to this example.
The "retaliation" point, the "targeting" point, the "warnings" point, neither party is free of culpability here,
That is only true if we accept your interpretation of the facts as the only correct interpretation. I think even you will agree that what constitute "warning, "retaliation" and "targeting" is a highly disputed subject. Are you seriously claiming that yours is the only possible correct laying out of the facts?
--
Your points about proportionality, Hamas' charter, Israel's ability to not respond, Gaza vs. west bank sovereignty, and the cause of Hamas (imminent or not) existential threat are all points I disagree with. However, like I said before, I'm cutting them out of the discussion in this forum.
Thanks,
Shachar
In the context of the double standard (which is not the context of my original statement about Hamas' charter's relevance), this is a perfect example of the double standard, as described in my first post in this thread. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of [the state of] Israel. Israeli legislation calls for the destruction of Hamas. And yet here we have Hamas being demonized, and Israel's stance being overlooked, despite both calling for the destruction of the other.
Your reasoning makes no sense to me. In order to better understand it, please answer a hypothetical. Suppose a group was formed in the USA that calls for the armed overthrowing of the federal government, backed by actual acts of violence. Suppose the FBI declares the group illegal. Would you say the same reasoning applies, with the same conclusion, here? Would you say any attempt to portrait one side as right is a double standard? If not, please explain what makes Hamas vs. Israel different, in your eyes. If you think the hypothetical lacks details that are needed for you to answer, please add the missing details that would drive you to claim the same double standard applies to this example.
Yes, I would say the same reasoning applies, with the same conclusion. I would say that any attempt to portray one side as right, but not the other side, would be evidence of a double standard being applied. And rightfully so - the justification for this double standard is the fact that the FBI's authority is based in popular support in a democratic state, and presumably your hypothetical armed group's authority is not. There very much is one standard against which we evaluate agents of the state, and another against which we evaluate individuals that are not acting on behalf of the state, and to deny this is to deny reality. This is why we do not prosecute executioners for manslaughter.
That being said, sometimes there is justification for using two different standards for evaluating the actions of two different parties, as in the case of your hypothetical example, where the two parties really are qualitatively different in a way that can be articulated. Sometimes there is no justification, but two different standards are used anyway, wrongly. I've been arguing that it is plainly obvious that the actions of Israel and the actions of Hamas are evaluated against two different standards (in ways that I've explicitly noted). Now, it is possible that this double standard is justified (though I don't think so), but I haven't seen that argument raised.
The "retaliation" point, the "targeting" point, the "warnings" point, neither party is free of culpability here,
That is only true if we accept your interpretation of the facts as the only correct interpretation. I think even you will agree that what constitute "warning, "retaliation" and "targeting" is a highly disputed subject. Are you seriously claiming that yours is the only possible correct laying out of the facts?
Regarding the retaliation point, it is objectively factual that Israel has stated [some non-negligible proportion of] their attacks on Gaza are a response to their perception of Hamas' rocket/mortar fire, tunneling, or other hostile actions, and it is objectively factual that Hamas has stated [some non-negligible proportion of] their attacks on Israel are a response to their perception of Israel's continued exercise of de-facto sovereignty over historically non-Israeli territory.
Regarding the targeting point, it is objectively factual that Israel does not abstain from violence despite knowing its weapons lack the precision and accuracy to guarantee absence of collateral damage, and it is objectively factual that Hamas does not abstain from violence despite knowing its weapons lack the precision and accuracy to guarantee absence of collateral damage.
Regarding the warnings point, it is objectively factual that Israel drops leaflets war
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means....
Yes, I would say the same reasoning applies, with the same conclusion. I would say that any attempt to portray one side as right, but not the other side, would be evidence of a double standard being applied. And rightfully so - the justification for this double standard is the fact that the FBI's authority is based in popular support in a democratic state, and presumably your hypothetical armed group's authority is not.
You're using the term "double standard" in a way that might be technically correct, but is highly misleading. You are, essentially, trying to claim here that it might be okay to use a double standard. This runs counter to the way you employed the term throughout this thread, which had a distinctive negative connotation.
For an objective understanding of what I mean, please check out how the term is defined in Merriam Webster dictionary. Your use complies perfectly with the definition #2, but not with the simple definition, meant to give the gist of things. The term carries a negative connotation, and saying that a double standard would be rightfully employed here is simply a contradiction in this context.
Now, it is possible that this double standard is justified (though I don't think so), but I haven't seen that argument raised.
I'm going to guess that that is simply because none of the people reading what you said understand the term the way you mean it. Even if your use is technically correct, it's still not progressing the conversation.
Regarding the retaliation point, it is objectively factual that Israel has stated [some non-negligible proportion of] their attacks on Gaza are a response to their perception of Hamas' rocket/mortar fire, tunneling, or other hostile actions, and it is objectively factual that Hamas has stated [some non-negligible proportion of] their attacks on Israel are a response to their perception of Israel's continued exercise of de-facto sovereignty over historically non-Israeli territory.
So now the side's statements are enough to establish undisputed facts about their actions? Please show me the dictionary that supports that proposition.
Regarding the targeting point, it is objectively factual that Israel does not abstain from violence despite knowing its weapons lack the precision and accuracy to guarantee absence of collateral damage, and it is objectively factual that Hamas does not abstain from violence despite knowing its weapons lack the precision and accuracy to guarantee absence of collateral damage.
1. It is not undisputed that Hamas is not targeting civilians.
2. Surely, it is legitimate to consider a side's deliberate, as policy, use of its own citizens as shields when evaluating this point
3. Even assuming we ignore (as you seem to) the first two points, it is legitimate to evaluate willingness to pull the trigger of a weapon in the context of exactly how inaccurate it is.
All the above are legitimate reasons to use a single standard in order to deem one party's actions as justified and another as not while employing the same standard.
Regarding the warnings point, it is objectively factual that Israel drops leaflets warning people in Gaza of their intent to commit violence against their perceived enemies, and it is objectively factual that Hamas has explicitly included in its charter language warning people in Israel of their intent to commit violence against their perceived enemies.
Again, it is legitimate to consider the specificity and proximity in time of the warning to the action warned about when evaluating its applicability. You don't seem to, but claiming that this is the only valid interpretation is simply absurd.
Now, don't take any of what I just said a