General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums300 to 1 is disproportionate warfare
there simply isn't any way around that, just as there is no way around killing civilians in a densely populated area. It is de facto collective punishment. People often ask: What if Canada/Mexico/Cuba was lobbing missiles at the U.S.? Here's my answer: If the U.S. could manage to keep it's civilian population safe without killing many civilians, that's what I'd want to see happen. Not that that is in any way a legitimate argument. Juan Cole decimates here:
http://www.juancole.com/2014/07/rockets-assumes-colonial.html
and as Cole says:
<snip>The fact is that the Israelis could have peace if they’d stop being expansionists and accept 1967 borders. The Arab League made the offer. The Palestinians made the offer. The Israeli government is instead to determined to grab more and more Palestinian resources, including perhaps Gaza’s offshore natural gas.
Indeed, the Israeli Right has designs on other territory of its neighbors, having at one time or another tried to grab the Sinai Peninsula, southern Lebanon, parts of Syria, and its leaders keep talking about Israeli “interests” in Jordan’s Ghor Valley.
Mind you, I am an advocate of peaceful social action, and I condemn Hamas’s and Islamic Jihad’s deployment of rockets. They lack guidance systems and so they are inevitably indiscriminate as weapons, endangering non-combatants, which is a war crime. But I also condemn reckless Israeli air raids on Gaza camps and cities, which a prudent person could foresee will cause non-combatant deaths. They are also war crimes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Oh and it is 300 to 2 now. Hamas has managed to killed another Bedouin man today. So far hamas has managed to kill 2 muslims with their rockets.
It is laughable though that he thinks Israel can have peace by retreating behind the 1967 borders. Hamas has the open and stated goal of "liberating" all of Israel, but of course he ignores that.
cali
(114,904 posts)They don't need the massive overreaction they're engaging in. And do you think that perhaps if Israel stopped stealing Palestinian land via ever growing settlements and oppressing Palestinians in the West Bank as well as essentially controlling the lives of Gazans, there might be a reduction in support for Hamas? You can't just keep stealing land, oppressing and humiliating a people and expect them to meekly obey.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Israel pays over 100 times more per interceptor than hamas does for a rocket. It simply isn't a sustainable practice to allow themselves to be pelted by rockets endlessly. That is without even considering that all it takes is one to wipe out a family and their home. No nation would stand by and watch that.
How about the land invasion? The reason that is happening is because Hamas has been digging tunnels under Israeli communities with the stated goal of massacring the population there. Does Israel need to wait until that happens before they act?
And no it doesn't seem to matter how much land Israel gives back. They gave back the entire Gaza strip and have received nothing but grief in return for it. Simply giving back land is not an option, there needs to be a complete political solution between responsible actors.
cali
(114,904 posts)and the U.S. helps to sustain it.
http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/07/15/israels_iron_dome_gets_new_funding_as_gaza_fight_intensifies
How about Israel occupying the W.B? How about Israel stealing land continuously- even as we speak?
It's dog shit to say that it doesn't matter how much land Israel gives back. Israel "gave back" the Gaza Strip but didn't give up it's CONTROL of the strip. even a little.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Aren't you also in favor cutting funding to Israel if I remember correctly? Ahh wonderful, calls of restraint from the same people who would strip Israel of funding needed to enable that restraint.
And yet you completely ignored how Hamas is tunneling under Israel to massacre Israeli communities. By the grace of god that has been prevented (more through sheer luck than anything), but what happens when Hamas gunmen emerge into an Israeli community? Can they respond then?
Israel gave the Palestinians gaza back and it was turned into a terrorist fortress. Just giving back land is not the solution.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)on the residents of Gaza.
It's best to ignore IDF propaganda - and so I shall.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)You mean they locked everyone inside and kept the key, don't you?
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)First you say that it is disproportionate...
I have a solution: why don't thie Israelis put their children and non-combatants behind them when they fight, and so they can satisfy your sense of proportionality. These terrorist COWARDS are hiding behind defenseless people, and you cannot just wrap your brain around that. Frankly, I do not know of any other group which has done that in recent history. I'm certain you do, however...
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)how Israelis can slaughter, terrorize and annex the land of subjugated people, bleat about peace and claim to be victims while doing it. It reaches a level of hypocrisy and arrogance difficult to fathom.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)play on the beach, easy targets for human shield hunters.
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)Where in the hell can the civilians go?
Yogi362
(38 posts)Are the people equipped with F-16s, Apache helicopters, tanks and armored vehicles, navy surface ships and submarines, and nuclear weapons, who expect people who are essentially unarmed to fight them on their terms, and cry foul when those people resort to the only means they have to defend themselves.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I said that I didn't know which view was right, but that there was a very long record of high-tech military systems being hailed in immediate reports that were later deflated or debunked. One famous illustration involves the Patriot anti-missile system during the first Gulf War. While the fighting was underway, the Patriots were said to have knocked as many as 80 percent of Iraqi Scud missiles out of the sky. A careful congressional investigation after the war lowered the "strongest evidence" kill rate down to 9 percent. (More info here, from Frontline.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/from-inside-the-iron-dome/374580/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Apparently, 300 you think is OK. What about 3,000. Or 30,000. Or 3,000,000. Is there ever a point where the collective punishment would be obvious enough for you to draw the line?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Which just shows how eager people are to label every single deaths in Gaza as a "civilian death". It is official Hamas policy and makes any number coming from Gaza in terms of civilian dead highly dubious.
Secondly, I don't want there to be anymore civilian dead. I like Israel support a white peace without any preconditions that would end the fighting immediately. Until then, Israel needs to do what it needs to do to protect their population.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Since you've refused to give a number, this is the only thing I can infer from "Israel needs to do what it needs to do to protect their population".
And this is the essential reason why the defenders of Isreal's actions in this and other cases have no moral leg to stand on. There is no sense of proportionality whatsoever, and no even attempt at moral reasoning. The only argument is that IDF gets to kill as many people as it wants, any amount of collective punishment, without any limits, and it's all justified because of rocket attacks that have thus far killed two civilians.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)If I saw Israel going above and beyond what is needed to stop the rocket fire, I would be highly critical of it. Considering that Israel has struck more than 300 times in Gaza in just the past days or so and fewer than one person dies in each airstrike. I am confident that they are doing all they can to reduce civilian causalities (which must be pointed out is still nearly impossible in such a dense area, mistakes happen).
Again you ignore that Israel offered a WHITE PEACE WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS. If you truly just want to end the conflict, why is your attention being focused on attacking the one side eager for this bloody business to end?
cali
(114,904 posts)those whose land is stolen. Or do you think the settlements aren't theft?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)So are you saying that hamas is justified in shooting rockets at Israeli cities so long as the settlements exist? Is that really your position?
No peace until the settlements are gone?
Are you absolutely sure you aren't pro-hamas, because you seem to be carrying their water.
