No doubt and I suppose if he had explained that then maybe that would be it. But instead his response was to get combative and angry rather than simply state a fact like that. Perhaps I misinterpreted what he said and interpreted it as a justification when in fact it wasn't but he didn't say anything close to what you said.
How about when Israel was involved in shoot outs and they would apprehend innocent by-standers who were often under-age boys hold guns to their heads and force them to go to the houses where the perps they were after were hold up. I think holding innocent youths at gunpoint and forcing them into deadly situations like that is on par with terrorism. Thank goodness the Israeli courts forced the IDF to stop that practice.
It certainly is not a very honorable tactic, but under the common definition of terrorism we tend to use around here (intentional targeting of civilians) it doesn't quite fit. It should be noted that the Palestinian terrorists use innocent Palestinians as human shields far more oftern than the Israelis, since by living/operating amongst them, they are doing it constantly.
well they are palestinian. would you like them to create a fake island off the coast of israel via the help of dubai and use that as a base to infiltrate israel?
StupicMoniker, don't kid yourself. Start from the comparison between the Iraq War and Israel-Palestine conflict. You have said on record that abortion is your number one issue due to the sheer number of people being mudered, and ten Iraq Wars wouldn't cause the yearly devestation of abortion on demand. Let's not worry about 10x Iraq War, how about just 1x Iraq War. What do you see in the Israel-Palestine conflict that you don't see in the Iraq War? Single murder by shooting? Multiple murders? Suicide bombing on bus or in market? Missile hitting innocent people? What else?
I think what this debate shows is that neither the Israelis or the Palestinians can claim the moral high ground. Following up on the abortion side note debate Israel shares social attitudes much more in line with with Western Europe than with the US with the one huge exception in regard to the Palestinians. On most social issues Arabs and predominantly Muslim countries attitudes are similar to American social conservatives yet our closest allies are in Western Europe and Australia while our bitterest enemies are primarily Arabs and Muslims. So on some level it seems hypocritical for US social conservatives to ally with people and cultures who support abortion on demand, gay rights and secular humanism vs people and cultures that outlaw abortion, believe homosexuality is a sin and are devoutly monotheistic. What this shows it that not all issues are rated on the same level. Also while devout Muslims share many of the same moral opinions as US conservatives their cultures are very different along with few historical ties. For all of their social differences Israelis for the most part dress like Americans, Israel superficially looks like more American and almost all Israelis speak English. I also believe that race plays a role too. Israelis not only dress like Americans they look more like Americans than the Palestinians. I personally believe the almost reflexive support by Americans for Israelis over Palestinians has much more to do with the perception of Israel being an outpost of western culture and western people in a sea of strange Middle Easterners. Forget the fact that Israelis actually hold many different views than Americans or are far from being the underdogs in the conflict with the Palestinians, and for that matter against their neighbors, most Americans see them as being worthy of support since they seem more American than the Arabs. So much so to the point that I've frequently heard Americans referrto Israel's conflicts as an "us" vs "them" even though Israel's conflicts aren't necessarily ours and on a few occasions have even worked against US interests.
How about in camps outside the cities, like many US military facilities. I have a feeling that without US support, more people will die in Israel than are killed in Israel by abortion. So, while abortion now kills more Israelis than the Palestinian terrorist, I project that in the long run, there will be fewer deaths by continuing support of Israel. Setting that aside, this whole argument is pointless. You think that you have found some great ideological inconsistancy in my posts, and you have decided to keep repeating it over and over again. Somehow you have picked up SamFisher's most annoying habit. I will say to you what I say to him - I see no inconsistency in my views, despite what you may think.
I think they did intentionally target civilians by using that tactic. They may not have targeted them for hopeful death. But certainly the civilian's life wasn't considered even if deat itself wasn't the desired outcome.
you do realize gaza strip is like one of the most densely populated areas in the world right? and they dont exactly have a 300 billion dollar+ military budget.
Following with the issue of targetting civillians Palestinian suicide bombers often are trying to target Israeli troops. Israeli troops frequently travel on civillian buses or frequent civillian facilities while in uniform. Given the size, density and nature of Israel its inevitable that Israeli troops would mingle with civillians. The same situation applies to Palestinian militants so any battle between the two is almost always fought in areas where there are civillians. Neither side is willing, or able, to put their troops into open areas away from civillians.
