gaza toll hits 25

yosi

I'm not going to get into this debate again. I agree that the occupation should end. I don't think that the conflict (and it is plainly a conflict - people are fighting each other - the term doesn't imply parity of force) is solely about the occupation since it predates the occupation by decades. Since pretty much everyone who is willing to look at this honestly agrees that firing rockets indiscriminately into cities is a war crime, I fail to see how one can then argue that the people being targeted by those rockets are not justified in defending themselves.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yosi wrote:

I'm confused. By all accounts the great majority of those killed by Israel in the most recent flare up were militants. Given that Israel is using F-16s, which could easily kill hundreds of people in the blink of an eye, it seems to me that Israel should actually be commended, in this instance, for trying so hard not to kill civilians. Whatever you think about the justifications for the violence it seems plainly obvious that Israel is going out of its way at the moment to carry out military actions without killing civilians. That's a good thing.

MOST may have been militants...not ALL....

no praise should be heaped on any country dropping bombs on civilians.

the fact that you are excusing that little tidbit is troubling...

I'm not trying to excuse anything. I'm trying to be realistic. There is a violent conflict. Civilians are caught up in it and are at great danger. All ethical theorists of just war recognize that in such conflicts civilians will sometimes be killed by accident, or that harm to civilians will be unavoidable. In the first instance it is the ethical responsibilty of the combatents to do all they can to limit accidental civilian deaths, and in the second instance it is ethical to carry out a mission knowing that their will be civilian casualties only if the need for the mission is exceedingly great, and everything is done, again, to limit civilian deaths (if you're interested in the topic the seminal work is Michael Walzer's "Just War"). I'm not saying that it's good that civilians have been killed, or that it's excusable. I am saying that given that there is a conflict it is a good thing that the Israeli military seems to be taking its ethical responsibilities seriously and is trying hard to avoid killing civilians. They haven't always done so, and I don't see what's so wrong about recognizing the fact that they are doing so now.

the way i read this, i see it as giving them credit for doing something that they are supposed to do, such as try to limit civilian deaths. i am not going to give anybody credit for acting in a manner that they are supposed to act. that is like saying a surgeon did a great job because he removed the tumor with limited damage, but still damage, to the surrounding healthy tissue...to get proper margins on the tumor you have to damage healthy tissue. you do not have to kill civilians, and war itself can be avoided if they want to avoid it...

yosi

You can do what you want. If militaries acted ethically as a matter of course I would agree with you, but most militaries that actually engage in combat are not nearly as careful as they should be about protecting civilians. Given that I think it's appropriate to commend them when they are.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

...it predates the occupation by decades.

The current situation is about the occupation. It's not really about 1948, 1947, or the 1st Century A.D either.

The issue today is the settlements and the Palestinians right to establish their own state within the internationally recognized borders.

yosi

I agree that that is a major issue. I just don't think it is the sole issue. The occupation is a result of the prior conflict, and that conflict has never been resolved. The occupation has become the primary focus of the conflict, but it is not its source.