[karajorma]

I have news - if the military wing of the pIRA or its off-shoots starting lobbing rockets toward London, despite all the **** that the UK and its designates and the republican forces in that region have done to each other since circa 1600 which give equal blame to both sides for creating 400-year-old grievances, there is no way that any of you would be saying the republicans are in the right to toss rockets toward civilian population centers and the UK should just put up with it and negotiate.

Neither would I say that the proportional response would be one that kills scores of innocent people who had nothing to do with the conflict. Your response is basically the same as saying "There was nothing wrong with Bloody Sunday"
 Israel has faced numerous criticisms that their idea of a "Proportional Response" doesn't do enough to prevent civilian casualties. So while I wouldn't say that they can't defend themselves, they've got a proven track record of going way too far when trying to do so. Excuse me if I find it hard to believe that this conflict won't be more of the same.

Historical arguments are nice when it comes to philosophical discussion

Historical arguments are relevant when you see someone doing the same thing again that has made the conflict worse every single time they did it. There is a certain point where you have to question someone's ability to learn from their mistakes.

So in your mind, [summary execution of your citizens, harassment of women for refusal to follow religious policy, unlawful detention of female journalists, unprovoked targeted attacks on civilians (including residential areas) in a foreign country, and use of radical sharia law to suppress your citizenry] is morally and ethically equal to [defends its right to exist, carries out strikes on military members organizing attacks on its civilian citizenry, defends itself from rocket strikes]?

And by supporting Israel, you lose the support of anyone in Palestine who is against this agenda.

The only moral choice is to not support either because both sides are being run by some pretty evil examples of humanity. Shielding Israel from the consequences of its actions by supporting it has done nothing to end this conflict and it never will.

[Scotty]

Refusing to support or condemn either any more than the other sets them on a level moral playing field; you are declaring that neither is worse than the other and that both are as good as the other.

I'm fairly certain that's not a particularly moral choice, considering what Hamas manages to do all day every day.

[karajorma]

I'm not going to say there isn't a lesser of two evils. Simply that I support neither side.

The West's habit of continually supporting the lesser of two evils is what has resulted in this mess. Israel knows it has impunity to do whatever it likes because someone will simply point out that Hamas are worse. So as long as they're careful not to do anything quite as bad they can continue to get away with all the **** they get away with.

I'll give you an example, name one other theocracy which anyone defends? 

[Scotty]

Great Britain?

The sovreign power of the royal monarch comes directly from God in the British government.

Unless, that is, you wanted to talk about functional theocracies, in which case I'd remove Israel from that list as well, in all honesty.  EDIT: by which I mean the Israeli government isn't motivated by religion nearly as much as it is by ethnicity.  The Jews are both, you know, and I daresay their religion doesn't come very close to their government except in passing.

[karajorma]

So institutional racism instead of discrimination based on religion is fine?

 But you're wrong anyway. There are lots of very good examples of laws favouring Jews. And plenty of examples of people who are of Jewish ethnicity but not the religion getting a rough ride. Hell, Sandwich himself has posted examples.

[MP-Ryan]

Neither would I say that the proportional response would be one that kills scores of innocent people who had nothing to do with the conflict. Your response is basically the same as saying "There was nothing wrong with Bloody Sunday"
 Israel has faced numerous criticisms that their idea of a "Proportional Response" doesn't do enough to prevent civilian casualties. So while I wouldn't say that they can't defend themselves, they've got a proven track record of going way too far when trying to do so. Excuse me if I find it hard to believe that this conflict won't be more of the same.

