I've snipped all the definitions that are only related to South Africa, and I'm sure we agree those are irrelevant here.
Your accusations include controlling borders and movement (called "a siege", not racial segregation), building settlements (not racial segregation) and opposing a Palestinian state (negotiation stance, not racial segregation) while not giving full citizens rights (occupation, not racial segregation). The only accusation that has any racial segregation tint to it is the separate roads claim.
To see whether this is a result of racial segregation or not, I suggest we have to consider two questions: 1. Is the separation based on race, or on other criteria? 2. Is there any other reason, beside racial, for this separations?
I'll start with the second question. Israel claims that the separate roads are due to security concerns, and not due to racial reasons. Do you have anything to counter that claim?
The first one is even simpler to disprove. Are Palestinians who ARE Israeli citizens also segregated? The answer is a resounding "no". The law prohibits discrimination based on religion and race, and there are Israeli Arabs in the Knesset, in the government, as judges in court (including in the supreme court, including presiding over cases where the defendants are a former prime minister and a former president), as doctors, including managing divisions where the other doctors are Jewish, etc.
Given all that, the only way you can say that Israel is an apartheid state is if you ignore the facts AND what apartheid actually means.
And precise meaning is important. Apartheid was a policy enacted by South Africa where whites would keep blacks away from white's lives. It carries an appalling association to any moral human being who cares about equality. The Palestinian propaganda is bastardizing this term to mean "whatever it is that Israel is doing", because they want you to carry those sentiments, rightly associated with apartheid, and associate them with Israel.
If you claim that Israel is a racist country by the mere fact that it is a Jewish state, you are doing exactly that: denying Jews the right of self-determination.
I would like to hear the details in that argument - I don't see how criticising the state of Israel for allowing illegal settlements (not to mention actively building them) or practising what looks increasingly like apartheid means that you are calling Israel racist by "the mere fact that it is a Jewish state", or how that logically leads to the conclusion that Jews have no right to self-determination. I am willing to let you convince me - with logical arguments, please,
It's one thing to say "Israel should not build settlements over the green line". That is legitimate criticism (one, BTW, I share). It would have been a legitimate criticism to accuse Israel of operating an apartheid regime, had that accusation not been based on completely and utterly incorrect facts, and the people making that accusation usually being unwilling to discuss those base assumptions, often redefining what "racism" and "apartheid" mean. Personally, I see neither of those basis of criticism as inherently antisemitic (though the second one is definitely flawed). Neither of those, however, are critical of Israel "by the mere fact that it is a Jewish state", which is what I was referring to.
You do hear people claiming that the state of Israel is inherently racist, not necessarily because of anything it does, but by merely declaring itself as a Jewish state. That claim is actually claiming that Jews are not entitled to self determination, as any state via which the Jews realize their self determination is going to be a Jewish state.
If you claim that Israel is a racist country by the mere fact that it is a Jewish state, you are doing exactly that: denying Jews the right of self-determination.
If you are repeating Holocaust deniers' false "historical" claims, you are either painfully uninformed, or doing so on purpose.
Both of those have nothing to do with criticizing Israel.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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....
Wow, Active Desktop. Enabled by default in...windows 98? 98SE?
IE4 for Windows 95.
I was working with a company that had OEM products for computer manufacturers. I was in NEC's offices, trying to help integrate this ball of manure, when IE4 release candidate came out. I installed it, and immediately started calling it "IE4 RC1". I simply couldn't believe they will ship it like that.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Something else that worries me with this is that the reason drivers slow down is probably that they need to concentrate more. This means that driving has now become more tiring, reducing over all safety.
In that sense, I would put forth that the violence on both sides is irrelevent and a distraction from the real problems of housing, job security, and opportunities for the young people.
At long last, an anti-Israeli sentiment that I do, actually, agree with.
So what's next? How do you improve the Palestinian housing, job security and opportunities, when any Dollar you put into the area goes into corrupt officials pockets? How do you give them opportunities, when Hammas will use those employment opportunities in order to carry out attacks?
Do you know that Hammas has viewed, up until not long ago (possibly still), the Palestinian poverty as an advantage? They're afraid that if the Palestinian standard of living increases, that the support they get will dwindle.
I'm not saying there's nothing Israel can do. I'm also happy to say that this point it finally getting more attention in Israel. Still, the Palestinian have had a lot of control over their own situation, for quite a lot of time now, and have, with the exception of Salam Fiad's short tenure as PM in the west bank, failed to use it to improve things.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, from the fact we moved on to other issues, I take it I've convinced you on the "antisemitism" claim.
That looks pretty close to apartheid to me.
Apartheid: racial segregation
I've snipped all the definitions that are only related to South Africa, and I'm sure we agree those are irrelevant here.
Your accusations include controlling borders and movement (called "a siege", not racial segregation), building settlements (not racial segregation) and opposing a Palestinian state (negotiation stance, not racial segregation) while not giving full citizens rights (occupation, not racial segregation). The only accusation that has any racial segregation tint to it is the separate roads claim.
