Interesting bit from Matthew Ygelasis that provides a better explanation of my views on the civilian casualities Israel is causing. Goes off Dershowitz's disturbing "civilians are ok targets" stuff:
This amounts, in essence, to granting a license to purge civilian populations from any geographical area. Crucially, it employs a very strange definition of "voluntarily." "Your money or your life," says the mugger. I voluntarily (?) refuse to fork over the cash and get shot, but it's okay to kill me because I could have given up the money. That seems wrong.
Similarly, decent people take the view that it's wrong for Hezbollah to take a bunch of basically un-aimable rockets and point them in the direction of Israeli cities and hope they kill some people. Instead of doing that, Hezbollah could identify some legitimate targets inside the city in question, then state that they'll be targeting those facilities but their rockets have extremely poor aim and so civilians have 48 hours to leave the city, and then start firing the rockets. This alternative procedure would, I think, alter the situation not at all.
Again, if the government of Sudan tells the inhabitants of some Darfuri village that they all need to leave in a week or else the janjaweed are going to come in and start killing people, we certaintly wouldn't call that an effort to avoid civilian casualties. Nor would we say that people who "voluntarily" declined to be driven from their homes by threats of force thereby ceased to be civilians.
Similarly, it's surely occurred to most Israelis that one way they could "solve" the Palestinian problem would be to deport or kill the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank. Israel doesn't do this, however, because that would be unambiguously wrong. It wouldn't become less wrong by arguing "there are some terrorists in the West Bank, we aim to kill them all, everyone please relocate east of the Jordan River in 24 hours, anyone left will be considered a terrorist and shot or bombed."
The common thread here is that mass explusion by means of force and the threats of force is the very essence of wrongfully targeting a civilian population. Rejiggering the exact phrasing of the threat changes nothing.
This is shallow analysis at best. There's a vast gulf between "We are going to bomb some neighborhoods that contain legitimate targets but first we will warn the occupants in order to minimize civilian casualties" and what Yglesias is talking about here (which is de-facto ethnic cleansing).
I think the Hezbollah awarning analogy is pretty strong - no one would think their civilian casualties were "ok" if they were targeting military/leadership targets with their rockets and killing civs as a side effect.
Aww, Yglesias spilled historical irony all over his strawman.Similarly, it's surely occurred to most Israelis that one way they could "solve" the Palestinian problem would be to deport or kill the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank. Israel doesn't do this, however, because that would be unambiguously wrong.
Oh Hefe, the point is that warnings do not necessarily absolve you of liability for the telegraphed punch. That's all. They could have said that calling a woman to tell her that you are going to rape her does not make it ok. They could have said that because some Jews fled Nazi Germany before the Holocaust does not mean that the Germans were free to do away with the rest. Just let the rest of the hyperbole flow over you like water and absorb the main point. If you still thirst for knowledge, drink of the wisdom that it is not permissible to put people into catch-22 situations and then allow for the lessened level of guilt attendant to two people choosing to struggle against one another.*
Everyone needs to stop objecting to the form, hyperbole and rhetorical flourishes as if they are the substance of the argument. Honestly, we have the same couple arguments over and over again in every thread, and it's only the dashing ad hominem attacks that distinguish the winners from the winners. Just spot the ideas and grade the cattiness. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I like Bananarama more than I like The Bangles or The Go-Go's.
*If you are still bored, present a counterpoint concerning "do-nothings" and what is to be done about an evil status quo. Maybe you'll get something.
If you agree to attacking targets protected among civilians (Otherwise it doesn't matter) you're better off with warning the civilians to evacuate then not doing so. It does not solve the moral dillema, if it did there wouldn't be any moral dillema.
This text is pointless, Israel's warnings are not meant to simply give a seal of approval to the bombings.
How is it a "dilemna?" It's wrong.
So if someone takes an hostage in a bank rob, there's no dillema here, the guards must throw down their weapons and get shot?Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
I see a dilemma, the fact you don't even see it shows you have a narrow black & white world.
Maybe Hezbollah do make a deliberate choice to remain among civilian populations, but they are a civilian militia, so they would be among civilians whether they made this a deliberate policy or not. Maybe they shouldn't fire their rockets from civilian population areas (I don't know if they do this or not), but expecting them to move their leaders out into the countryside just so Israel can kill them and get less fallout from the resulting civilian deaths seems unfair, and seems based on an assumption of deviousness for one side that is lacking for the other. If Hezbollah car bombed Israel's defence minister in the middle of Tel Aviv, and killed a dozen civilians in the process, we wouldn't reprimand Israel for hiding its military leadership in civilian areas.
Just what does that mean? Nobody's allowed to use an army to try to stop them when they act like an army themselves?
"Fair"?expecting them to move their leaders out into the countryside just so Israel can kill them and get less fallout from the resulting civilian deaths seems unfair,
This isn't tiddlywinks. It's not about fair. It's about killing people.
