Israeli troops admit murder and pillaging in Gaza

[Damian Mahadevan]

So, in your morality, it *is* OK for the martial arts master to beat up the punk's family and burn down his home, if he's not able to get at the punk himself?

Glad we got *that* straight.

What was the bit about turning the other cheek and loving your enemy again, by the way? Or was it some other religion than the one you're professing, perhaps?

They arent Christians though?

There's also something called a proportional response. To simplify that greatly, a proportional response would be if someone shoved me to the ground, I get up and shove him back; the non-proportional response (what Israel has done in the past) would be if I went and ran over his dog with a car. I agree Israel needed to do something about the rocket attacks as well as the kidnapping of their soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah (which led to the 2006 summer war). However, there were a good deal of experts who believed Israel's responses in both cases were *not* proportional. They eviscerated the civilian infrastructure in central/northern Lebanon to fight a threat that was primarily operating out of Southern Lebanon in the case of the 2006 Hezbollah war. In this conflict they pulverized Gaza for about a month (killing about 1300) to stop attacks that killed roughly a dozen of their own civilians.

Fair enough, they supposed to practise eye for an eye which is exactly what you are trying to say.

 

[Rithrandil]

Israel doesn't even recognize Hamas as a legitimate entity. If it doesn't exist, it can't be a signatory to any agreements whatsoever.

I'm glad to have you here, Rithrandil, by the way. Sometimes arguing this point has felt like an uphill battle, although I think there has been some kind of sea change in the atmosphere since 2006. It's a shame the prospects for peace have become ever more remote, though.

Thanks. It's a hard argument to make because you have to explain something without actually justifying it. And yeah, it's pretty depressing. Did you read/hear about the groups of Israeli teens and twentysomethings who are occupying villages on the West Bank? IDF and the police are afraid to go remove them because the teens are armed and have fired on Palestinians trying to get back into their houses.

 

[Prime Junta]

They arent Christians though?

Nope, but you say you are. No?

 

[magerette]

Wasn't it you who even posted the article of NYT ? How is that less prominent ?

Sorry to be so long getting around to responding to your point, Pladio. I'll do my best to explain.

Most Americans get their news from nightly news broadcasts or nationally published generic newspapers like "USA Today" which are available in all areas of the country. The NYT is a big name in local newspapers, but is actually(like most print media) close to going bankrupt and has mostly a dwindling readership in the New York City area, and is also a paper with a liberal slant so obviously has a targeted(smaller), not all inclusive, audience. I have no way of even knowing if this story is in the actual newspaper--blatantninja didn't see it there and he's in New York. I found it, after googling it and searching for it online, in their online edition.

I haven't seen any mention of it in my local newspaper, my local newscast or even on cable tv news yet. In fact, I haven't seen it anywhere but in the articles linked on this board, which I'm pretty sure doesn't provide a lot of news to the majority of Americans.

So it's not very prominent exposure compared to seeing reports of rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel, which is routinely reported on local newscasts in all parts of the country and gets national, not regional exposure, quite frequently.

I'm not sure what you meant by this.

I meant, if this story involved US soldiers admitting they had been encouraged by their commanding officers to fire on women and children, and to kill as many as possible, during Iraq or Afghanistan fighting, it would rightly make global headlines and generate a huge amount of negative comment in the world press. I'm not saying the US has any moral superiority in what they have done in Iraq, just that this type of approach to civilian casualties, if known, would deeply damage Obama's presidency, just as it did George Bush's. There's already a growing concern about the unmanned drones we're using on the Pakistan border and the associated civilian casualties. If they were to begin to approach the level of what happened in Gaza, there would(and should) be an outcry.

There's no real defense or justification for this type of incident, for any country, if you assume the rule of law. War is never as noble as people like to make it, but when there are no boundaries, no limitations to what the most powerful army can do to the weaker, you're regressing civilization back to the stone age.

Believe me, if the situations were reversed, and Israel was invaded by a hugely superior force that was so well supplied and protected that it sustained only ten casualties while killing 1300 civilians, destroying schools and hospitals and turning Tel Aviv to smoking rubble, I'd be just as condemnatory.

And sorry for the really long post--I'm not very good at being brief.

