http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/world/middleeast/11hamas.html
The article is from the Israeli perspective and sources, but it sounds like the IDF has done its homework, and leaves little doubt that Hamas doesn’t give a rat’s ass about civilian casualties.
“Civilians are warned by leaflets, loudspeakers and telephone calls to evacuate battle areas.”
Can any pro-hamas, anti-Israeli lunatic on this forum let us know if hamas extends the same courtesies before launching their rockets into Israeli territory?
Kinda hard to evacuate when your enemy has you fenced in and won’t let you go anywhere.
You realize that Israel isn’t letting anyone even for medical reasons leave Gaza, right, they found statving kids next to their mothers this week.
For all those that keep using the term Hamas, I hope you realize that civil servants, street cleaners, police, teachers, doctor, nurses, and others were on the Hamas payroll. I doubt you can call them terrorist.
Nice deflection, but good manners never go out of style, fenced in or otherwise.
I think that the advance notification of an impending bombardment/escalation of hostilties to the civilian population is extremely polite, do you agree?
If one side can do it, why cant the other side adhere to the same decorum?
Something like this?
“Dear Palestinian family. Since, unlike you, we have education and we have decorum, we are letting you know in advance and very politely that in an hour we are going to kill your kids refuged at your neighborhood UN School…”
Something like this?
“Dear Palestinian family. Since, unlike you, we have education and we have decorum, we are letting you know in advance and very politely that in an hour we are going to kill your kids refuged at your neighborhood UN School…”
That is complete and utter bullshit, the only ones proactively seeking out Palestinian families in order to kill and torture them is Hamas. Watch the video and see for yourself who is doing the killing.
Hamas kills their own people in cold blood. Watch it and get back to us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1M4eH9Kk7I&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/195773.php
Nice deflection, but do I really have to remind you that it is extremely rude behavior to answer a question with a question?
We can get back on-topic at your leisure…if you’re capable of it…
I want to know what kind of advance warning, leaflets or exchanging of pleasantries the Israelis get from hamas in advance of a rocket attack?
OK, I’ll play your game.
I want to know what kind of advance warning, leaflets or exchanging of pleasantries the Israelis get from hamas in advance of a rocket attack?
Answer: None.
And even if they provided such warning, it would not make their attacks on innocent people right.
So, what’s your point?
Precisely.
So why not cease the nostilities, draw acceptable boundaries, create a mutualy beneficial economy/infastructure and live in peace?
My point is a sustainable peace between both sides. However, one side will have to compromise. It won’t be the Israelis, because they have done nothing but compromise over the years and their gestures for peace are only met with violence and aggression.
Something like this?
“Dear Palestinian family. Since, unlike you, we have education and we have decorum, we are letting you know in advance and very politely that in an hour we are going to kill your kids refuged at your neighborhood UN School…”
Hello dumbass!..glad you are not on the U.N. negotiating team, although you would be on the equal footing with the rogue leaders who are so welcomed there.
Something like this?
“Dear Palestinian family. Since, unlike you, we have education and we have decorum, we are letting you know in advance and very politely that in an hour we are going to kill your kids refuged at your neighborhood UN School…”
Hello dumbass!..glad you are not on the U.N. negotiating team, although you would be on the equal footing with the rogue leaders who are so welcomed there.
Ze’ev – It’s not worth it. I’m sure you’ve figured out my opinion on the situation. Some people choose ignorance, and despite the fact that you’ve been over there, logic and facts aren’t going to sway their opinions. It boggles my mind how anyone can fault Israel and support Hamas.
I realize it’s already too late, but have you ever entertained the idea of thinking before speaking?
**For all those that keep using the term Hamas, I hope you realize that civil servants, street cleaners, police, teachers, doctor, nurses, and others were on the Hamas payroll. I doubt you can call them terrorist. **
Why is that? If those same civil servants, street cleaners, etc. are dancing in the streets when an OFFICIAL Hamas terrorist sets off a bomb, where do you draw the line? How about if that street cleaner dropped a dime on the bomb factory in his basement? Think things might change?
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t you Catholic? If so, I am going to guess that you are familiar with Just War theory; so how does Hamas stack up? (No, Catholics do not have a monopoly on it, but we pretty much invented it so it’s a good starting point.)
I am familiar with the Just War theory. I had to look up the criteria because I don’t ever think about it.
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
From the definition, the only side that has a legitimate reason for going to war are the Palestinians.
Look, I am completely aware that atrocities have been committed on both sides. But it is hypocritical for the Jews to claim the superiority or morality in this conflict. They are just to blame and they are just as ruthless as any arab terrorist.
I am familiar with the Just War theory. I had to look up the criteria because I don’t ever think about it.
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
From the definition, the only side that has a legitimate reason for going to war are the Palestinians.
Look, I am completely aware that atrocities have been committed on both sides. But it is hypocritical for the Jews to claim the superiority or morality in this conflict. They are just to blame and they are just as ruthless as any arab terrorist.