Hezbollah wants to kill as many Israelis as it possibly can, and will do whatever is most effective at reaching that goal. It is that simple.
Israel, therefore, will do whatever it has to to prevent Hezbollah from being effective at its goal. It will do things that are unfair to non-Israelis. No way around that. The state of Israel is fulfilling its responsibility to its citizens - to keep them alive and healthy and more or less secure; it has no responsibilities to anyone else outside of explicit treaties. There's no reason at all to expect it to be "fair" to those who are trying to destroy it.
Of course it's not fair. Fair would defeat the entire point of the exercise.
"Fair" would be having US pilots stop the planes, get out, and walk up to their targets with hand weapons. That's what the enemy would like. That why we don't do it.
"Fair" is the stupidest possible argument I have ever seen you make.
It's not about the leadership. It's about the entire force being inextricably entangled with civilians, to the point that it is impossible to do anything military against them without somehow hurting a civilian. It is set up that way by Hezbollah by design. Civilians, to them, are just another weapon, to be used in conjunction with our own civilized distaste for excessive blood.If Hezbollah car bombed Israel's defence minister in the middle of Tel Aviv, and killed a dozen civilians in the process, we wouldn't reprimand Israel for hiding its military leadership in civilian areas.
The point of rules of war about not targetting civilians is the fundamental (in the west) expectation that, even if "our" side loses, living under the enemy's regime will be tolerable, and that severe harm to the civilian population is a worse outcome than even losing the war.
Clearly, when it comes to Arabs or Muslims fighting Westerners, the Arabs or Muslims do not agree with that particular idea.
That's because you've taken it to mean the most stupid thing you can imagine, which wasn't what I was arguing. You thought I meant the word in terms of actions, when I was talking in terms of argument. If you read my words carefully enough, you'd have avoided getting your panties all twisted up."Fair" is the stupidest possible argument I have ever seen you make.
If you are trying to be balanced (you know fair) when looking at the behaviour of two parties in a conflict (like we are doing here) then you need to use the same arguments for one side as you do for another. You can't say "it's ok for Hezbollah to kill civilians" and "it's not ok for Israel to kill civilians" because that would be unfair. By saying that it's ok for Israel to "hide" it's military leaders in civilian areas, but that Hezbollah is evil for doing this is what is unfair.
This is what I mean by unfair. You assume that Hezbollah deliberately hide among civilians, when living among civilians is what they would naturally do whether they were fighting against Israel or not. Yet you wouldn't consider Israel to be deliberately concealing their leaders in civilian populations, because you assume that's it's normal that they should be there.It is set up that way by Hezbollah by design.
Don't you think it is possible that Hezbollah leaders are to be found in civilian areas for the same reasons that Israeli leaders are?
This just in: Hezbollah has super advanced non-civilian killing weapons. No Israeli civilians have or will ever perish.
This just in: right-wingers are willing to let the lower common denominator set the standard in human rights.
Clearly.
(Wah, wha, waaaaaah, with tuba flourish.)
How about "double standard?" Hezbollah is just fine with targeting civilians exclusively, but no one seems to mind Israeli civilians being killed.
Here is a photo of a cute Asian girl eating a piece of chicken that resembles a vagina:
That chicken looks really undercooked.
Which is the simplest interpretation of what you said. But ok.
I am not assuming anything. I am drawing a logical conclusion from the evidence available. If Hezbollah wanted to _not_ be among civilians, they could do so. There are plenty of empty fields and hilltops in that area.This is what I mean by unfair. You assume that Hezbollah deliberately hide among civilians,
Dude, THE LEADERS ARE NOT THE ISSUE.when living among civilians is what they would naturally do whether they were fighting against Israel or not. Yet you wouldn't consider Israel to be deliberately concealing their leaders in civilian populations, because you assume that's it's normal that they should be there.
Don't you think it is possible that Hezbollah leaders are to be found in civilian areas for the same reasons that Israeli leaders are?
The Israeli military is in military areas. If Hezbollah wants to strike an Israeli military base, it knows where to find them. There are no civilians there. Hezbollah does not do the same, because to Hezbollah, the Israeli reluctance to strike through civilians is of military value far outweighing the deaths of those same civilians.
Do you understand that?
Look, when an enemy hides out in civillian areas, it makes things more difficult for their opponent because they cannot use larger weapons. Civillian loses are to be expected in any conflict, but they are to be avoided whenever possible. Just because one group of people think that they are locked in some epic struggle with some other group of people does not give them permission to drag innocent people into their morality play by killing them and burning up their families. If one side does not respect a rule of human rights, that does not free the other side to violate that rule or any other rule of human rights. Two wrongs do not make a right.
And them's the berries.
QFT!!
There's a world of difference between "living among civilians which is what they naturally do" and "intentionally moving their rocket launchers into the middle of villages and firing to provoke a response".