Well maybe not, hamas doesn't care about the settlements. They want to "liberate" all of Israel and kill every single jew in the process.
cali
(114,904 posts)there. no control of what is imported (no, I'm not supporting the import of arms).
No, I am NOT fucking saying that Hamas is justified. Neither is Israel.
Are you sure you aren't supporting mass slaughter of Palestinian babies and children, dear? That's what it sounds like. In fact, you said "whatever it takes", so a reasonable conclusion is that you do support mass slaughter of civilians.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Ignore that inconvenient truth though.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)is that Hamas was elected democratically in 2006. The question as it relates to Israeli security should be why?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The number of civilians killed by IDF if way out of proportion with the rocket attacks they are retaliating for. Killing all these civilians is unnecessary and unjustified.
Obviously, Hamas firing rockets at Israel is a war crime. And IDF responding by killing hundreds of Palestinians, including civilians, women, children, etc., is obvious collective punishment, and also a war crime.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Which Hamas repeatedly has declined.
I don't want Palestinians to die anymore than I want Israelis to die. I want there to be peace. Hamas is the one stopping that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The question is whether IDF is also wrong. And the answer is yes. There is a limit on how much collective punishment is morally justified in response to rocket attacks that have killed two people, and that limit is well below 300 deaths (yes, not all civilians, but many of them are).
Kurska
(5,739 posts)But they are doing their best to prevent civilians deaths for the simple reason it looks absolutely terrible for them when civilians die. That simply isn't always possible in a dense area like gaza.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You are right, they avoid civilian deaths, not because they don't want to kill civilians, but because they want to give pundits and politicians some kind of plausible moral argument on TV shows and in the UN, etc.
The problem is, the response in this case is so disproportionate that the moral argument fails completely. The only argument that I've heard so far is that "Israel needs to do whatever it must to defend itself from Hamas". The problem with that argument is that there is no sense of proportion. If IDF decided to simply level all of Gaza and kill every citizen there, the same argument could be made. I hope that, in that case, you would agree with me that the response was disproportionate.
So there is a line somewhere. The question is, what argument can possibly made that the current response doesn't cross that line.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)We both agree that we just want the killing to stop and that is something at least.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Apparently IDF/Likkud Supporters actually believe that the Palestinians are so sub human to buy into that level of pure horse manure. That alone is evidence of Bigotry with a Capital B. But nevermind, that's the least of the Palestinians concerns. The fact is Israel does not ever intend for there to be peace of any stripe white or otherwise, Their only interest and desire is for the disappearance of the Palestinian people altogether. They don't really care how that gets accomplished. And we continue to fund that ideology.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)It just has to stop running a ghetto style occupation.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)denied Israel's right to exist and has vowed their destruction. They sound pretty implacable to me. They don't want to live in peace. They reject a two-state solution. The people in Gaza are paying the price for their intransigence, but they refuse to disavow them.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)have been denied the right to exist as well. Funny how that works out.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)But would you agree that the very first thing that has to happen, is that Hamas has to stop lobbing rockets into Israel?
0rganism
(23,957 posts)Suppose Israel stopped bombing Gaza entirely. How long do you think it would take for Hamas to destroy Israel?
whistler162
(11,155 posts)move all their citizens a couple 100 miles to the west
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)They would dearly like to kill every last one of them.
If you shoot at me and miss, I'm not going to wait until you wing me before returning fire.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The only argument I've seen is that Hamas fired the rockets, and therefore IDF is justified in doing anything and everything it wants to the civilian population in Gaza.
This is the same kind of logic that leads Hamas to fire the rockets in the first place.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)The whole idea sounds completely idiotic to me.
I kill 10 of your people, you kill 10 of my people.
I kill 100 of your people, you kill 100 of mine. And so on.
Why would such a conflict ever stop?
I kill 10 of your people, you kill 10,000,000 of mine.
I give up, the war is over.
This is what we did to Japan. It worked splendidly.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That they are justified in using any amount of force they want and inflicting as many civilian casualties and as much collective punishment as they want.
But this is not an argument for civilized, moral people who respect innocent human life. On the contrary, this is the same argument that groups like Hamas use to justify their terrorist acts. That the ends justify any means necessary.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)becomes exhausted.
MFM008
(19,818 posts)Yogi362
(38 posts)Would be tantamount to the complete surrender of the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation of their land, so of course you'd support that.
The Palestinians on the other hand have legimitate demands that need to be met first. Until then, they have the right to defend themselves.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Purposefully putting their children in harms way then Israel will stop. Until then, Israel will rightfully protect themselves. Go Israel! The President and myself are in agreement!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Essentially, defenders of IDF are arguing that the killing of two Israeli civilians justifies an infinite mount of collective punishment against Palestinians. This is why the IDF moral argument fails.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Hamas has had ample opportunities to stop murdering innocent Israelis and refuses too. It is in Humas' court. Will they finally stop the murders?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Also, IDF should stop killing Palestinian civilians and inflicting collective punishment, which is also a war crime.
Neither justifies the other. They are both wrong.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)The cease fire, Israel might be abolished by now.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I disagree about the proportionality of the response. So far nobody has come up with any argument as to the proportionality and justifiability of the amount of collective punishment. The only argument is that Israel has to defend itself "at all costs" which translates to "Israel can do whatever it wants". That's a seriously flawed argument.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)services to the Gaza and they should release ALL the Palestinian prisoners held without trial and without evidence of wrongdoing. This is genocide by another name. And people should remember that ALL young people save those of the Ultra orthodox, in Israel are soldiers. So when you hear about an 18 or 19-year old being killed they are probably members of the IDF or other Israeli military faction. That is what is not told about the three Israeli teens that were kidnapped...not that this justifies their kidnapping and murder but it could explain what was behind that barbaric act.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)against Japan and "inflict[ed" collective punishment"?
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)US response: 3 million Japanese dead-about 1/3 civilians. (that's 1 million dead civilians)
Was is not about tit-for-tat, that makes it go on forever, it about dealing the enemy such a blow they give up and leave you alone.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)WWII is an entirely different situation, of course. I personally do not feel that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiable but that's a different argument.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Probably not. At this point they have 300 deaths to avenge. It's a snafu.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Rocket launches. IDF attacks. Civilians die.
What if the rocket didn't launch? IDF wouldn't attack. Hamas is causing the trouble. If they stop their crap and respect the cease fire, civilians would stop dying.
The point of war is not to set up fair fights. It's to crush the enemy. Simple as that. That's why we dropped two nukes on Japan. To make the idea of continuing the war unthinkable to the enemy. I have a major problem with people starting violence, then trying to shame the other group for retaliating.
I was beat up a lot in 5th grade, so I was sensitive to bullies. Someone in the 7th grade tried to start something, to bully me. He was just picking on me, the way kids do. My response was highly disproportionate to what he was doing. I beat the crap out of him and broke his arm. But he never picked on me again. Never spoke to me. I was left alone, which was my goal.