You do realize that the Gaza Strip is not one giant city right, and that there are open areas where combat can take place without injuring civilians, and in the West Bank even more so, right? As for their military budget, how much do you think it costs to set up camp in the desert? More than it costs to buy/rent/lease whereever they are setting up shop in the city? The reason that they live among the population is that they know that they will be blown up if they have a base in the middle of nowhere (ie they are using the population as human shields), it has nothing to do with an inablilty to leave the populated areas. We target civilians with get out the vote campaigns, obviously that is not what I was refering to. Terrorists target civilians with their weapons in order to kill them. Just to be clear here - intentionally using your weapons for the explicit purpose of killing innocent people -> terrorism, not doing so -> not terrorism. You are joking right? Suicide bombers attack buses, pizzarias, weddings, and discos. There are military installations in Israel that are perfectly legitimate targets. The Palestinians could attack IAF airbases, IDF training facilities, IDF weapons depots, sniper towers, etc. All of those are areas where the Israelis have put their troops away from civilians. In the United States you can see uniformed troops on buses, in schools, and at airports, but those are not legitimate military targets - for those you want to look at Fort Knox, Fort Bragg, Norfolk Naval Base, etc.
You are cutting a pretty thin line. The IDF did target innocent bystanders, force them into harms way at gunpoint, and get them killed. The intention wasn't necessarily that the civilians die, but they were used as human shields and it cost them their lives. When the Iranians took U.S. personnell hostage back in '78 was that not a terrorist act, because they didn't intend to kill them?
The problem is you are looking at this as an even fight where the only reason why the Palestinians aren't primarily targetting Israeli military bases is that they choose not too. If the PA had attack helicopters, fighter bombers and tanks they probably would as it would make much more sense to target military infrastructure than civillian. For that matter the Palestinians have targetted Israeli military facilities, most often checkpoints and forward bases, many of the rocket attacks are directed at military bases and there even has been suicide attacks on military bases. On the flip side the Palestinians have military facilities of their own, the PA police and militia facilities which the Israelis have targetted, yet the Israelis have shown little restraint going after Palestinian militants when they are in civillian areas and don't just confine their attacks to the police and militia facilities. The Israelis have also gone further than just targetting militants but also engaging in collective punishment of destroying the houses of families of militants even if they militants are dead or aren't there. So right their they are targetting civillian infrastructure. To the Israelis credit they don't deliberately kill them but show no compunction regarding destroying the homes, livelihoods of noncombatants nor do they hesitate if noncombatants are killed in the process of having their homes bulldozed or bombed. In regard to your argument that soldiers in uniform off base in civillian areas are off limits generally its recognized, even by the Geneva Conventions, that soldiers who haven't surrendered are legitimate targets even if they are not on the front lines or in civillian areas. The argument is that it is the soldiers fault for putting civillians at risk. This is the exact same logic the Isrealis and we use to target militants hiding out in civillian targets. Your argument that the Palestinians shouldn't target Israeli troops in civillian areas is a double standard when Israelis target Palestinian fighters when they are in civillian areas too and you yourself justify that tactic as blaming the Palestinians. If you apply the same logic then it is the Israelis soldiers fault that they put civillians at risk by frequenting civillian areas especially in uniform. As I said though I don't believe either side has a moral superiority to their tactics. Both kill civillians and the Israel argument that they don't deliberately target civillians is a weak when they do since they have a policy of collective punishment. In the end both sides are doing what they can and as such they don't hesitate to exploit targets of oppurtunities even if it means killing civillians. Neither side is moral (I will give the Israelis a bit of an edge that they don't use their own people as weapon delivery systems) but both sides want to win.
Feeling? Projection? LMAO. Right wing twist is at full display here. Fact-based thinking is lost on you. In the Israel-Palestine conflict, how many have been killed by each side regardless of the nature of the killings? How many have been killed due to terrorism? Shall I expect you have the intellectual integrity to compare these figures with the casualties resulted from the Iraq War? And then 10x Iraq Wars? Feel free to throw in the nature of the killing if you wish. Since when murders of innocent babies by abortion on demand lost appeal to you? Aren't they Israelis after all? Would the world give a damn if Saddam as the head of the state only killed a handful of his rivals during his 20+ years' reign of Iraq? Why does the size of the murders matter in one case but not in another? You have pooh-poohed at yourself over and over again, it's only fitting to use your own words against you.