Not for purposes of deciding whether to indiscriminately bomb the areas where they may be hiding. When you are doing that, it's all the same. Human rights do not go poof when someone else is naughty. If you want to kill someone and everyone else in the international community thinks it is ok for you to kill them, whoop it up. That does not include permission to kill a lot of innocent people. That would be absurd.
As evidenced by the rocket launchers placed in all those suburbs, power plants, and bridges.
Oppps!!! Too bad all that infrastructure and democratic economy had rocket launchers in them. Who didn't knew? Um, da 'mad.
As to the laws of war, you're right, Hezbollah breaks them like no one's business. Still doesn't make it ok for Israel to blow up Lebanese civilians, or depopulate the southern half of the country.
No, because you jumped up and down about how actions in a war cannot be fair and unfair, when I wasn't talking about actions but arguments. You would have to be retarded to think I was talking about actions, especially after I patiently explain to you the difference.Which is the simplest interpretation of what you said. But ok.
If the Israelis wanted _not_ to kill civilians, they could stop dropping bombs on civilian areas. Therefore they must _want_ to kill civilians. That's your reasoning. Sucks doesn't it?I am not assuming anything. I am drawing a logical conclusion from the evidence available. If Hezbollah wanted to _not_ be among civilians, they could do so. There are plenty of empty fields and hilltops in that area.
It's actually possible that *gasp* they happen to be living among civilian populations, because being a civilian milita that's where they'd probably live. Just like the Israelis might be dropping bombs on civilian populations because they are actually trying to hit Hezbollah (their leaders, their militia and their rocket launchers).
You could _assume_ that Hezbollah are hiding their people in civilian areas just to make the Israelis look bad, but you could also assume that the real target of Israelis are the civilians because they just hate Arabs, but it would be equally baseless.
If Hezbollah fire rockets from civilian areas (do they? I've not read any reports on it) then that would definitely be reckless, and if deliberate reprehensible, but how do we know? We don't, and you just assume, and I bet you find it easier to assume the worst for Arabs.
What do you think of this?
Don't tell me: If those Palestinians wanted _not_ to be used as human shields, then they'd go and live in the countryside away from where terrorists might be hanging out.
So even though Hezbollah is directly targeting Israeli civilians, Israel can't do anything about it because Lebanese civilians might get killed?
I guess nobody cries when a Jew dies, right Jason?
But Hezbollah hadn't targetted any Israeli civilians until Israel started bombing Beirut.
You're kidding, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Is...banon_conflict
At 9:05 AM local time (06:05 CET), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on northern Israel, mainly on the town of Shelomi, resulting in injuries to five civilians. Furthermore, a large ground contingent of Hezbollah militants then attacked two Israeli armored IDF Humvees on a routine patrol of the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near the Israeli village of Zar’it with anti-tank rockets.[28] During the event that took place, Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, and killed eight.[29] The IDF confirmed the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers and identified them as Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, both reservists who were on their last day of operational duty.[30]
The problem is that we're trying to argue moral equivalency when both sides have their hands literally dripping with blood.
Israel has committed war crimes through the terror bombing of Shi'ite neighborhoods and the current depopulation of south Lebanon. Thanks to copious news coverage we're quite familiar with the impact of this.
Hezbollah has committed war crimes by using Lebanese civilians as human shields as an everyday tactic (deploying ordnance in people's homes, with or without their consent, specifically driving Katyusha launchers into villages and launching strikes in order to provoke an attack on civilians, etc), not to mention their thankfully mostly ineffective bombings of Israeli civilian areas, using anti-personnel shrapnel/ball bearing warheads to maximize the carnage; in many cases literally firing over the heads of Israeli military forces to strike the towns behind them.
The problem, as some have frankly admitted, is that we hold Israel and Hezbollah to different standards. We expect Hezbollah to act like the terrorist group that they are. We expect Israel to act like a liberal democracy, when in fact they're acting like a nation at war with an enemy they don't know how to defeat, and are reverting to their instinctual "hit them so hard bones break" strategies which haven't worked, but make their leadership appear stronger.
The strongest approach thinkable would have been for Israel to absorb these missile strikes without retaliation, appealing instead for the international community to intervene. Unfortunately, even if they had the foresight and the forebearance to do this (when it's almost unthinkable that any other country in the world would) it's doubtful that it would have done any good anyway, given the sorry history of international diplomacy in the region.
I meant killed, but fair call.
Who is? I actually think Hezbollah is probably worse from an abuse of human rights standpoint, if you really want to get down to it. As previously pointed out, however, they sure as hell are not going to be reined in by United States popular opinion.
And no matter what they do, that still doesn't make it ok for Israel to blow up a bunch of civilians to get one Hezbollah member that'll be replaced with a new one.
Who? Where? You're missing the point we're making entirely. Is it impossible to think about this apart from a one-dimensional Israel or Hezbollah benefits more axis?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote