Hiding War Crimes Behind a Question

[stupidicus]

Like with all conflicts, it seems to me that a satisfactory resolution to it can only come from a fact-based and just assignment and apportionment of blame accepted and acknowledged by the parties involved, which in turn leads to acceptable and agreed upon solutions.

The impediments to this are many in this case, but few stick out like the proverbial sore thumb like this one imo.

Doesn’t Israel have a right to defend itself? Though it is hard for a question to be wrong, this is a dead wrong question even though it is the heart and soul of Israel’s defense of its attack on little Gaza.

It is also the basis of the U.S. assessment of the ongoing moral disaster. The Senate voted unanimously to answer the question in the affirmative while ignoring all other piercingly relevant circumstances. Never has a misplaced question had such prestige and high-level cachet.

Israeli Prime Minister and U.S. President Barack Obama during an Oval Office meeting on May 18, 2009. (Photo credit: White House)
The contorted question sins by deviousness and legerdemain. With verbal wizardry, offense suddenly becomes defense with all the legitimacy that defense imports. It is akin to asking “Does a rapist during a rape have a right to defend himself if the victim resists?”

With collective amnesia, Israel and the United States brush aside basic realities of warfare. Siege (or blockade) is an act of offensive warfare. Indeed it is among the most devastating of weapons, condemned by both “Just War” theory and — very much to the point — by Jewish and Christian ethics of war. http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/24/hiding-war-crimes-behind-a-question/

The question and the answer many an individual come up with lead to many a blind spot, like a disregard for such fixtures in international law and laws of war like proportionality, collective punishment, etc. These things are imo, a direct consequence of those individuals casting both parties under the same moral equivalence umbrella in an effort to justify the far more damaging actions/war crimes of Israel http://prospect.org/article/moral-responsibility-and-israel-palestinian-conflict without any consideration whatsoever to the actual damage respectively suffered, like it's really nothing to consider.

I also read and hear time and again about how it is that Hamas -- a Frankenstein Monster not unlike AQ or SH in terms of construction and motive for it http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2002/06/18/Analysis-Hamas-history-tied-to-Israel/UPI-82721024445587/ -- intends to not be satisfied until every jew on the planet is killed. That reads eaxctly like the rational our current pres and crew have used to justify the extra-judicial killing of American citizens. "Intends" is morphed into the definitional equivalent of "imminent/immediate" justifying both the means and end of their removal -- the constitution in that case be damned. Israel appears to be using the same rationale the 9/11 criminals used to justify their punishment of innocents -- criminalization of us all, and this conflict provided a good measure of that criminality in their minds.

There's also that old "Well, they shouldn't have elected Hamas as their reps" line, which in my mind is not unlike the justification I use to read and hear from rightwingnuts regarding Bush's collective punishment of the Iraqis -- "Well, if they didn't want what they got, they shoulda deposed him".

And just to be clear here, I'm a "just war" proponent, always have been and always will be, so I'm not trying to justify the war crimes, etc, that Palestinians or their leadership are guilty of in the course of explaining things. I do however have no difficulty whatsoever assigning and apportioning most of the blame for current conditions on the Israelis. In the final analysis, what we have here is a case of one party taking, the other wanting to take back, and there's no mystery as to who is who, no, and who the resolution to the conflict should favor in terms of turning back the clock?

The question for the American people is, how high a price are we willing to pay for the same guilt by association we shamelessly continue? They, like us, continue to be #1 at all the wrong things http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/study-israel-leads-in-ignoring-security-council-resolutions-1.31971 so I can't help but wonder based upon what they lay claim to having the "moral authority" in the matter other than in "never again" lessons they have long been on the dispensing end of in this instance, while harboring a wholly unreasonable expectation that their victims go quietly into night so that they can live rightly without fear of reprisals from the parties they willfully, disproportionally, and excessively harm because they can as the far superior force.

Just because the spoils go to the victors doesn't make the right of might, right.

[Savannahmann]

1. Here is the problem.

If someone walks up and punches you in the mouth for no reason, you have every right to be angry. You have every right to be outraged. You should be able to point to this action and scream that it was unjustified, and unwarranted.

When you strike them across the noggin, you can't run around screaming that they punched you in the mouth. You instigated the violence.

Look at the Cease Fire situation. Both sides "agree" to a cease fire. Then Hamas fires more rockets at Israel. Well cease fire does not mean time for cheap shots, it means no firing.

http://news.sky.com/story/1014888/gaza-rockets-fired-hours-after-ceasefire

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/15/gaza-militants-fire-3-rockets-despite-truce-call/

In war, the idea is to fight away from the civilians. To allow the military to have their test of strength. Hamas is weaker militarily, and they know they can't win that way. So they fire from the tops of apartment buildings, from school yards. Then they scream that Israel is committing war crimes when they fire back. Again, you hit them first, you don't get to complain when they hit you back.