The idea isn't just to win that one fight, but to win all future fights.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't think playground metaphors are a solid basis for international relations.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Israel wants the rockets to stop. They have proposed cease fire after cease fire. Hamas keeps rejecting them all. Egypt has tried to broker a peace, but Hamas has laughed in their faces. The people that suffer are the Palestanians. "I don't want to fight you. I'd rather talk to you. But if you attack me, I will obliterate you to protect myself."
Yogi362
(38 posts)With some quite reasonable demands - an end to the blockade, greater control over their own territorial waters, an international airport under UN control, the right to visit the Al-Aqsa mosque, and so on.
Israel rejected it.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)is an appropriate response to bullying. I mean, I don't agree with the rest of it, either... including that the point of war should be to "crush" the other side, since I don't think that's what most American revolutionaries (for example) had in mind... and "obliterating" another people is not only a horrific goal (genocide), but impossible. (Attempting it just creates more enemies to try to crush.)
<<I was beat up a lot in 5th grade, so I was sensitive to bullies. Someone in the 7th grade tried to start something, to bully me. He was just picking on me, the way kids do. My response was highly disproportionate to what he was doing. I beat the crap out of him and broke his arm. But he never picked on me again. Never spoke to me. I was left alone, which was my goal.
The idea isn't just to win that one fight, but to win all future fights.>>
1. My daughter is physically disabled. She had no ability to "crush" the kids bullying her in 8th grade. And she wouldn't have wanted to respond that way even if she could. (I, on the other hand, did feel like smacking them, but of course, I would never have acted on those feelings.) Instead of crushing them, my daughter (and I) got involved in disability and anti-bullying education in classrooms, and she wrote about her experience in the school newspaper. By the end of the year, no one was bullying my daughter, she had been elected Treasurer of the student body, and one of the major "perps" wrote a nice message in her yearbook, expressing remorse, appreciation and admiration. It was a lot for my daughter to go through for that kid's personal growth(!), but my daughter learned (and grew) a lot, too. She became a disability rights activist and a workers' rights activist (among other things), so basically, a human rights activist. (Who would never agree that conflicts--even those involving violence and war-- can be solved by crushing one side in the dispute.)
2. When my son was bullied in 5th grade (for sticking up for and befriending another kid being bullied!), we handled it through the school counselor. Two other fifth graders (my son's former good friends) and a seventh grader were involved. The seventh grader was kind of a social outcast who had been chronically bullied, himself... and one of the 5th graders was going though some serious family issues.The counselor worked with all the boys (including my son) together and separately, and she also got their families involved. (My now adult daughter and I also did some anti-bullying work at the school.) Over time, progress was made in addressing the harm that had been done to my son (and others)... lessons were learned... and friendships were renewed. (My son even went Trick-or-Treating with one of the perps.) Resolving bullying problems doesn't have to mean a zero sum outcome for the parties involved, but it often does require adult support.
3. Forgetting about whether this is an apt analogy for the Israeli/Palestinian situation (Israel is the 5th grader being bullied by the 7th grader?)... beating up another child ("who was just picking on me... the way kids do"
to the point of a broken arm is a dangerous overreaction that seems more motivated by rage from previous experience with other bullies than the situation at hand. And what if the kid picking on you had "crushed" you, instead? (Or what if he had a knife?) Also... breaking another kid's arm could easily get one expelled or in the juvenile justice system-- both pretty undesirable outcomes. Finally, the kid with the broken arm might not have picked on you, again, but that doesn't mean he didn't retaliate against someone else. (And so it goes...)
Of course, I'm not criticizing or blaming you for what you did as a kid. I'm sure you felt it was your only recourse, and maybe caring adults weren't aware or available. (Seems someone should have noticed you were getting beaten up on a regular basis, and I'm very sorry that wasn't the case.) As an adult, though, surely now you would support different strategies to resolve childhood conflicts? You seem to think you won and the other kid lost. I think you both lost.
christx30
(6,241 posts)my past was to illustrate that a tit-for-tat approach does not always work when it comes to bullies. And in the 5th grade, the teachers, principals, ect were useless. They did not give a rip about what was going on with me, as long as I wasn't fighting back. The kids would assault me, then hide behind the teacher's against any retaliation. I was totally powerless. I was isolated from the rest of the class.
When that kid started his crap, I figured getting in trouble with the school was not as bad as dealing with another year of being the punching bag. And, yes, I got in trouble. I was put in ISS for 2 weeks. But I was able to go to school without worrying about the other kids. They never messed with me. I had told myself 'Never again'.
And as far as other ways of dealing with childhood conflicts, the peaceful solution only works if the other party wants to work it out with you. You can try to make friends, you can try to resolve things. But if he's determined to attack you, and the teachers either don't believe you or want you to 'man up', you are on your own.
My son has been bullied in school. He's been pushed down and made fun of. I told him to tell the teacher and she actually seperated the two kids to avoid trouble. But, worst comes to worst, he's a big kid that is unaware of the potential power he holds. He could hold his own in a fight with a gradeschooler, if he had to.
Yogi362
(38 posts)Context matters.
The root of the conflict is Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. The rocket attacks are a retaliation against that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The real question is what if IDF didn't proceed with a grossly disproportionate display of violence which it knew would cost the lives of hundreds of innocent Palestinians, as well as injuries, wreck houses, schools, infrastructure, etc.
You act as if IDF had no choice, and the the fact that Hamas fires rockets justifies anything and everything that IDF chooses to do to the Palestinian civilians. But that's just not true.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Hamas stops firing rockets at them. This is squarely in Hamas' hands. They could stop the campaign in 5 minutes.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The fact that Hamas commits acts of terrorism doesn't justify an unlimited amount of aggression and punishment by IDF against the people of Gaza. Hamas behaves badly, we all agree. The question is whether IDF also behaves badly. The response in Gaza in this case is far disproportionate and unjustified.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Is there somewhere they could go to escape harms way? This argument essentially posits that for Palestinians to protect their children they must acquiesce to Israeli domination.
7962
(11,841 posts)This is over reaction by the Israelis!!! SO I guess they should let some rockets get through and kill some Israelis so it would look like a fairer fight.
Ridiculous!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Ridiculous!
I guess now that 3 Israeli soldiers are dead, two of whom were only 20 yrs old, people are probably feeling just wee bit better about the lopsided numbers.
No one wants civilians to die. Oh, wait. Except perhaps Hamas, which actually does intentionally target civilians.
Juan Cole has hated Israel since before he was born. He has no credibility when discussing Israel as far as I'm concerned. It is like taking the word of a Likud member from Netanyahu's inner circle on the other side of the issue.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Also, accusations that Juan Cole hates Israel are very similar to the accusations from the US Right during the invasion of Iraq that those who criticised the US hated America. There's a difference between hating a country and hating things that the country does.
madaboutharry
(40,212 posts)Yogi362
(38 posts)
former9thward
(32,025 posts)Millions of Japanese and Germans died in WW II. That was very "disproportionate" compared to the 500,000 U.S. that died especially considering the size of our population at the time. Was that an unfair war?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Disproportionate?
former9thward
(32,025 posts)It is mathematically disproportionate but that is not how war is fought.