I don't think being at a tactical disadvantage is a legitimate excuse. If that is the case, we might as well just say that all wars are anything goes. In the end that is going to be worse for those on the low side of assymetric wars than the way things are now. Those are legitimate military strikes. I have no more problem with that than I have with the Iraqi insurgents attacking American troops (which is to say, I wish it wouldn't happen, but I don't think it is any worse than any other military on military action). That works when they are going after the Palestinians that serve a dual role in fighting the Israelis and serving as members of the Palestinian police or militia. When are they supposed to target the Hamas bombmakers and gunmen that never set foot in a military facility. Those people have made their homes into military targets and put their neighbors into harms way. In the vast majority of cases, it is not difficult to avoid getting killed when your home is being demolished. It isn't like the Israelis have silent stealth bulldozers and sneak up on the house in the dead of night. Even if that were the case, they don't target the houses at random. If your family member was a suicide bomber, get out of your house. As for engaging of collective punishment, I don't see any other way to discourage people that are willing to blow themselves up. The bombers are already dead, so you can't do anything to them, you just have to let them know before hand that if they choose to be suicide bombers, it is their family that is going to suffer for it (but not be physically harmed, unless they so choose, just monetary punishment). I don't care what is generally recognized. Around the world it is generally recognized that Israel is an evil opressor and the United State are more or less the same. I choose to make up my own mind in what is right or wrong. To me, there is a difference between visiting civilian areas and staying in civilian areas. The Israeli military spends plenty of time in areas where I would consider them legitimate targets. It isn't like they spend all of their time at a pizzaria or on a civilian bus. On the other hand, most of the higher ups in the terrorist organizations probably never leave civilian areas. If one didn't account for that difference, then I would agree that it is a double standard. Israel does not do everything they can to win. They could kill every Palestinian in the West Band and Gaza. That would be wrong and they don't do it (not necessarily because it would be wrong). They also could choose to change their collective punishment policies to killing the families of militants instead of a material punishment (see previous parenthetical note). Needless to say, I disagree with your assesment that they are morally equal. Reasoning and critical thinking are apparently lost on you. Do you think there is no way to figure out what likely results of activities are in the future, and we can only know what has already happened. I like to consider possible outcomes before making decisions, which I believe is the very thing the Dems criticize the administration for not doing. Damned if you do and damned if you don't I guess. If I thought that Israel bowing to the wishes of the Palestinians would not result in more deaths, then I could agree with your point. I don't follow you here. I will again say, I don't see my opinions as being inconsistent. You are welcome to keep trying this tactic, but it will be no more successful that it was for Sam wrt Affirmative Action.
I'm sorry I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post but did want to resond to this part. Keep in mind the Geneva Conventions were written before Israel existed so what you percieve as bias in those conventions towards Israel couldn't have existed but more importantly what you're saying here is that you do hold Israel and the US to a double standard so your own view in the matter is colored by a bias. You believe you're justified since you believe the rest of the world is biased so in your mind what other people do is unfair and immoral but if the US or Israel does the same, targetting combatants in civillian areas is fair game. Further in regard to the recognized standard under accepted standards of warfare that predate the existence of Israel it is recognized that combatants even in civillian areas are fair game. The Palestinians that target Israeli soldiers in civillian areas are following that and the Israelis that target Palestinian militants in civillian areas also are following that. Your the one that is applying a bias by saying that Israelis soldiers shouldn't be fair game when they are among civillians while Palestinian militants should be. Your bias is your bias and you're free to keep but don't argue for moral consistency then.
Well I lied I do have time or I'm too much of a debate junky not to answer some critical points instead of sleeping like I should be. But the point of warfare is to win, as Sun Tzu says that doesn't necessarily mean anhilating the enemy but it doesn't mean a fair fight. Yes the nature of assymetric warfare gives the insurgents some advantages but those pale in regard to what the more powerful force has. Any good military commander will tell you that they're not looking for a fair fight the US military most of all. While yes it is moral and humanitarian to not engage in genocide or nuke the enemy but that also has to do practical difficulties of being so brutal that you make more enemies. This is something that Sun Tzu understood and it is something that most military officers are taught. At the sametime when are Palestinian militants supposed to target Israeli troops when they are at their strongest or when they leave fortified positions and are at their most vulnerable? Further Israeli troops often go home and stay at their homes or even eat meals at home and in other civillians facilities while in uniform. Those people have put their neighbors at risk the same way an Al Qaeda leader puts people or family when he visits them. In both cases those people should know they are targets of their enemies who won't hesitate to strike them whenever they get the chance. If you're blaming the Palestinian fighters who mingle among civillians shouldn't you blame the Israeli troops for leaving their bases or at them mininum not taking off their uniforms when they leave base? If your brother committed a murder and the government came to bulldoze your mother's house because of it wouldn't you try to stay there and make a stand? What if your mother was old and sick and the bulldozers only gave her a few minutes warning? Or in the case of when they've blown up the houses of militants as part of collective punishment sometimes with no warning. Here you're asking for a fair fight when it is anything of the sort. The Israelis don't hide out in civillian areas all the time because their bases are more fortified than civillian areas. OTOH Palestinian militants hide out because its safer for them than in bases since the PA militia installations are easily targetted by vastly superior Israeli military. I agree this puts the civillians at great risk but that is what every insurgent does. You might as well be asking why didn't the resistance fighters of the Warsaw ghetto stay hiding among non-combatants in the ghetto instead of building a military base to fight the Germans. I would even say that under your logic the Israelis soldiers are less moral than the Palestinian militants since they don't have to mingle among civillians for cover but are more secure in their bases. Them mingling among civillians adds nothing to their safety while greatly putting the civillians more at risk. I've already addressed while this isn't done but to address it more specifically. Israel is still a small country. Its a surprisingly powerful small country but committing genocide would isolate it even from its closest ally the US. While Israel has fought off combined Arab armies and probably could do so again it couldn't survive long without continued aid and trade coming in. Brutality isn't always the best tactic and Israeli commanders know this from their people's own experience with genocide. That said though Israel is still maintaining an unpopular occupation of a very large population and to do so they have to exercise some level of brutality. Their strategy is a compromise of what they see as measured brutality. While I'm sure most Israelis don't want to commit genocide this has to do with what they can get away with without having Israel destroyed in the backlash. While there may be greater morals that both sides put up their means aren't moral and IMO the willingness by both sides to engage in brutality has diminished any greater moral claim they can put up. Unfortunately that is more the norm when it comes to war than the exception.
I never said that the Geneva conventions were biased. I said that I don't allow the world to determine what is moral or immoral for me. I trust you would not disagree with my statement that much of the world views Israel and the US in a negative light. Since I do not share those views, that must mean that I do not allow them to define my morality. The rest of this I will address in the part where you got around to discussing how the circumstances are in fact not the same. I don't think I mentioned a fair fight once in my entire post. I did say that the reality of an unfair fight does not change the morality or immorality of the actors on either side of the power disparity. The moral choice would be to target them when they are not mixed in with the civlian population. When they are actually in the Palestinians territory would probably be the most effective of those times. The most tactically sound choice would be to attack them when they are most vulnerable. Thus, the answer depends on what you mean by the question. This is discussed further, and with more recognition of my point, below. Hell no I wouldn't get myself killed to protect a house. If my brother, knowing that the consequences of doing so would be the destruction of my mother's house, choose to become a suicide bomber, I would get my mother out of her house as soon as I learned what he had done, assuming I didn't know before he did it. If I knew what he was planning I would do everything I could to try to stop him, including turning him in to the authorities. You are responding as though I don't understand WHY the Palestinians use their neighbors as human shields. Know that I understand the reasoning very well, but that doesn't make it a moral thing to do. Just because other insurgents do the same thing makes no difference to me. Doing so is no more moral a choice than the Israelis using a Palestinian boy as a human shield when raiding a militant house. I acknowledged that they were not necessarily making that choice because it was the right thing to do. Even so the choice they are making is the right one, no matter their reasoning. It's that whole absolute morality thing. If I save a baby, but only because I think I will be rewarded for it, the parents are still going to be glad I saved the baby. Saving the baby is the moral choice, even if I choose it for a different reason. I guess we are just talking on two different levels here. You are talking about utility and I am talking about morality. Now, having said all of that, there are certainly changes to policy that Israel could make which would make them more moral. I am by no means saying that Israel is perfect, even in the prosecution of their war. I am only saying that they have the moral high ground in their execution of the conflict with the Palestinians, even if it is easier for them to fight morally.