 

[Prime Junta]

Fair enough, they supposed to practise eye for an eye which is exactly what you are trying to say.

I should probably leave this to Pladio, but I believe that most Jews would find this characterization of Judaic ethics beyond offensive. It's certainly a far cry from what I've understood about it. It'd be sort of like saying that "kill them all, God will know His own" is what Christians are supposed to practice.

 

[Rithrandil]

Fair enough, they supposed to practise eye for an eye which is exactly what you are trying to say.

Kind of. It's part of international law which the Israelis supposedly subscribe to - I can show you exact wording and also the opinion of chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on what it means. I (and others) find it frustrating that they resorted to these tactics when they are capable of insanely complex covert operations. Long, probably boring example: In 1976 Air France Flight 139 was hijacked by four terrorists after taking off from Athens. The terrorists landed the plane at Entebbe, Uganda, where they were joined by four more terrorists and were supported by Ugandan troops, as Uganda was heavily pro-Palestinian.at this time Most of the non-Jews on the plane (the remainder mostly being the flight crew who refused to abandon their passengers) were released by the terrorists.

In response, Israel flew four C-130's over the red sea at an altitude of only 100 feet, through Somalia and Ethiopia, eventually landing at the airport where the hostages were being held in Uganda. In this operation they managed to kill all eight hijackers, forty-five Ugandan soldiers, and destroy eleven or twelve of the Ugandan's MiG's on the ground with the loss of only three civilians and one of their commandos.

I find it hard to believe that a military that could carry that out can't deter rocket attacks coming from Gaza without resorting to tactics that resulted in massive collateral damage.

 

[Pladio]

What? Israel completely occupied and settled Gaza and the West Bank for decades. I'm not excusing what Hamas does here, but you really need to read into the history of what actually happened. Both sides have done some really really bad things. And the vote for Hamas was more of a vote against Fatah than anything else. Besides, if you live in Gaza and you get sick, do you go to the government or private hospital? No, you go to the Hamas hospital. You send your kid to the Hamas school, and so on. Hamas provides most of the few social services these people have access to, so while Hamas may be a pretty brutal group of thugs, they're all the Palestinians have.

Actually Israel hosts some hospital services for Gazans.

There's also something called a proportional response. To simplify that greatly, a proportional response would be if someone shoved me to the ground, I get up and shove him back; the non-proportional response (what Israel has done in the past) would be if I went and ran over his dog with a car. I agree Israel needed to do something about the rocket attacks as well as the kidnapping of their soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah (which led to the 2006 summer war). However, there were a good deal of experts who believed Israel's responses in both cases were *not* proportional. They eviscerated the civilian infrastructure in central/northern Lebanon to fight a threat that was primarily operating out of Southern Lebanon in the case of the 2006 Hezbollah war. In this conflict they pulverized Gaza for about a month (killing about 1300) to stop attacks that killed roughly a dozen of their own civilians.

Proportion doesn't play a role in war. That's also part of the asymmetrical warfare going on.

You can't give the Israelis a free pass on this one. They're seeing the logical consequences of actions of the past 50 years. Just hope this problem is solved soon, there is increasing evidence that the youth of Israel (as well as that of the Palestinians) are becoming even more radical than their parents are.

Unfortunately, a conflict like this can last for centuries...

 

[Pladio]

Sorry to be so long getting around to responding to your point, Pladio. I'll do my best to explain.

Most Americans get their news from nightly news broadcasts or nationally published generic newspapers like "USA Today" which are available in all areas of the country. The NYT is a big name in local newspapers, but is actually(like most print media) close to going bankrupt and has mostly a dwindling readership in the New York City area, and is also a paper with a liberal slant so obviously has a targeted(smaller), not all inclusive, audience. I have no way of even knowing if this story is in the actual newspaper--blatantninja didn't see it there and he's in New York. I found it, after googling it and searching for it online, in their online edition.

I haven't seen any mention of it in my local newspaper, my local newscast or even on cable tv news yet. In fact, I haven't seen it anywhere but in the articles linked on this board, which I'm pretty sure doesn't provide a lot of news to the majority of Americans.

So it's not very prominent exposure compared to seeing reports of rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel, which is routinely reported on local newscasts in all parts of the country and gets national, not regional exposure, quite frequently.