If Hamas was not firing at Israel, which they are doing by all accounts. Then they could and should have every reason to complain about Israel hitting them.



From 2012, the rockets are launching from a residential area. Why are they launching from there?



Mobile Rocket Launcher.

[Martin Eden]

5. "You instigated the violence."

Have you considered that violence takes many forms, and the instigation preceded the recent Hamas rockets? I refer to the cruel circumstances inflicted on Palestinians by the state of Israel.

Don't get me wrong; I am in no way defending Hamas firing rockets. The Israeli response was predictable.

But the Israeli response far exceeds your little parable about punching back after someone strikes you in the mouth. This is more like fire-bombing a house full of children after their father struck you in the mouth.

What Hamas has been doing is wrong.
What Israel is doing is orders of magnitude worse and cannot be justified.

[Maedhros]

7. Yes - what these short-sighted pro-Likud posters seem to keep misunderstanding

is that pointing out Israeli atrocities does not correlate to "support" of Hamas or condoning their actions.

Nothing justifies killing children.

[Savannahmann]

9. You should get off the fence

It's wearing the seat of your pants out. First you say..

Don't get me wrong; I am in no way defending Hamas firing rockets. The Israeli response was predictable.

Then you go on to explain that the Israeli response is too much.

OK, Hamas fires rockets and mortars. Israel fires rockets and missiles back. The problem seems to be with the effectiveness of the Israeli missiles and rockets. Then to try and eliminate the rockets before they're fired, Israel goes in on the ground. Then they are horrid invaders and occupiers.

Let's be honest. Nobody wants the Palestinian people in their country. Not Egypt, not Jordan, and not Syria. Iran gives Hamas the rockets because Hamas is the hammer in which to pound the hated Jews. We know that.

So how did we get into this mess? Well Britain in an effort to defeat the Germans in WW I (Yes, World War One) allowed Lawrence of Arabia to make promises for independance of the entire region in return for fighting Turkey. Then it was the British territory of Palestine, and then World War II. Afterwards, the UN decided that it should be two countries, tied in economic and political unity. A dream obviously. Israel and Palestine. The Arab Union responded by declaring war on Israel. The nation of Israel had existed for about twelve minutes and somehow managed to survive this war. But you can't blame them for fighting like there was no tomorrow, because until 1945, there was no tomorrow for many of the European Jews.

So in 1948, the Palestinians turned their back on an equal nation, with equal and just laws. It wasn't going to be fair, life wasn't fair. It was going to be the best that could be done with what we had. They didn't want some, they wanted it all. That decision has been the foundation of all their suffering since. They made a bad choice.

Since that time, instead of starting a new nation, and trying to live in peace with their neighbors, the Palestinian hotheads, who are known to the population, it's kind of hard not to notice your neighbor toting a bunch of rockets into a school yard, fire on Israel, and then complain that the Jews are doing terrible things by firing back. If the Israeli are not firing on the terrorists, they are rounding them up during these periodic attacks into regions where they have been fired on.

Perhaps we overcompensated the Jews for not taking action sooner to end the Holocaust. Perhaps we were feeling guilty and were willing to give up anything to sooth that guilt. Perhaps we have been too tolerant. But my God, the things that happened during World War II in Nazi Germany are unspeakable. It is easily understandable how the UN came up with this plan, in an effort to apologize for not stopping Hitler sooner. But that was just the latest chapter of the torment of the Jews. The Crusaders before they reached the holy land and slaughtered muslims killed Jews all the way across Europe. Fact, not fiction.

The Palestinians insist they have their citizens back. It would be as if Timothy McVeigh had bombed the Federal Police headquarters in Tijuana and we demanded his return. The claim would be so asinine as to be laughable. Yet for some reason, we don't laugh at the claim. When the Israeli do release some of these political prisoners, the prisoners are quoted on TV and in the news as saying they will destroy Israel. Perhaps you remember this from December of last year.

Israel released more prisoners, December of last year. Hamas has responded to this effort at good will by firing rockets at the Israeli.

Let's say we are neighbors. You have kids, and I have kids. There is a fence between our yards. My children throw fireworks at your kids in the yard. You ask me to make this stop. I reply that first you have to let me park in your yard, and I'll talk to my kids. Does that seem fair or reasonable? We had the opportunity to be friendly as neighbors, and I threw that away. Now, you will never trust me, not until I show good faith and take action to keep my children away from fireworks so they can't hurt your kids.