You're not wrong, but as I pointed out to Aardwolf, what's the better response?  If Hamas lobbing rockets into Israel is unacceptable (and it is), then how should Israel respond?  Tactical airstrikes carry no risk to Israeli forces but higher risk to civilians because Hamas places their rockets in civilian centers.  Ground incursion will result in higher bloodshed on both sides, but particularly among Gazan 'civilians' as they have a nasty tendency of hurling rocks at tanks and troops.  Special forces limit civilian casualties, but would still be dropped into the middle of a zone containing civilians which gurana-frickin-teed Hamas will use as human shields because that's what they do and it poses a high risk to the Israelis.  Given that Israel does not want to lose their own people and wants to limit potential civilian casaulties, air strikes are the preferred option.  The fact that Hamas puts targets they know are going to get hit by airstrikes in civilian-dense zones is something observers should be criticizing Hamas for, not Israel.  If Hamas wasn't lobbing rockets, there would be no Israeli airstrikes.  The fundamental reason there are weapons landing from israel in Gaza right now is because Hamas likes to lob rockets into Israel.  That stops, so do the airstrikes.  If Hamas gave one single **** about their civilians (and they clearly do not, see reference to summary executions) they would either stop firing the rockets OR relocate them to zones where civilians would not be put at risk.  Israel has an obligation to limit civilian casualties as far as is possible.  Now, I'll agree they can probably do more, but the fundamental reason they are even killing civilians right now is entirely preventable by Hamas.

Historical arguments are relevant when you see someone doing the same thing again that has made the conflict worse every single time they did it. There is a certain point where you have to question someone's ability to learn from their mistakes.

This applies more to Hamas than Israel.  Keep in mind whose violent actions are the source of the current mess.  That would be rocket attacks from Gaza.

And by supporting Israel, you lose the support of anyone in Palestine who is against this agenda.

The only moral choice is to not support either because both sides are being run by some pretty evil examples of humanity. Shielding Israel from the consequences of its actions by supporting it has done nothing to end this conflict and it never will.

Wrong.  It is possible to side with Israel against Hamas and still recognize that the Palestinian territories have legitimate grievances against Israel; however, the side that perpetuates the violence and could put an end to it tomorrow (i.e. Gaza quits firing rockets) is the one deserving moral condemnation in the meantime.  I am not proposing Israel be shielded from consequence; I am suggesting that Hamas is a terrorist organization that is responsible for all the deaths directly or indirectly in this current conflict and therefore should not be considered the moral equivalent of a free and democratic nation like Israel.

I'm not saying Palestinians are in the wrong and Israelis are in the right; I'm saying that if we are considering the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government, there should not be a moral equiavlency in anyone's mind.  Hamas is composed of fundamentalist violent fanatics bent on the destruction of an entire nation and the Islamization and suppression of rights in their own populace; Israel's government is hard-line but democratically elected by a variety of people belonging to multiple religions and cultural groups.

[Scotty]

So institutional racism instead of discrimination based on religion is fine?

You challenged, I responded.  If you want to move the goalposts after that, it's your perogative.

[karajorma]

Actually I pointed out you were also wrong about the original subject too.

I'm not saying Palestinians are in the wrong and Israelis are in the right; I'm saying that if we are considering the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government, there should not be a moral equiavlency in anyone's mind.  Hamas is composed of fundamentalist violent fanatics bent on the destruction of an entire nation and the Islamization and suppression of rights in their own populace; Israel's government is hard-line but democratically elected by a variety of people belonging to multiple religions and cultural groups.

Who is saying there is a moral equivalency? I've repeatedly stated that the Israeli leadership is the lesser of two evils. But that they are still evil. And they continually get what basically amounts to a blank check from large portions of the world to continue.

I'll further point out that I hold Israel to a higher standard precisely because they have the advantages of education and access to information that people living in Gaza do not have.

Now, I'll agree they can probably do more

And that's the fundamental issue. They could do more to limit civilian casualties. But they don't.

Sure Hamas could too, but two wrongs do not make a right. You continually point out that Hamas are terrorist organisation and not a legitimate democratic government. Given that, how do the Palestinian civilians who are killed by Israeli fire bear any moral responsibility for what happens to them?

On the other hand, how do Israeli citizens, who have elected increasingly hawkish leaders, not bear the moral responsibility for the outcome of their actions?

In the end you have a bunch of very evil people leading a bunch of very ignorant people in a struggle against a not quite as evil bunch of people leading a bunch of people who really should know better. I can't see any good reason to support either side since neither side really shows any interest in stopping.

[Sandwich]

Sorry for the mega-post, but y'all kept on posting some really great stuff while I was away. I'm proud of you all for keeping it civil and impersonal.

The continuous barrage of rockets that Hamas has been launching at civilian areas is just ridiculous, and Israel has every right to defend its citizenry from that.  But then you know that taking out a Hamas commander was going to provoke a huge reaction, because that's what always happens, and it's like...was that really the best move here?  Or was there any good move at all?

