Gaza's on-going Palestinian civilians Killing

[mezzoduomo]

Ok, Mezzo, I'll bite: not surprised.
 
Every power, and especially a superpower, needs a bogeyman, a constant reminder of an evil enemy that justifies the constant state of war and actions that need no further explanation. For the US, it was communism for a number of lucky years. With its demise, there was an urgent need for replacement, and it was quickly found (or manufactured?) in terrorism. Then again, with Bin Laden dead, once again there is a bogeyman vacuum (btw, ever wondered why it took a newbie president to do so? - the other two were simply too smart to do that).

With withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, military budget cuts, here and among allies... not good. Enter ISIS. All these years of bringing flowering democracy to Iraq, that was supposed to spread like a forest fire across the Middle East (or is "weed" a better metaphor? - I mean, it spreads faster and is more resilient), billions of dollars accounted and unaccounted for, hundreds of thousands dead, the towering "democracy" crumbled within days like a house of cards (one can argue it was built on one - remember the deck of cards distributed to every invading soldier with photos of 52 wanted Iraqis?).

One does not have to be too cynical to conclude that only an idiot, or amateur, or both, would allow this to happen. Unless one wanted that to happen.

Then again, humanitarian aid is not going to stop ISIS. Thus two birds killed with one stone: you appear to be the good guy, while at the same time nurturing your future bogeyman.

Enough conspiracy-esque to please you?

Well-done!  We are indeed selective about exactly which 'atrocities' and 'unacceptable' events are 'horrible' enough to motivate us to actually act. But I'm not willing to ignore every event that clearly meets all common notions of evil, (e.g., starving 40,000 on a mountain top, or beheading Christian and Shia alike) AND can clearly, logically lead to increasingly legitimate threats to the US.

If you can't see the link between an increasingly powerful and emboldened ISIS and future direct threats to Americans on US soil, then perhaps the desire to see conspiracy is getting in the way of rational self-preservation.

[BernardLanguillier]

In the July 26th 2014 news report you initially posted, Jon Snow stated succinctly -- "Now, of course, Hamas, for it's part, was throwing rockets into Israel designed ideally to kill Israelis…"

In your opinion, was Israel's throwing bombs into Gaza designed ideally to kill women and children?

I guess that you mean "Israeli army" or "Israeli government"? It is of course your prerogative to associate all the things happening to Israel as a country encompassing its whole population, but that may result in some confusion. This is at least not my view.

I sure hope that your point isn't that, since some parties connected to Hamas tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to kill some Israeli civilians by launching rockets, it is OK for the Israeli army to succeed in killing Palestinian civilians?

My view, in short, is that I don't think that killing civilians is the objective of the strikes of the Israeli army, but I think that those ordering the strikes do it with the full and unmistakable awareness that they are going to kill civilians.

Allow me to elaborate. Form the reports that have been published, including the ones you quotes, there are probably 2 categories of incidents:

1. There have been several incidents where Palestinian civilians were killed although they were no obvious military targets in the close vicinity (4 kids on the beach, several hits on UN hospitals,...). I don't know whether this is the result of intent or of mistakes, but it is 100% certain that these deaths would not have occurred had the bombing not been ordered in the first place. Would you not agree?

2. Even when there were military targets nearby, when you hit densely populated areas where a rocket launcher is hiding, whether you send an early warning shot or not, you are nearly certain that:
1. You are going to kill civilians,
2. You are warning the rocket launcher just as much as civilians and giving them time to move to another location, which they will probably succeed in doing much better than families with kids.

So at the end of the day, the avoidable deaths of 1,400 Palestinian civilians remains the responsibility of the Israeli army. The verified fact that attempts are being made in many cases to limit civilians deaths doesn't change anything for those who died, and there is no possible way their death cannot have been anticipated with near certainty.

More generally speaking, there is a strong suspicion that the Israeli army isn't just trying to prevent Hamas associates from continuing rocket strikes, but is also leveraging this situation to continue the colonization of Gaza by making Palestinians relocate to other places.

Is the Hamas nebulous guilty too? Yes, they are. Don't misunderstand my position, I am in no way a supporter of their actions. Who it its right mind would be? I see them as a resistance organization who is using the wrong means to reach their goals. Their actions result from the Israeli government moves in Gaza but are also the trigger of the Israeli army actions. Now, they are not responsible for Palestinians causalities. The person pushing on the button triggering the bomb is.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but could please pinpoint the part of my statements you find inaccurate?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... If you can't see...

I wonder why you think I do not see the threat ISIS poses? Or that I think we do not have the duty to intervene,  and not just humanitarely. I clearly said:

"only an idiot, or amateur, or both, would allow this to happen" i.e., for ISIS to become such a threat.