One of our strategic goals in WWII was to take the war to the enemies population. Firebombing and nuking Japanese cities was criminal and militarily unnecessary. It was an act of terror that offers no justification for what is happening in Gaza.
TiredOfNo
(52 posts)that had you been in charge in the 1940's we would all be speaking Japanese or German today.
We fire bombed Japan only because we had not yet invented the nuclear bomb. When we got the nuclear bomb we dropped it to save a million of our soldiers.
The Japanese were either smarter than Hamas is; or, they cared more for their people's lives than does Hamas.
Perhaps Hamas should be grateful that Israel hasn't yet used their nuclear weapons....
kjones
(1,053 posts)Evidently, the Japanese Emperor was instructing his administrators to seek a peace deal with
the only stipulation being that the royal family not be touched, several months before the
bombs were dropped. I believe this is the deal that was reached after the bombs were
dropped anyway. We basically dropped the bomb to impress the Russians. Obviously, they
were not that impressed, and all it really did was lead to decades of resources wasted on
weapons and proxy wars and conflicts which continue to this day.
The bombs were just us starting a dick measuring contest. We all lost.
Honestly though, it really doesn't really matter if parts of the Japanese command wanted
to surrender (pretty sure documents show that) or whether getting all the relevant
people to agree to a surrender was feasible (a matter of academics, since history went
another way).
The question is about civilians.
It's very unfortunate that you think that not wanting to kill civilians, avoiding war crimes,
is "pacifism." As mentioned above, The US lost 12000 civilians...in all theaters of WWII.
We killed many multiples of that with just one bomb, and many many multiples of that
with our indiscriminate firebombing on cities, civilian targets. And that's just Japan.
As far as I am concerned, those that planned and ordered such attacks should have been
treated as war criminals. No different than we would have treated Japanese or Germans
if they had firebombed New York City and nuked Chicago and Philadelphia.
And I'm disgusted that you would even imply that nuclear weapons are an appropriate
response to....anything.
TiredOfNo
(52 posts)The emperor may have wanted to end the war, but he was not the one to make the decision. The leaders of the army and navy (the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War) wanted to negotiate (their) terms for a (cease fire.) At the same time, they were gearing up for total resistance to any invasion of the main Japanese island by the entire population of Japan. It was after the second bomb that Hirohito intervened and demanded the council accept unconditional surrender. Before that, there was no contact with the USA through any channels. The only hint of negotiation was through channels with Russia. When Stalin realized the war was about to end, he invaded Manchuria (probably to grab and hold as much land as he could for Russia.)
I might add the "hawks" in the Japanese military tried to assassinate Hirohito when he demanded surrender.
No, President Truman did what he had to do to save our soldiers. Had he really wanted to destroy and kill innocent lives, he would have dropped the bombs on Tokyo.
The Israelis are doing much the same to save THEIR citizens and we can be very thankful that they have the upper hand in the conflict. When Israel starts losing, you will see the nukes come out.
Incidentally, I did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza.
kjones
(1,053 posts)And you are right, the government was divided. Did that preclude their
reaching a consensus? Well, we'll never know, we nuked them as soon as
we could.
I mean, you can just read source materials like Truman's or other US
military leaders logs and journals and see that their concerns are with the
Russians, not the Japanese. The decisions were made based on the expected
power structures that would exist after the war. The Japanese themselves had
nothing left to amount to a navy or airforce. No oil supplies, no or dwindling other material resources. Inevitable surrender was not in question. Nuking a country on the cusp of surrender, when a few weeks and open lines of communication would end the war and no invasion is likely needed...well, I would hope it would leave more of a sour taste in your mouth than it apparently does. We weren't worried about ending the war though, we were worried about ending it....before Russia got a bigger piece of the pie.
And again, all this other stuff aside...Civilians. We should not kill civilians. There's no excuse for killing civilians. It's not hard to understand, you just don't do it. Again, can you not imagine what your position would be if Japan or Germany had nuked a major us city?
"No, President Truman did what he had to do to save our soldiers. Had he really wanted to destroy and kill innocent lives, he would have dropped the bombs on Tokyo."
Besides the fact that Tokyo was already firebombed to the hell before the nuclear bombs were ready, the US wanted to use the bomb on undamaged population centers (a focus on "urban" is mentioned).
"He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August."
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
And the US was certainly concerned with making an international spectacle with the bomb:
"A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released."
Note that "psychological effect" refers to number of (primarily) civilian deaths.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)we began bombing their cities. The Germans were finished the day Hitler invaded Russia. The Potsdam demand of unconditional surrender without conditions for the emperor's continuation created the justification for the nuclear bombing of an already defeated foe 2 days later. Had MacArthur not seen the wisdom of retaining the emperor, the war would have started all over again. I'm glad you aren't making decisions about the use of nuclear weapons. Pacifism and pragmatism are not synonyms.
TiredOfNo
(52 posts)in the sixth round in his fight with George Foreman, but look who won the fight. You COULD say the Japanese's fate was sealed the day they bombed Pearl Harbor. Like wise, Hitler was destined to lose when he invaded Russia or violated the Treaty of Versailles, for that matter.
The problem with your theory is that they did not know they were defeated, and they did not stop killing our soldiers.
It is also a fact that tens of thousands of our troops died AFTER we started fire bombing the Japanese towns. And an estimated one million more would have died had we tried to invade the main island.
Under those conditions, I would have dropped the bombs on Japan, and as a veteran who as seen the horrors of war, I make no apologies for that position.
Incidentally, our government warned the Japanese that we were going to drop nuclear bombs if they did not accept our Potsdam decision. They did not believe it.
Do you think that Hamas believes Israel will bomb Gaza?
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)experience with the horrors of war myself. I do not believe for one moment that firebombing Tokyo or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a single American life even knowing that my own father would have been in one of the first waves to assault their beaches. As you said, thousands of Americans were killed after the bombings of Japanese cities, just like German cities. The Japanese surrendered because the emperor told them to, for whatever reasons he had for telling them to, not because they were bombed into submission anymore than the Israelis have ever succeeded in bombing the Palestinians into submission. Also, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place mere days after the Potsdam Declaration. It's like calling someone on the phone to tell them you're about to blow up the house but not when. That's called psychological warfare, not humanitarian concern over civilian casualties.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)will to fight, ever again.
Gee, how much trouble have the Germans and Japanese caused in the world since then?
Zero.
Tit for tat wars go on forever.
kjones
(1,053 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Anyone who wasn't there - well, their opinion ain't worth a bucket of cat spit.
kjones
(1,053 posts)You're blasse about using your father's experience to justify killing civilians?
You may need to explain.
My grandpa was in WWII. Permanently disfigured, crippled, a year and a half
in a British hospital, every other member of his tank crew blow to bits.
He never killed or had any desire to kill civilians.