We've had daily rocket launches on our southern towns (Note: these are not in disputed areas such as West Bank settlements or the like!) since 2006. An entire generation of kids well-versed with what they can accomplish in 15 seconds. The potential huge reaction was not the driving force behind our motives. The 6 years of civilians under bombardment was.

If there's a solution, it starts with the end of the Gaza blockade and the various other **** that the Israelis are always doing in Palestine. It's a lot harder to maintain a militant hatred of Israel if they aren't directly responsible for your nation's pereptually ****ed economy, and you're going to be a lot less willign to martyr yourself if you've got the kind of life that's worth living (i.e. not in constant poverty).

I agree that intentional, perpetual poverty absolutely sucks and is horrific. Read up on the corruption of the PA, diverting internationally-donated funds to Gaza from basic humanitarian needs to its own, often terrorism-related purposes. Then run the tape forward to the democratic election of the Hamas terrorist organization / political entity in Gaza by Gazans. Of course they elected Hamas - the PA kept them in poverty. But then what does the new Hamas government funnel the funds towards? Daily rocket bombardments and educating their own children in the ways of hatred and homicidal suicide "martyrdom".

I would love to see a Palestinian entity that did not hate, attack, and intend to annihilate us. I have a few Arab friends and acquaintances (both Christian and Muslim Arabs, all of whom grew up under Israeli rule), and the fact that they have not been raised in an attitude of hatred towards the Jews means that we are friends - it's not hypothetical, and it can happen.

I agree that **** like continuing settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is patently ridiculous, and I have little to no respect for Netanyahu in general because of his advocating policies like that.  (I guess what I'm really interested in is what the general opinion of him is at home.)

Generally the public likes him.

Also, settlements are not the real issue, just a scapegoat. They have been taken out of the equation a number of times (offhand, the 9(+?) month settlement freeze from a few years back, and the complete Gaza withdrawal in 2006), with no change in the terrorist attacks.

One side is simply going to have to "win" some day. There is no other realistic alternative.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. In WWII, the Allies did not stop the fighting until the Nazi regime had been obliterated in a decisive and total victory. The Allies did not just win all the battles and stop - they won the war. Israel, in all the wars waged against her since 1948, has always stopped at winning all the battles. We've never gone on to completely win the war. We don't want to conquer our neighbors. We want our neighbors to stop trying to conquer (or terrorize) us.

A question for Sandwich (and I mean this as an honest question, because I'm not following Israel's domestic politics myself): did any politician ever consider trying to be the good guys? Sending aid to Palestine, instead of live ammunition? Would the idea have any chance of catching on?

You mean like this?

Last week (October 28-November 3), 919 trucks carrying 26,142 tons of goods entered the Gaza Strip from Israel through land crossings. The delivered goods included 336 truckloads of construction materials.

@MP-Ryan: it wasn't "drive-by posting to stir the pot", it was a direct response to your use of the phrase "right to defend itself", which is not what they're doing. What they are doing is disproportionate retaliation. Even moreso now that this Iron Dome is shooting down virtually all of the incoming rockets.

Disproportionate by what measure, the number of civilians killed? This is often the metric the world looks at, despite being an utterly nonsensical comparison. One one hand, you have Hamas, which takes advantage of this fascination with body counts by using their own people as human shields - launching rockets from populated areas, knowing that Israel's reactionary targeting of the launchers will cause civilian deaths, which they can make use of in the world media to further their cause in world opinion. On the other hand, Israel has bomb shelters in virtually every building - if not every apartment - built in the last few decades, thus minimizing Israeli casualties, as well as the Iron Dome system now, intercepting 85% (I think?) of incoming rockets. And when you consider that Israel has superior weaponry targeting systems vs the Hamas' (apparent?) "point the rocket in the general direction and fire" method, then of course there are going to be more deaths on the Palestinian side than the Israeli side. So as I stated, this metric is an utterly nonsensical metric to choose for comparison.

Disproportionate by years of daily rocket bombardment targeted at civilians, which followed decades of suicide bombings (also targeting civilians)? Damn right it's disproportionate - our response has yet to become anything near what they've sent our way.

