Gaza's on-going Palestinian civilians Killing

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ray, your perspective on this issue makes as much sense as your perspective on lens perspective.

[Manoli]

Surely it must be blindingly obvious that Israel is not targeting civilians. The civilian deaths are a tragic, but unavoidable consequence of collateral damage.

There have been several rebuttals of this fallacy, even by prominent voices of the Jewish community. In short,  " ... when it’s certain that civilians will die as a result of one’s actions, the distinction between intended and unintended is mute ..."

The point is that if the action had been restricted to a ground offensive, then that would have allowed for greater precision  and would have been more morally defensible. Of course, it's most probable that the Israeli casualties would have then been higher.

According to the UN,  a third of all hospitals in Gaza have been damaged, medical facilities are 'on the verge of collapse' as almost half of medics are unable to get to work, 460,000 or a quarter of all Gazans have been displaced, 270,000 people are crammed into 90 UN shelters - 7 of which have taken direct hits with heavy mortalities.

Not exactly " ... unavoidable consequence of collateral damage ... "

[Manoli]

Israel enforced the blockade to keep weapons from the Gaza...but that hasn't been very successful. The weapons still get in. Who's sending those weapons? Egypt? Wealthy Saudis? Syrians? I doubt it's Iran-Irainians don't much care for Hamas.

Nevertheless, it seems that it is indeed the Iranians who are funding and supplying arms and rockets. Stand to be enlightened on this one, but all the info I've seen point to the Ayatollahs.

Sup with the Devil ...

[Alan Klein]

You're conveniently forgetting a few not-so-minor incidents, such as 'Abu Ghraib' and 'My Lai', to name but two.

These attacks on civilians and POW's were not sanctioned, planned or executed by the American government.  They were illegal acts perpetrated by individual soldiers who were tried in US Military courts and sent to jail for their actions.  A closer example of civilian deaths during war would be American drone attacks on terrorists where there are civilian deaths that occur when the terrorists are bombed or when civilians were killed during Afghanistan and Iraq attacks against enemy military forces.   According to the Geneva Protocol, attackers must take reasonable precautions to protect civilians, but the death of civilians during these kind of attacks appear to be within the Protocol.  Interesting, America is not a signatory to this Protocol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties

[Ray]

Ray, your perspective on this issue makes as much sense as your perspective on lens perspective.

Surely not, Slobodan. My writings on the observed change in perspective in the print on the wall, resulting from the use of lenses of different focal lengths, was scientifically sound and logically irrefutable. 

The situation in the Middle East is much more complicated.

[Ray]

There have been several rebuttals of this fallacy, even by prominent voices of the Jewish community. In short,  " ... when it’s certain that civilians will die as a result of one’s actions, the distinction between intended and unintended is mute ..."

The point is that if the action had been restricted to a ground offensive, then that would have allowed for greater precision  and would have been more morally defensible. Of course, it's most probable that the Israeli casualties would have then been higher.

Are these prominent voices military experts? I'm not a military expert but I can imagine that the number of casualties that might result from a battalion of tanks trundling through the streets of a densely populated city infiltrated with Hamas terrorists throwing bombs from every building as the tanks pass by, could be very great.

Were these prominent voices of the Jewish community you refer to also recommending that the entire Palestinian population be evacuated from the Gaza strip before the IDF sent in its ground forces? That would certainly reduce civilian casualties, but where would the population go?

I get a strong sense of irrationality in the arguments critical of Israel in this conflict.

[Alan Klein]

I think it's legitimately within Geneva protocol when Israel causes coincidental civilian casualties when attacking enemy forces.  They appear to have taken certain precautions.  The problem is more of optics.  There is a large difference in civilian causalities between the sides.  So one naturally feels for the side taking the brunt of the damage and death.   Maybe if the Gazans had more accurate rockets that could penetrate Israel's Iron Dome and kill more Israeli civilians, the optics would appear better and there would be less accusations against Israel.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I get a strong sense of irrationality in the arguments critical of Israel in this conflict.

Right... Israel critics must be either emotional, hysterical or irrational. There is no way that a sane, rational, and educated person could think, let alone say, something critical of Israel, God forbid.

The State Department condemned Israel’s strike on a United Nations school in Gaza, saying it was “appalled” by this “disgraceful” act. UN called it "criminal." Were they also emotional, hysterical or irrational?

[Manoli]

These attacks on civilians and POW's were not sanctioned, planned or executed by the American government. 

I didn't say they were. The reply was to the RSL post #205: " Since then the only people I can think of who've violated the protocol are Hamas and other jihadist fanatics who've randomly attacked Israel's civilian population. ..."

The kidnapping and murder of the Palestinian teenager, forced to drink gasoline and then set alight wasn't sanctioned, planned or executed by the Israeli government either. These incidents tragically, occur on all sides.

[Manoli]

... The problem is more of optics...

If by 'optics' you mean 'perspective' as opposed to the quality of the Israeli gunsights, I would agree with you.