The question is: why did we allow that to happen? We surely did not go in there only to leave the shattered and weakened country at the mercy on an enemy worse than Al Qaida.

[Vladimirovich]

I see them as a resistance organization who is using the wrong means to reach their goals.

and what will be the right means ?

[Vladimirovich]

It's no use, Jeremy. Some minds have been infused with a virulent brand of propaganda that seems to be widespread in Europe and almost as widespread in the U.S. If you take history into account it's not hard to see from whence it comes nor to what it leads.

you are back, promises short lived 

[Schewe]

The question is: why did we allow that to happen? We surely did not go in there only to leave the shattered and weakened country at the mercy on an enemy worse than Al Qaida.

Allow it? You really think the US could have prevented it and still pulled the troops out? The ISIS phenomenon is, I think a complete shock to both the West and the Iraqi government and military. It happened in large part from rebels from Syria leaving Syria and getting initial wins in battles that left the Iraqi in shambles and the government in a total panic. Heck, even al-Qaeda cut all ties with the group in Feb 2014, reportedly for its brutality and "notorious intractability". None of the moderate Arab states nor Turkey are happy and even Iran is worried.

Not unlike the Gaza/Hamas problem, there are a bunch of at least lightly train fighters that are too well armed. I sure hope we don't do anything other than humanitarian aid, but somebody has to fight these way-over-the-top Islamic radicals...

The Middle East is a scary place (and has been for a long time). And the problems keep evolving in totally unexpected ways.

[BernardLanguillier]

and what will be the right means ?

That's not an easy question to answer, but rockets isn't the right approach for sure.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Schewe]

...I am in no way a supporter of Hamas. I see them as a resistance organization who is using the wrong means to reach their goals.

"a resistance organization"? Are you kidding? Are we talking about the same Hamas we've been reading about in the media? The same Hamas whose political wing has no control over the military wing nor the other splinter groups that are linked to Hamas? The same Hamas that has shot and killed Palestinians who supported the Palestinian Authority. The conflict between the two main Palestinian political factions, Fatah and Hamas has essentially eliminated the Palestinian Authority and any moderate political parties in Palestine.

"Know your enemy"
Sun Tzu's The Art of War

[BernardLanguillier]

"a resistance organization"? Are you kidding? Are we talking about the same Hamas we've been reading about in the media? The same Hamas whose political wing has no control over the military wing nor the other splinter groups that are linked to Hamas?

You are correct, I wasn't accurate enough. I was referring to the military wing of Hamas and related groups.

cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

No, it doesn't.

Try arguing the same logic when stopped for speeding: "But, but... officer, while you are ticketing me, there are hundreds flying by even faster"

Something happened like that once when I was driving from NYC to Washington DC.  We were passing through Delaware, a stretch of about twenty miles between New Jersey and Maryland.  Truly a blip on Interstate I95 when I was pulled over by Delaware's most brave State Trooper for speeding.  As he handed the ticket to me I complained rather politely that although I was above the speed limit, I was only keeping up with traffic.  Everyone was going that fast.  So the trooper gave me one of those looks and asked me when I was a kid did I plead to my father when I did "bad" that I was only doing what the other boys were doing?  He had me!  I quietly took the ticket and subsequently paid the fine.

[Damon Lynch]

Israel has committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. Hamas has committed war crimes. Ideally individuals from both will be held accountable in the International Criminal Court, which is possible but not probable.

No Israeli would tolerate living in conditions like those found in Gaza. Anyone who has been to Gaza understands this. Moreover, none of us here, given a choice, would accept living under 47 years of military occupation.

There is no military solution. The solution will inevitably be a formed out of a mix of political, economic cultural, and religious forces. Real, secure peace will take a long time -- at least as long as it took to get to this point, which is more than a century. 

The urgent need now is to pragmatically work through viable, nonviolent solutions. 

[mezzoduomo]

I wonder why you think I do not see the threat ISIS poses? Or that I think we do not have the duty to intervene,  and not just humanitarely. I clearly said:

"only an idiot, or amateur, or both, would allow this to happen" i.e., for ISIS to become such a threat.

The question is: why did we allow that to happen? We surely did not go in there only to leave the shattered and weakened country at the mercy on an enemy worse than Al Qaida.

Sorry, Slobo..I was careless.  Here's what I meant to say:

"If you one can't see the link between an increasingly powerful and emboldened ISIS and future direct threats to Americans on US soil, then perhaps the one's desire to see conspiracy is might be getting in the way of one's rational self-preservation.

[PeterAit]

Posturing on the Internet about one variety of killing while having failed to comment on another, far worse, requires some kind of explanation.