If moderate Palestinians would start actively fighting Hamas (or if they already do that, do something noticeable), the situation could improve somewhat. They're not legitimate authority of any kind, they're a bunch of terrorists.

Um, Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza, and thus are the only "legitimate" authority in Gaza, as well as being a terrorist organization. The Palestinian Authority educated their children in the ways of jihad, martyrdom, and hatred, and then got themselves kicked out of office for those who were even more extreme.

Israel has faced numerous criticisms that their idea of a "Proportional Response" doesn't do enough to prevent civilian casualties. So while I wouldn't say that they can't defend themselves, they've got a proven track record of going way too far when trying to do so.

So when Israel drops leaflets to warn of impending strikes in an area, calls residents of an apartment building where a terrorist cell is located to warn them to evacuate, that's not doing enough? How about all this: http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/CommunityPosts/tabid/809/PostID/3317/MinimizingCollateralDamageInGazaConflict.aspx

Who is saying there is a moral equivalency? I've repeatedly stated that the Israeli leadership is the lesser of two evils. But that they are still evil.

This evil you speak of, is it because the Israeli leadership takes steps to defend the people it was elected to govern? Is it because the Israeli leadership does not prevent 100% of civilian deaths in Gaza when striking at terrorists? Is it because those who wish to destroy us love death more than we love life? What exactly is your basis for labeling the Israeli government "evil"?

And that's the fundamental issue. They could do more to limit civilian casualties. But they don't.

Such as...? Saying "they could do more" is nice and all, but concrete suggestions would go so much farther.

You continually point out that Hamas are terrorist organisation and not a legitimate democratic government. Given that, how do the Palestinian civilians who are killed by Israeli fire bear any moral responsibility for what happens to them?

No, Hamas is the democratically-elected government in Gaza. Wonderful judgment, that.

On the other hand, how do Israeli citizens, who have elected increasingly hawkish leaders, not bear the moral responsibility for the outcome of their actions?

Who said Israelis aren't responsible (not sure if 'morally' is relevant) for the leaders they elect? Matter of fact, Israel has not allowed one single Prime Minister to complete a single 4-year term in office for over 20 years (a few times circumstances were not intentional by the public, such as Rabin's assassination or Sharon's stroke/coma). We're a very opinionated people, and the government's resiliency - or lack thereof - just goes to show that.

[Nuke]

thats the problem with war. there are always casualties. there isn't a nation in the world that has conducted a war with zero civilian casualties. murphy's law alone will make sure that **** happens even with a zero civilian casualty policy. to expect this of every warring nation is kind of a little unpractical.

[Sandwich]

There's a massive difference between civilian casualties due to collateral damage and civilians being deliberately targeted. Case in point, a bomb just blew up on a bus in Tel-Aviv about 30 mins ago.

EDIT: Apparently, there's another unexploded bomb on said bus as well.

EDIT 2: No deaths or critically-injured.

[Grizzly]

There's a massive difference between civilian casualties due to collateral damage and civilians being deliberately targeted.

The thing is that there are instances where Palestinian protestors or people in Gaza are either detained without trail or shot for no apperent reason (Several movies on that too). Then there's also that blockade that for a long time did not allow building materials to go trough, which also harms the civilian populace (there's also a diplomatic cable floating around that it was intended to keep Gaza on the brink of ruin). It might not be deliberate targeting, but I don't think it falls under "collateral damage" either.

[Dragon]

Um, Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza, and thus are the only "legitimate" authority in Gaza, as well as being a terrorist organization. The Palestinian Authority educated their children in the ways of jihad, martyrdom, and hatred, and then got themselves kicked out of office for those who were even more extreme

I'm pretty sure Hamas isn't recognized internationally, isn't the current government of Palestinian Authority supposed to hold power in Gaza (yes, I know it doesn't)? I don't think people there would accept Israeli rule, but if PA showed up and tried to take control of Gaza (I don't see Hamas giving up power by not being reelected, not that they'd ask anybody about that), with Israeli backup, maybe they could succeed. PA seems much more reasonable than Hamas, I don't recall hearing them wanting Israel wiped out (at least, not recently).

[MP-Ryan]

Who is saying there is a moral equivalency?