[Manoli]

I get a strong sense of irrationality in the arguments critical of Israel in this conflict.

I've heard him described in many ways. Irrational wasn't one of them. Roger Cohen - NYT, to name but one of many.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/opinion/roger-cohen-zionism-and-israels-war-with-hamas-in-gaza.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/opinion/roger-cohen-start-with-gaza.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/opinion/sunday/roger-cohen-why-americans-see-israel-the-way-they-do.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

--

ps can someone please explain how I can post abbreviated links such as : here ?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... ps can someone please explain how I can post abbreviated links such as : here ?

Highlight the word, e.g., HERE and click on the little globe icon above (see illustration).

[Manoli]

Thanks, Slobodan.

[Schewe]

Nevertheless, it seems that it is indeed the Iranians who are funding and supplying arms and rockets. Stand to be enlightened on this one, but all the info I've seen point to the Ayatollahs.

According to this report, Iran no longer gets along with Hamas. HAMAS Funding It's private Saudis and Qatar that provides most of the money.

[Manoli]

According to this report, Iran no longer gets along with Hamas. HAMAS Funding It's private Saudis and Qatar that provides most of the money.

Thanks for that link, Jeff. Interesting site, horrific report.

[jjj]

Ok, folks, let's imaging the following scenario: IRA detonates a bomb in London (no, that is not the part to imagine). Them, U.K. government sends bombers and artillery to fight IRA and to restore "piece and calm" in London, and in the process "accidentally" kills thousands of civilians and hundreds of children. How would the world see that? As a legitimate self-defense?

As an aside to your good point, it kind of happened the other way around in reality, Britain, well England treated Ireland really, really badly over the centuries, which is fundamentally why London and other places in England were bombed during 'The Troubles'. It was the result of hundreds of years of grief, not just the few beforehand.

[Schewe]

Thanks for that link, Jeff. Interesting site, horrific report.

Ironically, the USA, Europe, the UN and even Israel has funded the Palestinian Authority in attempts to help the Palestinians (according to this Forbes article). So, it seems even Israel has provided funds that prolly ended up in the hands of Hamas.

Which is why I've said so strongly that this is a really, REALLY complicated situation with all sorts of political ramifications at play. The Middle East is a complicated and scary place...and has been since Thomas Jefferson was president.

There are no easy quick fixes...now ISIS raises it's ugly head in Syria and Iraq which is scaring the heck out of Iran and all of the moderate gulf states...then there's Yemen, Libya and all of the former USSR Muslim states.

A 2 star US general was assassinated today in Afghanistan believed to be by Taliban inside Afghani trained forces...also, don't forget the recent terrorist attacks into Mumbai, India.

Don't also forget India, Pakistan and Israel all have nuclear weapons and Iran is hellbent on getting them.

I feel for the people in the Gaza strip...but there are much larger forces at play.

[Schewe]

In an iron side note, it seems weapons and missiles aren't the only thing being smuggled into the Gaza strip. This Guardian report profiles The KFC smugglers of Gaza.

It seems that anything can be had in Gaza if you have enough money...

[Isaac]

…, Britain, well England treated Ireland really, really badly over the centuries, which is fundamentally why London and other places in England were bombed during 'The Troubles'. It was the result of hundreds of years of grief, not just the few beforehand.

In 1166, the King of Leinster, Diarmait MacMurchada was forced to flee from Dublin and from his kingdom by an alliance of Irish enemies, including the new High King, Ruaidri Ua Conchobair. …
And awful were its consequences. For Diarmait landed in Bristol and asked for help from King Henry II to get his throne back. … This is when the trouble became big trouble. For Diarmait promptly went shopping for mercenaries among the nastiest and greediest possible bunch of knights. … Within a year Diarmait had his throne back in Dublin.
…
So in the winter of 1171, Henry crossed the Irish Sea himself… The Irish kings did homage to Henry as they would to any High King, building the ritual hall through which they entered as his men, promising him one of every ten of their cattle hides in tribute. And they saw him not as imperial conqueror at all, but as their protector against … the Anglo-Norman barons.
…
The land taken - and taken is the word - by the Anglo-Normans, was divided up in the usual way and given to their knights, as reward for military service. But somehow … they weren't quite English either. Almost from the beginning they knew this, since one of the Anglo-Normans, Maurice fitzGerald, rather pathetically complained that no one would help his kind:

'for just as we are English as far as the Irish are concerned, likewise to the English we are Irish and the inhabitants of this island and of the other assail us with an equal degree of hatred'.

[Jeremy Roussak]

You still haven't provided any answer to the main point of this thread, which the factual dead of hundreds of Palestinian children Russ. Does their death not matter to you? Is it hysterical to point out those deaths?

Bernard,

Have I missed your anguished posts here bemoaning the loss of life in Syria (enormously greater than in Gaza) over the last two years? Or do you only become upset when Israel is involved?

Just curious.

Jeremy