To rephrase your statement into something that isn't an endorsement of war crimes
"Anyone who thinks civilian casualties don't matter - well, their opinion ain't
worth a bucket of cat spit."
Anyway, all I can figure your comment to mean is "It's fine to kill civilians as
long as you're angry and distressed enough."
Hats off to your father and his wartime sacrifices.
Shame on you for using them to make a terrible point.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)But the world watches every move now and we half-fight wars now. With the 1st Gulf War, we could have destroyed most of Saddams military on the "highway of death", but the pictures the world saw made us stop short. And as long as enemies know we'll try our best not to kill civilians, they will continue to do their best to hide among them and even appear as them.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)goes on to cause as much trouble as the vanquished ever did, and of course, in the case of Germany and Japan, we rebuilt their societies. We didn't loot them. I doubt if one group of people ever crushed another's will to fight forever. Usually, the harder one applies the boot to their necks the harder they resist. In the case of Germany and Japan, we lifted the boot after they capitulated, a lesson we seem to have forgotten.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)If they won't surrender you have these choices: Kill them all, drive them out of their own land, negotiate, or go home. The first two options are not real options for civilized people.
7962
(11,841 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)China suffered 7 to 16 million civilian deaths by Japan just prior to WWII. They were not going to stop on their own. That's why they were part of the Axis. The thing that the world revolves around. They had to be stopped. And we weren't going to do it by tit-for-tat warfare. We (the Allies) conducted a brutal campaign that brought the Axis to its knees. There was no other way of saving the world.
cali
(114,904 posts)how many ludicrous and ignorant comparisons? How many disgusting attempts to duck the point?
Israelis are not dying from Hamas rockets. There is an effective preventative in the form of Iron Dome. Collective punishment is a war crime and a solid argument can be presented that Israel's actions in Gaza are collective punishment.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)It would bankrupt Israel before Hamas ever ran out of rockets. All it can do is buy Israel time to actually stop the rocket fire.
This all ignores the fact that Israel offered a white truce with no conditions and Hamas rejected it. Hamas wants war and Israel does not.
Yogi362
(38 posts)Have legitimate demands that need to be met. Until then, they have the right to defend themselves. Only Israel has a moral and legal duty to unilaterally cease its aggression.
Yeah...they're not dying from rockets because they have spent billions of dollars in defense equipment and your favorite people in the whole wide world are a bunch of phony-brave tinhorn toy soldiers. Big talkers: "The Gates of Hell will Open" and all that braggadocio, and then hide behind women and children and whine a lot.
cali
(114,904 posts)tin horn toy soldiers are?
If you're referring to Hamas and saying I support them, you are flat out lying. disgusting but fitting, coming from YOU.
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)tide has turned...
Watch it with the personal attacks...you don't like my opinion, fine; you call me a disgusting liar, you are making a big mistake.
cali
(114,904 posts)PCIntern
(25,556 posts)Boy you could have fooled me...
And what are you going to do, reach thru my iPad screen and scream profanities at me?
cali
(114,904 posts)could be a sign of a serious medical condition. Maybe you should have that checked out. We're none of us getting any younger.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Clearly this has just degraded into personal attacks and I'd rather neither of you get hidden because of a passionate exchange.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Unless yr of the belief that anyone who expresses even the slightest criticism of Israel is a supporter of Hamas and it doesn't matter what they say to the contrary, I think you need to start reading other peoples posts before you accuse them of supporting Hamas.
cali
(114,904 posts)knows that I've frequently condemned attacks that I think are unfair from pro-Palestinian folks as well as those from pro-Israeli posters. And I have never been anything but harshly critical of Hamas.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)You've been consistent and crystal clear in yr criticism of Hamas, and we've known each other a long time. And it's not just in the I/P forum. I've seen you express those same views here in GD 
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)You want to know disproportionate?
Disproportionate is the amount of vicious, vituperative, hateful, disgusting comments aimed at Israel around here.
I can READ just fine...especially between the lines.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Look, I agree with you on most of your points, but you're making this highly personally and that benefits NO ONE..
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)I have been here over 10 years and have seen some pretty iffy comments about Israel coming from someone in particular - I'm being polite - AND the wars here were much worse in the old days before most of the pro-Israel posters just gave up. I hear from some now and again...
Kurska
(5,739 posts)You're trying your best I'm sure. But look at the exchange that just happened. This stopped being about policy about Israel 5 posts ago.
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)this wasn't 'stupid'.
If you looked at the DU2 archives, you might be somewhat horrified as to what used to go on around here. I came within one keystroke of quitting here multiple times in those days.
Yeah, I know...some of you are thinking "Why didn't you?"
Answer: Because I am not a COWARD.
cali
(114,904 posts)I've often gotten into it with pro-Palestinian posters over criticism of Israel I believed was over the top or verging on being anti-semitic. And I've never stood for the latter- anymore than I've been willing to countenance bigotry I encounter against any other group. If you don't believe me, ask Skinner- or Lithos.
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)"hard to believe" again.
cali
(114,904 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)below the belt personal attack aimed at Violet if I ever saw one.
You are better than that, I'm sure. If I was you I would apologize.
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)I shall answer in generalities: quite frankly I am tired of Israel being the whipping boy for all of the ills in the Middle East. The country, whether some here like it or not, is created and is going to be there for the foreseeable future. The images of people chopped up in Darfour, of the degradation of women in so many countries, of human rights violations in China, in Iran, in North Korea, and in so many other countries are legion but nothing, NOTHING brings out the anger, the cursing, the vituperation, the condemning, the wholesale hatred as Israel's actions do. Over the years, some individuals have been much more vocal in their condemnations of Israel than others. That is their right and I fully respect that right. To be sure, many are awaiting perceived faults of Israel:
posting headlines immediately that one issue or another has arisen involving the Government, the military, Jews - Orthodox Jews in particular at times, Circumcision, The Old Testament, Military aid to Israel, AIPAC, the rationalizing of anti-Jewish (as opposed to anti-Semitic, since not all Semites are Jews) behaviors in this and foreign countries; and almost fascinatingly in contrast, the deafening silence, the dearth of posts, when some "legitimate" and inarguable atrocity occurs wherein there are Jewish victims.
Over the last ten years I have listened to these arguments and they, IMO are for the most part specious. Some folk are particularly vicious. I for one will not just sit there and assent by my silence.
Over the last ten years I have listened to these arguments and they, IMO are for the most part specious. Some folk are particularly vicious. I for one will not just sit there and assent by my silence.
So being hateful to Violet is justified in your mind.
This eye for an eye crap gets old. Pretty soon the whole world will be blind.
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)The stuff said to me over the last few days, although much worse, doesn't even qualify as hateful. You are mightily mistaken.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)All I did was point out that yr accusation about Cali supporting Hamas was untrue. You claim you've read the I/P forum for many years, yet anyone who has read it would know that Cali has consistently been critical of Hamas. As you've now turned that attention on me, I'm assuming that I've also been placed in the basket with Cali as another supporter of Hamas, which suggests to me that anyone who dares criticise Israel is automatically labelled a Hamas supporter...