You've said you can support neither side.  Joshua and Aardwolf both appear to be saying there is moral equivalency.  And a statement that one can support neither side implies each is as bad as the other, hence moral equivalency.  Unless you recognize that one bears greater moral culpability in the present than the other, in which case supporting neither amounts to indifference or tacit support of terrorist actions.  You can't say that Israel needs greater scrutiny for its actions and simultaneously ignore the fact that Hamas' actions are far worse and motivated by far worse objectives.

I'll further point out that I hold Israel to a higher standard precisely because they have the advantages of education and access to information that people living in Gaza do not have.

Except that israel has no control over the rocket bombardment that precipitated their military action.  Pretty unfair to hold the defender to a higher moral standard.  I believe that's typically called "victim blaming."  Granted, Israel may not be the historical victim across the history 1948-present, but they were certainly the party responding to rather than precipitating the use of violence in this case.

And that's the fundamental issue. They could do more to limit civilian casualties. But they don't.

But despite the fact that I pretty clearly outlined the options, every single person saying the israelis could do more has failed to say what could be done to further limit civilian casualties.  So what's your solution?  I say they can probably do more simply because there are always additional measures to ensure safety, but they come with a cost - be it in personnel, more civilian deaths, more destruction, or delayed action (and hence more rockets).

Sure Hamas could too, but two wrongs do not make a right. You continually point out that Hamas are terrorist organisation and not a legitimate democratic government. Given that, how do the Palestinian civilians who are killed by Israeli fire bear any moral responsibility for what happens to them?

They elected their leadership, they allow their leadership to continue supporting rocket strikes, they allow their leadership to place rocket emplacements in civilian zones.  The West doesn't view them as legit and neither does the PA, but they did still garner a majority in the last elections and that's why they run the show.

On the other hand, how do Israeli citizens, who have elected increasingly hawkish leaders, not bear the moral responsibility for the outcome of their actions?

Israel didn't start lobbing rockets into Gaza's civilian population and precipitate this mess.  israel withdrew from Gaza entirely, still ships in aid, maintains a blockade to keep out weapons shipments, and otherwise stays out of Gaza's affairs.  Gaza imports rockets illegally from Iran/Syria/wherever else they can gets their hands on them and flings them into Israeli civilian centers while simultaneously publicly declaring Israel does not have a right to exist.  How would you propose Israel deal with that?  Let the rockets fly?

In the end you have a bunch of very evil people leading a bunch of very ignorant people in a struggle against a not quite as evil bunch of people leading a bunch of people who really should know better. I can't see any good reason to support either side since neither side really shows any interest in stopping.

Except, as I repeatedly have said, Hamas could stop all of the violence this very second by ceasing rocket attacks and allow both sides to negotiate.  That's the kicker.  Israel is responding to force by another party (this time, not always), and therefore deserves the support of anyone who believes in democratic principles and the right of self-defense until such time as they are not the subject of force by an aggressor.

[Grizzly]

You've said you can support neither side.  Joshua and Aardwolf both appear to be saying there is moral equivalency.  And a statement that one can support neither side implies each is as bad as the other, hence moral equivalency. 

No. This is probably where you misunderstood me.
Supporting neither side means simply that: I support neither side. That does not mean that I think that both sides are equal. It simply means that I don't like either side enough for me to support them.

Compare it to, say, girls! Just because I currently do not want to kiss any girl does not mean that I like them all equally.

[NGTM-1R]

No, Hamas is the democratically-elected government in Gaza. Wonderful judgment, that.

While true, they were democratically elected on the platform of "destroy Israel, kill Israelis", so their legitimacy being bound up in that promise (and unable to negotiate for more than temporary peace) is still a legitimate problem with the situation.

[Dragon]

Also, for how long were they supposed to stay in the office? IIRC, they've been around for quite some time, shouldn't there be another election? And if they prohibited elections, doesn't that mean they're not as legitimate as they'd like to think? I'd be really interested if people still want them in power after all this fighting.

[MP-Ryan]

Finally, a ceasefire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20436699

[headdie]

well see how long it lasts

[Dragon]

Good riddance. Seems a couple of people came to their senses. Now, I hope Hamas keeps it's end of the deal (their record isn't the best about that).