Before Palestine can claim to be peaceful, they have to round up the missiles that are in every neighborhood. If the Palestinian military wants them, fine. But they should be secured in dedicated bunkers, ammo depots, like reasonable nations do. From what I've seen on the net and the news, it looks like every kid has a missile in their room. We talk here about keeping guns away from kids, so it should be a no brainer to keep missiles away from where the children play.

The Palestinians must take responsibility for rounding up the lunatics with the rockets. Israel doesn't pass out rockets to every man, woman, and child. Nor do they store the weapons at schools. They may set up defensive missiles, the Iron Dome there, but those are interceptors, not attacking weapons.

When Palestine disarms the lunatics with the rockets, come talk to me and I'll get on board the idea of Israel giving more concessions to them. When no more rockets are fired at Israel, then we can start talking about what rights the Palestinians should have. But whenever we make progress on that front, the groups like Hamas go ape shit. They don't want peace, they want all the Jews dead, or off the planet. Dead in orbit would be acceptable. But until both sides show a willingness to live and let live, then the dead will increase.

The Onion showed this in their future news. About 3:15 in the video.

The best comedy has truth in it.

[Martin Eden]

10. To choose sides, like you have obviously done?

Sorry, no.

Both sides are wrong, and so are you ... including your entirely one-sided biased historical narrative.

Your analogy about throwing fireworks across a fence would be laughable if the actual situation were not so tragic. The following would be more accurate:
The kids who threw the fireworks used to have a large yard to play in but their neighbors confiscated most of their land, fenced them in, ruined the family's livelihood, control access into and out of their yard, and respond to fireworks with bombs that destroy what's left of the house while killing the children inside.

I said the Israeli response was predictable; I did not say it was justified.

But you are trying to justify the mass murder of innocents.

And failing, because it is unjustifiable.

[Savannahmann]

11. We've tried the other methods.

How many peace accords have their been? I think that in December Secretary Kerry got the frequent flier for Middle East Peace award.

Neither side is willing to live, and let live. I can't blast Israel if Hamas keeps instigating. Not in good conscience.

As for one sided. Those are the facts. The UN did issue an opinion in 1947. Israel was formed in 1948, one of the two states. Palestine was not. Israel was about twelve minutes old when the 1948 war was fired up. Ok, it was one day old when the Arab Coalition attacked. I may have exaggerated the twelve minutes.

Not very one sided. Pretty much historical fact.

Prisoners were released in December, again factual. Hamas has responded by firing rockets. Again, not really one sided, pretty factual.

Neither party seems willing to live in peace. Fine. They want to fight it out. I'm going to back Israel for three reasons.

1) Israel is the Democratic one. As far as I've been able to find, Israel has lived up to every agreement they've made in the pursuit of peace.

2) Egypt has been trying to broker agreements between Israel and Hamas. Egypt says Hamas is the one to blame for the current fighting, because they broke the cease fire.

3) You have to give something, to get something. What Israel and the world want is to live in peace. Live and let live. Hamas has not demonstrated a desire to do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Now imagine your neighbor has sworn an oath to put you to death. How willing would you be to have them over for dinner? Before you invite them, you ask that they renounce the call for your death. They say no, they can not due to internal reasons. Well my friend, the invitation is withdrawn. We are enemies until you decide that I have a right to live too.

If Hamas renounced violence today. If they turned the weapons over to the UN. If Hamas voted the charter out of effect, I would be one of the leading voices calling on peace negotiations and calling on Israel to give in to the demands of the Palestinian people. Hamas undid all the efforts of decades of work by those who saw peaceful coexistence as the right way to go. When war after war failed to destroy Israel.

We must learn to live in peace. We must learn to live and let live. Respect one anothers differences, and allow them to live as they want to. I love the Wiccan Rede. As long as ye harm none, do what ye will. I respect those who harm none, and do nothing to cause harm to another. I have much less respect, bordering on disdain for those who instigate violence. This is why I am so outspoken when a Police Officer fires on an unarmed man or woman who has their hands up surrendering. This is why I object so loudly to the brutality of the militarized police forces. I do not speak out when a police officer returns fire. I don't even say a word when the cop kills a guy with a gun.

I denounce the US Government for firing on wedding parties with Drones. That isn't even retaliation. It's an assassination plain and simple. If the Wedding party instead of dancing and food and celebration was firing rockets on the US Forces, I wouldn't say a word about the party being bombed. I would, as I am now, speak truth to the best of my ability.

You are taking sides too my friend. You have taken the side of the Palestinians. You say you aren't taking sides, but you haven't said both sides should cease the violence and sit down to talk. You haven't said that, because you want to defend the underdog, the face of the Palestinian children who were harmed and killed by the response.