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)I described you as "better than that". I've read your posts with pleasure & interest through the years.
Now I'm questioning my former statement & judgement of you.
But as a famous President once said...."Proceed Governor".
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They obviously prefer to buy missiles that kill innocent Israelis. I am sickened by another senseless Israeli death. Humas must be stopped at all cost.
cali
(114,904 posts)"hamas must be stopped at all costs". So no matter how many civilian Palestinians are killed by Israel, in your, uh, mind, that's justified. sorry, I think that's morally indefensible. Hamas is weak- read some analysis, virtually all credible experts report that. Hamas does not present a large threat to Israeli citizens. Israel is actually strengthening Hamas and support for it.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Again after the cease fire? Seems to me this is 100 percent Hamas' fault.
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)They are too busy shooting rockets at their own power grid.
TiredOfNo
(52 posts)There was a "free" election in Gaza and the people chose Hamas. That meant they would live (and die) under the rules that Hamas sets.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The OP says, and I agree, that 300 civilian deaths is excessive collective punishment for the rocket attacks.
But, apparently, we're being told that 300 Palestinian deaths, and countless more injuries and damage to buildings etc. is actually OK. What if it were 30,000. What if it were 3,000,000? Is there any limit to how many civilians IDF can kill in response? Or is being attacked by rockets, and the death of 2 civilians, justification for an infinite amount of collective punishment?
cali
(114,904 posts)in Gaza is due to the long standing occupation, the misery imposed by Israel in Gaza, the continuing land theft and the ongoing humiliation of Palestinians.
None of that means I support Hamas in the slightest. I think they're vile.
H2O Man
(73,559 posts)to make distinctions, a form of insight that too many seem incapable of doing.
The conflict there is tragic. Too many human beings who want nothing more than to live their lives in peace, are the victims of this madness.
The answer to the problems will not be found in violence. The current escalation of warfare shows that.
cali
(114,904 posts)Over the years, I've caught it from people here who uncompromisingly pro one side or the other. I don't think that makes me right, but I do try and see the whole situation as clearly as I can.
TiredOfNo
(52 posts)Whether it is a "disproportionate" response by Israel is not really the question. The question is why did Hamas fire those rockets into Israel in the first place. They knew, and we know, what Israel would do in response. So, if Hamas doesn't want their own civilians to die unnecessarily then they should stop firing rockets into Israel.
GET REAL!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)As to the question, should Hamas have fired the rockets, the answer is obviously, no. That is a war crime. But the fact that Hamas fired the rockets doesn't justify everything that Israel does in retaliation. Hence the importance of proportionality.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)Not a single serious world leader suggests that -- ours included. Israel has bent over backwards trying avoid civilian deaths. Israel warns when something is going to be attacked. Name another army -- ours included -- that does that. Hamas puts its rockets in civilian areas hoping civilians will be killed so they can use it for propaganda -- such as it is being used in this thread.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Many didn't want to call what happened in Rwanda "genocide" because it would imply an imperative to intervene. How many world leaders called Iraq an illegal war of aggression?
If Israel wanted to avoid civilian casualties, they wouldn't proceed with an absurdly disproportionate level of violence that we're seeing in Gaza. They know full well that many civilian lives will be lost, and they do it anyway.
Hamas is a terrorist group, they do a lot of horrible things. You have no argument from me there. The difference is that Israel wants to be considered an enlightened, humane, law-abiding modern democracy.
TiredOfNo
(52 posts)So, if Hamas doesn't want to suffer the hellish consequences of war, then they shouldn't be firing rockets into Israel.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It is primarily the innocent people who live in in Gaza.
TiredOfNo
(52 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Your logic is the same logic that Hamas uses to justify firing rockets at the innocent Israeli population.
You're looking for a simple way to justify violence against innocent civilians, but that doesn't exist.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)"Israel let it be known that Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai would be returned in exchange for Arab recognition of the right of Israel to exist and guarantees against future attack. Arab leaders, stinging from their defeat, met in August to discuss the future of the Middle East. They decided upon a policy of no peace, no negotiations, and no recognition of Israel, and made plans to zealously defend the rights of Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories."
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/six-day-war-ends
Let me repeat: "no recognition of Israel...."
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2014, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)
This is all about israel knowing that it must nibble away tirelessly and endlessly until it has displaced all Palestinians and replaced them with new settlements. Look at maps of the area over the last 60 years. They are so close to completely ridding the territory of all Palestinians they can probably taste it. The problem is, how do they finally close the deal? What machinations could be used to rid them of those remaining pockets of undesirables? It will require some clever brinkmanship to commit what will necessarily be an atrocity, while continuing to play the victim and receive sympathy and weaponry from the international community. So far they seem to be pulling it off quite masterfully. I tip my hat to them.
The rest of it, all of it, is a big shell game to keep all eyes from focusing on the shameless land grabbing. The piece-of-shit rockets that they scream about constantly, while they are terrible deadly weapons, are a necessary linchpin for israel to continue their land grabbing. And if you need to be attacked in order claim victim status, what better weapon to be attacked with than one that doesn't do shit in the end. Those rockets could not be a more perfect fit for israel to meet it's political goals if they were designed by israel itself. They are scary, they go boom, and they never hit their target.
Israel can't stop occupying Gaza. Their presence in Gaza, by design, precipitates skirmishes. And skirmishes are the pretext for more land grabbing and home destruction in the name of "defending" itself.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Without the rockets, there is no justification for Israels final solution, no?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)the respect for humanity on both opposing sides.
No doubt each side can make it's case.
But, whatever demonstration projects are at work, those people promoting the projects are losing, if they have not already lost, their respect for human life.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)if Native Americans, from whom the US took their prior homes away and herded them onto small wasteland reservations, and then started bulldozing their homes and crops to 'settle' more non-native US citizens onto even that reservation land, started lobbing missiles onto US land?'
Militant Hamas members lobbing missiles are criminals beyond the control of the rest of the Palestinians who simply want to be left alone and allowed to live uncaged, like any other country in the world. The response to criminals should not be to punish the citizens among whom they roam for not being able to be vigilantes who stop criminals. It should be to send in detectives and SWAT teams to bring those criminals to justice without destroying the lives of all of those around them.
Thank the gods that police here in the states don't simply lob missiles at the scenes of prior criminal activity.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)of destroying more Palestinian homes while maintaining victim status, and continuing to receive free money and weapons from the international community.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)at the root of Israeli expansionism? It is not a peaceful plethora of ideologies according to my summary research.
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)We are caught...taking over the world, regulating the money, secret tax on food...
Who'd a thunk that some "summary research" would entirely undermine our quest!
just in case....
Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2014, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm not saying/advocating any such BS. Stay away from Alec Jones, he's an idiot. I'm just questioning the RW mentality that helps to drive the carnage. No one is right in this case if everyone is wrong. The point that must be made is that peace is possible with rational, non nationalist/religious justification(s)., I hope. I believe that Israel has a right to exist in the land now occupied. But the Palestinians have right to live in peace also. What's your answer/solution, without your snarky sarcasm please, to the conflict as it is now?