To see whether this is a result of racial segregation or not, I suggest we have to consider two questions:
1. Is the separation based on race, or on other criteria?
2. Is there any other reason, beside racial, for this separations?
I'll start with the second question. Israel claims that the separate roads are due to security concerns, and not due to racial reasons. Do you have anything to counter that claim?
The first one is even simpler to disprove. Are Palestinians who ARE Israeli citizens also segregated? The answer is a resounding "no". The law prohibits discrimination based on religion and race, and there are Israeli Arabs in the Knesset, in the government, as judges in court (including in the supreme court, including presiding over cases where the defendants are a former prime minister and a former president), as doctors, including managing divisions where the other doctors are Jewish, etc.
Given all that, the only way you can say that Israel is an apartheid state is if you ignore the facts AND what apartheid actually means.
And precise meaning is important. Apartheid was a policy enacted by South Africa where whites would keep blacks away from white's lives. It carries an appalling association to any moral human being who cares about equality. The Palestinian propaganda is bastardizing this term to mean "whatever it is that Israel is doing", because they want you to carry those sentiments, rightly associated with apartheid, and associate them with Israel.
Shachar
If you claim that Israel is a racist country by the mere fact that it is a Jewish state, you are doing exactly that: denying Jews the right of self-determination.
I would like to hear the details in that argument - I don't see how criticising the state of Israel for allowing illegal settlements (not to mention actively building them) or practising what looks increasingly like apartheid means that you are calling Israel racist by "the mere fact that it is a Jewish state", or how that logically leads to the conclusion that Jews have no right to self-determination. I am willing to let you convince me - with logical arguments, please,
It's one thing to say "Israel should not build settlements over the green line". That is legitimate criticism (one, BTW, I share). It would have been a legitimate criticism to accuse Israel of operating an apartheid regime, had that accusation not been based on completely and utterly incorrect facts, and the people making that accusation usually being unwilling to discuss those base assumptions, often redefining what "racism" and "apartheid" mean. Personally, I see neither of those basis of criticism as inherently antisemitic (though the second one is definitely flawed). Neither of those, however, are critical of Israel "by the mere fact that it is a Jewish state", which is what I was referring to.
You do hear people claiming that the state of Israel is inherently racist, not necessarily because of anything it does, but by merely declaring itself as a Jewish state. That claim is actually claiming that Jews are not entitled to self determination, as any state via which the Jews realize their self determination is going to be a Jewish state.
Shachar
If you claim that Israel is a racist country by the mere fact that it is a Jewish state, you are doing exactly that: denying Jews the right of self-determination.
If you are repeating Holocaust deniers' false "historical" claims, you are either painfully uninformed, or doing so on purpose.
Both of those have nothing to do with criticizing Israel.
Shachar
After a prime ending in 2 or 5, there has to be at least a billion primes before another one can end in 2 or 5.
Shachar
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
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
Or, to make things simpler, just "390 megawatts"?
Shachar
Shouldn't that be "3,420 gigawatt*hour per year", or "3,420 gigawatt*hour/yr"?
Shachar
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
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
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
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....
Wow, Active Desktop. Enabled by default in ...windows 98? 98SE?
IE4 for Windows 95.
I was working with a company that had OEM products for computer manufacturers. I was in NEC's offices, trying to help integrate this ball of manure, when IE4 release candidate came out. I installed it, and immediately started calling it "IE4 RC1". I simply couldn't believe they will ship it like that.
Well, <spoiler>they did</spoiler>.
Worst MS software release until Windows ME.
Shachar
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
At least put a link so reasonably young people know what you're talking about.
Though, I have to admit, the main thing that crossed my mind when I read your comment was "where did I put mine"?
Shachar
Something else that worries me with this is that the reason drivers slow down is probably that they need to concentrate more. This means that driving has now become more tiring, reducing over all safety.
Shachar
In that sense, I would put forth that the violence on both sides is irrelevent and a distraction from the real problems of housing, job security, and opportunities for the young people.
At long last, an anti-Israeli sentiment that I do, actually, agree with.
So what's next? How do you improve the Palestinian housing, job security and opportunities, when any Dollar you put into the area goes into corrupt officials pockets? How do you give them opportunities, when Hammas will use those employment opportunities in order to carry out attacks?
Do you know that Hammas has viewed, up until not long ago (possibly still), the Palestinian poverty as an advantage? They're afraid that if the Palestinian standard of living increases, that the support they get will dwindle.
I'm not saying there's nothing Israel can do. I'm also happy to say that this point it finally getting more attention in Israel. Still, the Palestinian have had a lot of control over their own situation, for quite a lot of time now, and have, with the exception of Salam Fiad's short tenure as PM in the west bank, failed to use it to improve things.
Shachar