I'm sure you're talking about FOX and those kind of networks.

Well, I'm getting most of my news online and mostly from Yahoo or here and sometimes a few other places, but I saw this article on Yahoo's mai page the day it happened so I don't know if it's the same everywhere.
By the way I go on the US version of Yahoo, so if it was on the front page there, I'm sure it was on other online websites front page.

I meant, if this story involved US soldiers admitting they had been encouraged by their commanding officers to fire on women and children, and to kill as many as possible, during Iraq or Afghanistan fighting, it would rightly make global headlines and generate a huge amount of negative comment in the world press. I'm not saying the US has any moral superiority in what they have done in Iraq, just that this type of approach to civilian casualties, if known, would deeply damage Obama's presidency, just as it did George Bush's. There's already a growing concern about the unmanned drones we're using on the Pakistan border and the associated civilian casualties. If they were to begin to approach the level of what happened in Gaza, there would(and should) be an outcry.

There's no real defense or justification for this type of incident, for any country, if you assume the rule of law. War is never as noble as people like to make it, but when there are no boundaries, no limitations to what the most powerful army can do to the weaker, you're regressing civilization back to the stone age.

Believe me, if the situations were reversed, and Israel was invaded by a hugely superior force that was so well supplied and protected that it sustained only ten casualties while killing 1300 civilians, destroying schools and hospitals and turning Tel Aviv to smoking rubble, I'd be just as condemnatory.

And sorry for the really long post--I'm not very good at being brief.

I completely agree with you. The points I'm trying to make are that we don't see any of Hamas' bad things anymore thanks to the wall and checkpoints and other things that are very bad for the Palestinian people, but they DID have a positive effect on the Israeli population.

It all seems to be just a blur in the past, but the constant suicide bombs in nightclubs, buses and other places were nightmares for the Israeli people. People seem to forget that Hamas was a major player in those.

To get back to this topic's point however. I completely agree that these killings should come to light and full and proper investigations should start and that the people responsible should get trialled and/or court-marshalled.

 

[Pladio]

I should probably leave this to Pladio, but I believe that most Jews would find this characterization of Judaic ethics beyond offensive. It's certainly a far cry from what I've understood about it. It'd be sort of like saying that "kill them all, God will know His own" is what Christians are supposed to practice.

I have a hard time talking to him after all he's posted here and if I do start ranting about he'll say he can't read too much I think, so you can have a go.

I would suggest though to read chabad's Judaism 101 on their website to get at least a basic overview of it even if only an orthodox point of view.
www.chabad.org

Their website is very extensive and some of their articles are really good. Of course, I don't agree nor follow all of it.

 

[Pladio]

Kind of. It's part of international law which the Israelis supposedly subscribe to - I can show you exact wording and also the opinion of chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on what it means. I (and others) find it frustrating that they resorted to these tactics when they are capable of insanely complex covert operations. Long, probably boring example: In 1976 Air France Flight 139 was hijacked by four terrorists after taking off from Athens. The terrorists landed the plane at Entebbe, Uganda, where they were joined by four more terrorists and were supported by Ugandan troops, as Uganda was heavily pro-Palestinian.at this time Most of the non-Jews on the plane (the remainder mostly being the flight crew who refused to abandon their passengers) were released by the terrorists.

In response, Israel flew four C-130's over the red sea at an altitude of only 100 feet, through Somalia and Ethiopia, eventually landing at the airport where the hostages were being held in Uganda. In this operation they managed to kill all eight hijackers, forty-five Ugandan soldiers, and destroy eleven or twelve of the Ugandan's MiG's on the ground with the loss of only three civilians and one of their commandos.

I find it hard to believe that a military that could carry that out can't deter rocket attacks coming from Gaza without resorting to tactics that resulted in massive collateral damage.

Because it's a completely different situation, they can't.
Infiltration isn't as easy as flying a plane and killing just a few terrorists.
Killing just one head of the hydra in Gaza will spawn several others, so resorting to assassinations as they have done in the past is not an option, or less so. Killing just terrorists is not possible since terrorists don't wear military uniforms most of the time. Destroying tunnels on Egypt's borders would be very hard without aerial assaults and destroying weapon caches hidden everywhere in Gaza would be IMPOSSIBLE without collateral damage.