I feel badly for the children, I do. Which is why I would be one of the leading voices if the Israeli had instigated the bombing. But they did not fire first. Oh you can rationalize it and say the Gaza people are trapped and condemned to a slow death. Fine, let's talk about what it will take. First, stop shooting at your neighbor. After we do that, let's see what else we can do. Because if the Palestinians were to round up the weapons, and those with the weapons, and toss them in jail. I'd join you in encouraging Israel to normalize relations. But as long as they're shooting, I will not condemn Israel for shooting back.

Because if we took rocket fire from Windsor into Detroit I don't think I'd be real upset about the response. Perhaps that is a bad example, because I'm not sure anyone would notice if Rockets landed in Detroit. Seriously, first you have to give up the war before you can have the peace. Hamas hasn't given up the war. The Palestinians elected Hamas to represent them. The Palestinians aren't rounding them up and taking the rockets away. The Palestinians are stuck with this mess of their own making. Cruel? Perhaps. Harsh? Perhaps. Realistic? You bet. Because if Windsor was firing on Detroit, we would not be discussing anything with Canada until the rockets stopped firing, and those responsible were in custody. First A, then we can move on to B. That's the way it works in the real world.

[RobertEarl]

17. 'We've tried the other methods'

No. You have not.

Empty platitudes is all you have, that and excuses for making war and killing children. You should be ashamed of yourself, but thru the fog of 'fuck them', you have no shame. Karma.

[Martin Eden]

18. The only side I've taken is against the needless slaughter of innocents

You have taken the other side. You support the slaughter of innocents and are trying to justify it. But it is not a practical solution. It is not the road to peace. It is not the road to long term security for the state of Israel.

You are tying yourself into illogical knots trying to justify it. And failing, because it cannot be justified.

You claim I have taken a side based on what I have NOT said. If you can't see the absurdity of that assertion, you are being willfully blind. I stated both sides were wrong for their acts of violence.

You say "Those are the facts" but you select only the facts that support your one-sided argument and leave out all the facts that do not.

You think you know how things work in the "real world" but to illustrate your thought process you concoct ridiculous analogies that do not remotely resemble the real world. Rocket fire from Windsor into Detroit? That would be a workable analogy only if much of Detroit was formerly part of Windsor, was taken by the Detroiters, and the people of Windsor fenced in and impoverished by their much stronger neighbor financed and supplied with arms by a superpower.

Both sides stop shooting, for awhile. But the underlying injustice and suffering continues while more land is steadily taken. You cite "facts" but you willfully ignore those facts on the ground. If you really understood how the real world works you would know there is no peaceful solution that does not address those facts on the ground and the plight of people who suffer even when the bombs aren't exploding.

[stupidicus]

12. NO it's not, that's just one of many problems

as anyone with the intellectual hef, knowledge in this case, and integrity surely knows.

Tell me that ain't so?

[Aerows]

14. If someone starves you

oppresses you and you respond by striking them in the mouth, is it okay to retaliate by killing you and your children?

It's not okay to strike them in the mouth, but it wasn't okay to oppress you or kill you and to kill your children, either.

This idea that one side has to be absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong is what prevents peace. At some point people have to come to grips with their grievances with one another and put the weapons away if there is to be peace. "You did this" and "You did that" ad infinitum isn't going to make peace.

It takes work - killing each other, especially when one party is far and away better armed, isn't a solution, unless the ultimate solution is domination to the point of eradication.

[Maedhros]

2. But Israel is not "hitting" Hamas.

They are killing children.

[IronGate]

3. Whom the terror org Hamas

is using as human shields.

[Maedhros]

6. When a criminal takes a child hostage,

do the police just shoot the child, or do they find another way to deal with the situation?

[morningfog]

8. Was Hamas holding the boys on the beach under rockets?

Were rockets being hid in the UN school housing refugees?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Oh, well there's that pesky little detail.

I won't post to it, but there was a cartoon of a Hamas fighter, armed to the gills, and Israeli PM Netanyahu looking at each other angrily. Instead of hitting Hamas Netanyahu is holding and punching a Palestinian child in the face repeatedly.

This is what the world is seeing.

[stupidicus]

13. and undeniably so

and in the case of those kids on the beach, I can see how someone might think it a targeting.

[Aerows]

15. You honestly have to ask when

children playing on the beach are killed, and it may be in retaliation for a kidnapping that didn't even happen?

I saw this link elsewhere. I have NO IDEA of the veracity of it, but here it is: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/israel-gaza-kidnap-false-inaccurate/

[stupidicus]

16. yep

I can't imagine any commander ordering a strike on what they didn't know was about to be hit.

I read that but am sufficiently biased on these matters that it seemed all too believable and unsurprising to me. So all I coulda came up with was some expression of disgust.