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)Ask cali...that poster has all the answers...
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)On Sat Jul 19, 2014, 10:05 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
My answer?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5262243
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Call out.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 19, 2014, 10:14 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: But it's true that Cali has all the answers. Lol.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Consistant antagonist. Not in the mood for fights.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Since the OP is Cali's, it doesn't seem over the top to say (in apparent exasperation), "ask Cali". However the post adds no value to the discussion.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Being objective in judging this, I would say this is the lamest of lame ways to try and shut someone out of a lame argument.
Lame alert begone.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Call outs happen here every single day and not against the rules that I've read. See any feminist thread for numerous callouts. Leave.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)you can't help being snarky and in not answering what your solution might be for the ongoing problem I know you don't have one. You can just point out others who at least base their answers on intellect and intelligence. I will take cali's answers over your snark any day.
cali
(114,904 posts)Zionism at its most basic is simply the belief is a belief in a Jewish state.
Frankly, I think saying that expansionism is at the root of Israeli expansionsim is an error.
It's like saying terrorism is at the root of Islam. Ugh to both.
heaven05
(18,124 posts) Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)thank you for material to research and study. Einstein is a first rate intellect/intelligence in my book.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)The Israeli Right have gone totally over the top.
'What if Canada/Mexico/Cuba was lobbing missiles at the U.S.? Here's my answer: If the U.S. could manage to keep it's civilian population safe without killing many civilians, that's what I'd want to see happen.'
I agree. And the Israelis do have a very good anti-missile defence system, which does much more to protect them than the bombings, which in the long run will just make things worse.
The UK did have to cope for many years with civil war and terrorism within its own territory (Northern Ireland) sometimes spilling over into the mainland. And much as I hate Thatcher, I do have to say that she and her government did not lob bombs into Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, even after they were very nearly blown to bits by the IRA in 1984.
None of this is a defense of Hamas. Obama needs to bang the wooden heads of the Israeli government and the Hamas leaders together, though he will have to wear gloves, or he will get splinters!
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)That is territory that Israel legitimately won, in wars not started by them. Who cedes conquered territory back to the aggressor in any war?
cali
(114,904 posts)so by the U.N. and virtually every legal entity dealing with such matters.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)Based on what legal authority? And, if there had been a UN way back when, would the US have had to cede western territories back to Native Americans?
I'm not trying to be snarky. I really want to know. I was a senior in h.s. during the Yom Kippur war, when Israel was attacked, by surprise, and kicked the Arab coalition's butt. Seems to me that when that happens, you should get to keep the territory you've won.
The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law,[1][2][3][4][5] however Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9]
Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980.[10][11][12] UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal[13] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[14] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law,[15] despite Israel's armistice agreements having all being with High Contracting Parties.[16] In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are.[17][18] The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
<snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements
And here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/26/israeli-court-rules-against-illegal-settlement
And I don't mean to be snarky but It's absurd to throw out stuff like "if the U.N. had existed...". Ridiculous to compare the eras. A U.N. wasn't even conceivable at the time. Literally. And again, not meaning to be snarky, but going on your gut about matters of international law is silly.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)have them returned to me.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)hundreds of rockets daily into Israel.
cali
(114,904 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Hamas was wrong, and the response was also wrong. That's the problem with the I/P conflict. Both sides behave badly.
However, it seems that Hamas is getting a free ride from many DUers.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)by running off to die in the Sinai, but they couldn't do that even if they wanted to because they are locked in. Gaza is essentially a giant refugee camp with nowhere else to go and nowhere to hide.
Yogi362
(38 posts)Is equivalent to saying that the African-American slaves could have prevented getting whipped and mutilated by simply not trying to escape.
You are victim blaming, and it's disgusting. It's the language of the abuser.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I am unaware that the Palestinians are working as slaves and are bought and sold. You do a disservice to the Africans who were held against their will as slaves.
Yogi362
(38 posts)Seriously though, how much do you people get paid per hour to spread hasbara for the Israeli government? I need that job.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)Superior firepower rules the day
has been since the dawn of time for us killer apes
cali
(114,904 posts)Baclava
(12,047 posts)They wanted this to happen - in fact they are counting on their dead human shield children to be used as photo ops in a propaganda war.
it's not working - the whole region says Hamas knew what would happen
Egypt blames Hamas for IDF's ground offensive
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014849299
Politicub
(12,165 posts)My argument was too extreme. I was being more reactive than I should have been, and a discussion with my husband made me rethink the absolutism of what I wrote.
Absolutism is never a way to have a dialogue or solve a problem. It shuts down debate, which is how we can learn from one another. Playing devil's advocate is not debate, it's just irritating.
I was reacting to my friends who have family in Israel who are in fear of losing one of their relatives during this. I think Israel has a duty to protect its citizens... but I appreciate that the history and geopolitical side is complex.
Igel
(35,320 posts)What, for a just war you have to have as many soldiers and civilians killed as on the other side?
Imagine an FBI raid on a "terrorist camp" in which *no* FBI agents died. "The FBI raided a terrorist camp today. 12 terrorists blew themselves up. To maintain a sense of justice, 12 FBI agents were rounded up and turned over to the surviving terrorist for execution." Because if 300 to 1 is bad, 12 to 0 is infinitely disproportionate. Can't have that kind of injustice.
What "disproportionate" usually means is combatant:civilian ratio. And in this kind of war it's hard to evaluate that. The "identified" combatants are in three groups: Those who are identified as such for some "good" reason (honor, survivor's benefits), those who are identified because it's hard to admit anything else (blew up while making a bomb, caught on film about to fire a rocket), and people with names who are already identified as targets weeks before the first shot is fired.
Everybody else, in the absence of papers and uniforms, looks like a civilian. This isn't true just in Gaza, but in general. We play the same game in the US--cops shoot somebody, they plant a gun and suddenly he's a criminal. Or you remove the gun from the scene and the shooter is an innocent. "Oh, that's a dead combatant. Quick, there's a weapons shortage, get his AK. Oh, now he's a civilian." You get to do the three green Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) on the weapon and suddenly the morality of the other side decreases because the civilian count is higher and the combatant count is lower. It doesn't mean that all the civilian males killed were combatants; but it does mean that not all the combatants killed are counted as such. Since combatants tend to be adult males that aren't decrepit, and "reckless" is often another way of saying "random," the only way to gauge any kind of corrective to the identification of combatants/non-combatants is to look at demographics. If it's truly random fire, then the simplest default hypothesis is that the death count should approximate the demographics of the area. If a greatly disproportionate number of youngish males are killed, it's likely a high percentage of the demographic excess were fighters. There are tweaks to the default hypothesis that can justify a higher youngish male death toll, but I'm not sure that they can reasonably be so large as to reach the numbers seen.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)I don't wish to inject another dog into this fight, I just want to show all of you that the theory of disproportionate warfare is deeply ingrained into human affairs going back to the Torah and far beyond.