 

[Rithrandil]

Actually Israel hosts some hospital services for Gazans.

They definitely do. Hamas has provided the lion's share for a long while, though, which is one of the reasons why the populace has been supportive of them through so much.

Proportion doesn't play a role in war. That's also part of the asymmetrical warfare going on.

I'll have to disagree with you here. Proportionality is a legal concept found in the jus in bello (laws of war) agreements such as the Geneva Conventions as well as other humanitarian treaties. There's an acceptable amount of force and colateral damage that is acceptable in achieving a military objective. More info in spoiler tags since it's pretty long.

Spoiler

First, this information is pretty well presented in a letter from Luis Moreno-Ocampo (the Chief Prosecutor at the ICC) located here: http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyre...letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf.

This is what Article 52 of the Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention says about a military objective : ""In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage"

Moreno-Ocampo then says in his letter (page 5):

"International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b)."

The U.S. and Israel are not signatories to the Rome Statute and international law is still developing, but proportionality does apply to wars. You don't napalm a neighborhood because a sniper took out a soldier from a second story window, that sort of thing. Your goal is to do the least amount of damage to civilian life and property as possible. Asymmetrical warfare makes this harder but doesn't negate the concept.

Unfortunately, a conflict like this can last for centuries...

No arguments here. Hopefully they'll reach an agreement sooner rather then later.

 

[Rithrandil]

Because it's a completely different situation, they can't.
Infiltration isn't as easy as flying a plane and killing just a few terrorists.
Killing just one head of the hydra in Gaza will spawn several others, so resorting to assassinations as they have done in the past is not an option, or less so. Killing just terrorists is not possible since terrorists don't wear military uniforms most of the time. Destroying tunnels on Egypt's borders would be very hard without aerial assaults and destroying weapon caches hidden everywhere in Gaza would be IMPOSSIBLE without collateral damage.

And killing 1,300-odd civilians fills the ranks of extremist groups quite nicely. I'm not saying they can do this bloodlessly and not take out any civilians, I'm saying what they're doing goes above and beyond what they need to. During the last conflict there were fourteen Israeli deaths and around 1,200 or 1,300 Palestinian deaths (the majority of them civilian) depending on whose numbers you use. I think achieving a 100-to-1 kill ratio is...pretty extreme.

 

[Pladio]

They definitely do. Hamas has provided the lion's share for a long while, though, which is one of the reasons why the populace has been supportive of them through so much.

Yeah and the fact that Fatah lived in gigantic mansions and they lived in favella type structures.

I'll have to disagree with you here. Proportionality is a legal concept found in the jus in bello (laws of war) agreements such as the Geneva Conventions as well as other humanitarian treaties. There's an acceptable amount of force and colateral damage that is acceptable in achieving a military objective. More info in spoiler tags since it's pretty long.

Spoiler

First, this information is pretty well presented in a letter from Luis Moreno-Ocampo (the Chief Prosecutor at the ICC) located here: http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyre...letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf.

This is what Article 52 of the Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention says about a military objective : ""In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage"

Moreno-Ocampo then says in his letter (page 5):

The U.S. and Israel are not signatories to the Rome Statute and international law is still developing, but proportionality does apply to wars. You don't napalm a neighborhood because a sniper took out a soldier from a second story window, that sort of thing. Your goal is to do the least amount of damage to civilian life and property as possible. Asymmetrical warfare makes this harder but doesn't negate the concept.

I agree with your ideal way of thinking, except that it doesn't happen this way.
See Fallujah, Twin Towers, Almost every war...

We've already established quite a few times on these forums that signers of the Geneva Convention don't really follow it and that quite a fair share of it has been disregarded completely by some countries.

No arguments here. Hopefully they'll reach an agreement sooner rather then later.

Yup

 

[Rithrandil]

Yeah and the fact that Fatah lived in gigantic mansions and they lived in favella type structures.

Heh. Oh so very, very true.

I agree with your ideal way of thinking, except that it doesn't happen this way.
See Fallujah, Twin Towers, Almost every war...