Jeremy

I don't agree. By your logic, one would have to comment about every case of civilians being killed or else keep quiet about them all. Does that make any sense to you? And, your approach is ad hominem, which is a pretty sure indication that your arguments have little merit, forcing you to attack the character of your opponent.

[stamper]

Not your finest hour Jeremy. I think it looked like a personal attack. In football parlance you played the man instead of the ball.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Jeremy was simply playing American football ;-)

[PeterAit]

"The Times analysis, looking at 1,431 names, shows that the population most likely to be militants, men ages 20 to 29, is also the most overrepresented in the death toll: They are 9 percent of Gaza’s 1.7 million residents, but 34 percent of those killed whose ages were provided. At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71 percent of the population and 33 percent of the known-age casualties."

And....? The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Israel's bombs and shells were not targeted completely randomly, just mostly randomly.

[Manoli]

There are other photos ...

Damon makes a good post, notable for it's diversity.
You choose Photo 4. Wrong, the only way forward is Photo 3.

" a Muslim living in East Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives. He embodies the principle of "love thy neighbour". Rabbi Menachem Froman (died March 4, 2013) was a remarkable religious peacemaker who defies all conventional descriptions and stereotypes. He lived on the settlement of Tekoa in the West Bank, yet Yasser Arafat called him his "brother" and he had extensive relations with religious Muslims, including those from Hamas. Indeed Sheikh Ahmad Yasin of Hamas famously said to Froman "with you we could make peace in 5 minutes".  "

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Allow it? You really think the US could have prevented it and still pulled the troops out?...

Coitus interruptus , while safe, is neither the best, nor most pleasurable solution for either side So, no, if you couldn't prevent it, then you shouldn't pull out the troops.

As for the "complete shock"... really!? All the gazillions spent on NSA and CIA, being actually on the ground there for a decade, and still surprised? Pleading ignorance and incompetence? If so, it is then a far more impeachable offense than the occasional BJ in the Oval Office. Besides, ISIS is the offspring of the Syrian opposition that you supported and financed, just like Al Qaida was in Afghanistan. That is known as "playing with fire," so no wonder you get burned occasionally.

[BernardLanguillier]

Isaac,

Apologies, you are not answering my perfectly reasonnable questions, I will not waste time answering your... stuff.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jeremy Roussak]

Posturing on the Internet about one variety of killing while having failed to comment on another, far worse, requires some kind of explanation. You have offered an explanation. It will satisfy some.

Not your finest hour Jeremy. I think it looked like a personal attack. In football parlance you played the man instead of the ball.

Oh, I've had lots of hours below the standard, such as it might be, of my finest. And there's a reason for my approach, which I set out below.

I don't agree. By your logic, one would have to comment about every case of civilians being killed or else keep quiet about them all. Does that make any sense to you?

Yes, insofar as it affects this site, it makes sense to me. To adopt stamper's terminology, there is simply no ball to be played.

Discussions about Gaza on a bulletin board dedicated to photography are pointless. They're not contrary to any rule, as this is the Coffee Corner; but they contribute nothing to the understanding of the problem or to its solution. That feature they would share with discussions here, were there any, on the bloodshed in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine; on Iran's ambitions, if any, to acquire nuclear weaponry; on terrorism in Pakistan or on the status of women in India or Saudi Arabia; or on any of the world's great ills. The people who can affect what is happening, who can influence the course of events, aren't reading.

The only purpose served by any such discussions is the venting of spleen. Bernard felt angry about what he perceived, bizarrely, as "genocide" (a term he has since abandoned), so he started the thread. It appears that he had, perhaps gullibly, accepted an item on the topic prepared by Jon Snow as unarguably true, which is perhaps not something those of us more familiar with Snow's oeuvre, or that of Channel 4 News generally, would have done. But he hadn't felt angry about slaughter anywhere else, at least not angry enough to publicise his irritation. That made me sufficiently suspicious of his motives to ask a question, related to the main feature which separates Gaza from Syria and Iraq, namely the involvement of Israel. He has denied that that was his motivating factor; I find his explanation unconvincing; but there the matter rests, since it's incapable of resolution.

I accused him of nothing other than, impliedly, anti-Israeli sentiment: there's a lot of that about. To suggest that I thus accused him of antisemitism or racism is to fall into the same fallacy that afflicts some defenders of Israel: you are against Israel, therefore you are antisemitic. I've said before that that's not a view I hold or a view I believe can rationally be held. If I consider it appropriate to level an accusation of antisemitism, I'll do it openly.

Jeremy

Actually, perhaps these discussions aren't entirely useless: their posts to this thread have led me substantially to alter my previously-held opinions of several contributors.