Number 1, while debatable as to who the aggressor is, since some would say that the Palestinians are the aggressor, I could grant you, however, what means, other than violence, have the Palestinians used that have been shown to be impractical or ineffective? Also, how have the Palestinians shown that they have serious prospects of success? I think it would be pretty reasonable to argue 1 and 2 in favor of Israel, while 3 has not proven to be true, and 4 is much harder to argue from a neutral position.
Cross posted on the other thread:
Human Shield Video (17 seconds)
In all likelihood, this war will end in about a week. Probably that is the reason for intensifying the attacks now (the last blow has to make a lasting mark). The perfect timing for getting out is when there is a more attractive subject for the media to fill the headlines with (i.e. Obama’s inauguration) hence not many will end up in Gaza to report on the magnitude of the crisis. The IDF prowess in timing its operations is terrifying.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/12/gaza-hamas-israel-meshal
**Look, I am completely aware that atrocities have been committed on both sides. **
Agreed.
But it is hypocritical for the Jews to claim the superiority or morality in this conflict. They are just to blame and they are just as ruthless as any arab terrorist.
Here I disagree. One of the interesting things about JWT is that it is applied indepenently to all combatants. It can result in both (or all) sides being engaged in a unjust war. In the current situation, reasonable people can differ on the identity of the aggressor, the difference being when you look for aggression. I think a case can almost always be made that the other side is the aggressor so I don’t attach too much value to the label. In this case, both sides describe losing the conflict as an objectifiable bad thing. Israel ceases to exist and Hamas (Palistinians) can’t continue on in the current conditions. Call this one a tie.
The second element is a bit more problematic for Hamas as it can not be said to have exhausted all other means. (Although you may argue that the Palistinians as a group have, the same is not true of Hamas.) Israel has, however, reached accomodations over time with every other group seeking to destroy it. Edge: Israel.
The real sticking point for me is the third element. Hamas does not have a genuine prospect of success in and of itself. It is immoral for it to engage in actions designed to generate atrocities as a means to isolate and villify Israel in an effort to enlist others to use force to achieve its goals. On this one, Israel gets a win. It has the military advantage without doubt. Edge: Israel.
On the fourth element, Hamas asserts that it is engaged in rocketing and suicide bombers as the only weapons it has available to it, therefore the use is appropriate. An argument could be made that the use of these weapons is proportionate to the evil to be avoided which is the current living conditions in Gaza. Unfortunately, I have not heard this argument from Hamas. Its argument is that anything is fair in its battle to destroy Israel. See the difference? As to Israel, the easy argument is that it is not using proportionate force because it uses sophisticated military weapons against relatively crude Hamas weapons that have actually killed or wounded few of its citizens. This is an attractive argument and is, I believe, the core of the Hamas strategy. It is not however, persuasive to me because Israel is using restraint. There is little doubt that it could depopulate Gaza, but it is not. Whether you give credit for exercising restraint or not, it is hard to deny that restraint is being shown by Israel. This is a closer call for me, but because Hamas is not proceeding from a defensible motivation and the restraint that is being shown by Israel, Edge: Israel.
Just War theory doesn’t only cover why a group goes to war, and there’s more to it than just Yahey listed.
Here’s some components:
The cause has to be just. It can’t only be to retake territory or punishing wrongdoers. Innocent life must be in danger, and the aggresion must be used to avert that danger. (Edge: Israel)
The injustice for one side has to outweigh the injustice against the other. (Edge: Maybe the Palestinians)
Here’s a big one. Only legitimate authorities may wage war. If Hamas, as a recognized governmental authority were to wage actual war, then maybe they’d meet this one. If it’s the terrorist outliers of Hamas waging a terrorist campaign, they clearly do not meet this criteria. (Edge: Israel)
Probability of success - we’ve already covered. (I give the Edge to Israel)
Last resort. Clearly Hamas has not used terrorism as a last resort. Israel has offered concessions in several areas, the Palestinians have chosen not to accept, and to fight instead. (Edge: Israel)
The benefit of waging war must be proportional to the risks if not engaging. If Israel doesn’t wage war, it will continue to suffer attacks, and eventually be destroyed. If Palestine doesn’t attack, they will continue to live in relative peace, albeit not in the way or area they would prefer. (Edge: Israel)
That’s all Jus Ad Bellum stuff. There’s also the Jus In Bello component.
Distinction. Attacks have to be directed at combatant targets, and not deliberately at civilians. (Edge: Clearly goes to Israel)
Proportionality. The more colateral civilian deaths, the more important the cause better be, or you risk not qualifying under this requirement. Israel is probably borderline on this right now. Hamas clearly doesn’t meet the criteria.
Military necessity. Attacks must be directly related to some goal that helps defeat the enemy’s forces. You have to use the minimum amount of force required to accomplish your military goals. This could be a Hell of a lot of force, so log as it’s required to accomplish a military objective. Again, Israel might be borderline on this, and Hamas clearly doesn’t meet the requirement.