We've already established quite a few times on these forums that signers of the Geneva Convention don't really follow it and that quite a fair share of it has been disregarded completely by some countries.

I think we're pretty much in agreement, then. I brought up proportionality because the IDF is ignoring it at their own peril, which is why they're catching a lot of flak for their actions. The legality or illegality of what they are doing is somewhat secondary to me, I'm mainly concerned with it in terms of military doctrine and efficacy. What they're doing right now is pretty contrary to how you win a war of this nature.

And yeah, I think it would take about five minutes and access to Google to build a pretty solid war crimes case against most signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately war crimes legislation only really matters if you're the loser.

When it comes to war/international relations/what have you I'm pretty much in line with Hobbes or Thucydides. Realism all the way!

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Nope, but you say you are. No?

Yes, i dont expect non christians to behave in a christian way. It is a sacrificial way of living or atleast it is supposed to be.

 

[Prime Junta]

Yes, i dont expect non christians to behave in a christian way. It is a sacrificial way of living or atleast it is supposed to be.

But that's not the point. You were saying that you believe that the Israelis are perfectly justified in doing what they're doing because the Palestinians are doing what *they're* doing. You were speaking from *your* ethics, not cultural relativism.

If you were speaking from a relativistic POV, you would have said something like "I understand why the Israelis are doing what they're doing, even though I don't approve of it." (Which, incidentally, is my position on the matter.)

And you're not doing a very good job of weaseling out of your statement either.

 

[Remus]

The news reportings on Israel and Palestinian in Malaysia, as far as my remember back to 1980s (when i am in secondary school and aware about political issues) were clearly sided with the Palestinian. This especially true for any news regarding Israel in Malay newspapers as all Malays are Muslim (Islam became one of the required element when defining the ethnic, as well as country law which specifically mentioned Islam as a compulsory religion for them and it's an offense for other peoples trying to convert them).

Because of how the news been presented, and how the teachers in school pretty much saying all Israelis are the devil - for a while i truely believe that even though i'm Chinese and not a muslim. Only when in university, i found that the issue was far more complex than whatever i believed before. For many years now i basically think whoever involved in this whole mess should be serious spanked for all the bloodshed, idiocy, prejudice, racism, and the whole political and religious radicalism in the region.

Probably that's why i thought the story in "You Don't Mess with the Zohan" was particularly funnier than it would...

 

[Pladio]

@Rithrandil: I think we're mostly in agreement even though I'm probably more pro-Israeli than you are.

Don't know anything about Hobbes or Thucydides unfortunately.
This world is littered with literature and I'm sure I'm not even at the tip of the iceberg, especially since I don't read many books.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

But that's not the point. You were saying that you believe that the Israelis are perfectly justified in doing what they're doing because the Palestinians are doing what *they're* doing. You were speaking from *your* ethics, not cultural relativism.

If you were speaking from a relativistic POV, you would have said something like "I understand why the Israelis are doing what they're doing, even though I don't approve of it." (Which, incidentally, is my position on the matter.)

And you're not doing a very good job of weaseling out of your statement either.

I was saying they are justified from a world perspective. But not from a christian perspective. Do i have to clarify everything i say with "I think"? I think that is implied with everything we post anyway in this thread. I would never hurt anyone now even if they killed my family, i would still forgive them. If i was talking my ethics you would see my posts littered with God in them. I ddint want to bring religion into this debate.

 

[Prime Junta]

I was saying they are justified from a world perspective. But not from a christian perspective.

Interesting, I wouldn't have taken you for a moral relativist.

Do i have to clarify everything i say with "I think"? I think that is implied with everything we post anyway in this thread. I would never hurt anyone now even if they killed my family, i would still forgive them. If i was talking my ethics you would see my posts littered with God in them. I ddint want to bring religion into this debate.

No, the "I think" was implicit. That's precisely why I called you out on this point. When discussing ethics, "I think" is synonymous with "According to my code of ethics." Since I (correctly, apparently) assumed the implicit "I think," I assumed that you were arguing from your ethics.

But if you believe that what's right for some people is wrong for others and vice versa, that's a whole different matter.

Of course, if you follow that logic and intend to remain consistent, you'll have to accept that attacking civilians is also right, since it follows from the ethical framework Hamas is following.