One can imagine that from the moment a group of people settled down to divert water and grow crops, some other group of people passing by tried to rip 'em off. Rational rules--and rational decisions can be quite evil--quickly evolved. If you threaten a town and the town catches you, you're dead. Similarly, if the town chooses to resist, rapine and pillage are certain to result if the town falls.
At the city level, for thousands of years, it was customary to murder all the men and sell the women and children into slavery. Ghengis Khan and successors like Timur applied the policy as rigorously as one can imagine. A single Mongol could travel virtually anywhere from northern Asia to the outskirts of Europe, wander into any village and demand the best of everything from them, and sleep with other peoples wives secure in the knowledge that if he were harmed, the entire village population would be raped and murdered, the village burned to the ground, and the surrounding farmlands poisoned and denuded.
It was Ghengis Khan, not Arnold Schwarzenegger, who reputedly said, "The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms." Total destruction in payment for resistance.
These rules were studiously followed by everyone from Alexander the Great to Maurice of Nassau to Napoleon and eventually to Josef Stalin and the theories of "Bomber" Harris and Curtis LeMay. The principle of responding with overwhelming, disproportionate destructive force has always been a part of human affairs.
Now, it would be easy to look back on all those who practiced it with disgust and to call them barbarians, except for the fact that the United States was one of the most diligent practitioners of the policy, spreading the love of freedom and liberty to American Indians, rebellious slaves, Confederates, Kent State students and residents of Fallujah without regard for race, creed or color. Now that I think of it, American destruction may be the only thing we have practiced without discrimination.
Ask someone from any major inner city if they have failed to notice the overwhelming force implicit in the government's response to every public demonstration. It's still right there, waiting for you to cross the line.
Does this mean I endorse the policy in any way? Hell no, I think it's disgusting and counterproductive. It is the very essence of the reason why war is a universally negative thing, always for a less-than-zero net profit. (Example: Dick Cheney got filthy rich off of his war, but I fell out of the middle class. There is only one Dick Cheney, thank goodness, but half a million Iraqis and others died and about forty million Americans like me surrendered our lives and treasure for his gain.)
My only point is this: so long as conditions force or encourage a people to choose conflict, they will both practice and be the victims of overwhelming force--or "disproportionate warfare." That is, sadly, an unavoidable obstacle along that chosen path.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)which is whether or not the efforts of Hamas justify those of Israel, or vice versa. As a moral matter, of course they don't. The "well, they're terrorists!" gives Israel's supporters a "moral blanket" to insulate themselves from the ugly truth you raised.
The proportionality thing raises questions of guilt on the part of Israel that Hamas does not share, so of course it must be dismissed or minimized as a concern despite its role in international law/conflicts.
What about the Palestinian firing of rockets at Israel from Gaza?
Thousands of rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel over the years causing both physical and psychological harm to Israelis. AFSC agrees that the firing of all rockets from Gaza into Israel, particularly into civilian areas, must end.
However, we believe that it is important to look at the firing of rockets by Palestinian armed groups in context. For example, of the grad rockets, homemade rockets, and mortars fired by Palestinians between January 1and November 1, 2012, approximately 70% were fired during three distinct periods of escalation in March, June, and late October. Each of these escalations correlates with an assassination/killing, incursion, or other Israeli military action. Only a small percentage of the other rockets and mortars that were fired during 2012 were fired in isolation from Israeli military actions in Gaza.[xiii]
During that same time period Israel carried out military invasions of Gaza several times a week. These invasions involve the entry of Israeli tanks, armored personnel carriers, jeeps, and ground forces into Gaza where they destroy agricultural property, destroy homes, attack armed groups, arrest wanted individuals, and attack civilian targets. In addition to these invasions, Israel airstrikes, naval shelling/fire, and shelling and firing from ground forces targeted locations in Gaza several times a week.
During the period between January 1st and November 6th 2012, 19 Israelis were injured by Palestinian attacks originating from Gaza. During the same period 71 Palestinians were killed and over 300 injured by Israeli attacks on Gaza.
It should be clear that the firing of rockets is intertwined with these ongoing Israeli military actions in Gaza. Rocket fire and violence from Gaza will not be ended through the use of increased military force, rather ending violence by armed Palestinian groups requires engagement with them and ending the blockade and the occupation of the Palestinian territory. http://www.juancole.com/2014/07/besieged-blockaded-fighting.html
Response to cali (Original post)
invrabbit This message was self-deleted by its author.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)If Hamas completely changed its ways and decided to adopt a philosophy of passive resistance like Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela with his non-violent resistance, would that lead to results for them in getting a Palestinian State with freedom of movement, removing the settlements, access to Jerusalem, etc.? It's an M.O. I would prefer to see but I wonder if it would be effective (and whether international media would even cover the passive protests and marches if Israel would allow them). Since the Palestinians have no air force, helicopters, tanks, ships and the like, aren't there only those two choices (rockets or non-violent protests)?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)civilian areas.
As for "300 to 1": Perhaps the Arab states ought not have attacked after Israel was declared a state. What was THAT ratio?
cali
(114,904 posts)You? well, let's just say we're different. I don't condone Hamas and I don't condone Israel's philosophy of "mowing the grass". It's morally disgusting. have fun with that.
Yogi362
(38 posts)How would you react?
invrabbit
(21 posts)bin Laden shot 3 rockets at US,killed 3,000+. We invaded 2 countries, killed 500,000+. Ratio seem about right.
Turbineguy
(37,343 posts)This tactic has been in place for generations. It doesn't work, but the only thing they can gin up is more anger and desire for revenge. That's how they recruit. Kids are raised on hate-filled propaganda.
They are eager to let everybody know just how many women and children died. And bigger numbers are better. Hamas is a death cult. And they are incompetent. The only success they have is getting their own people killed. Beyond that, they have nothing to offer the Palestinians. The Palestinians have lost nearly all regional support because of these groups. Pretty much the only thing that keeps them going is humanitarian aid from Europe (mostly from Germany).
cali
(114,904 posts)which is morally indefensible as well.
Turbineguy
(37,343 posts)But there don't seem to be too many options. Somebody on the BBC yesterday said that Hamas is fighting for it's survival. The general population are just pawns in this game.
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)Gaza would look like the surface of the moon. Israel shows great restraint...don't believe it? Ask the residents of Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki what it is like when restrain isn't shown AND those atrocities as you would call them, were of OUR doing.
cali
(114,904 posts)"mowing..." is a well known (acknowledged by Israel) strategy.
http://besacenter.org/mideast-security-and-policy-studies/mowing-grass-israels-strategy-protracted-intractable-conflict/
You pretend to know things you are clueless about and blather on and on in inchoate rage that stems from your extreme partisanship.
PCIntern
(25,556 posts)Their euphemisms are deliberately amusing - like the front-back axle.
Understatement is the watchword of the faith.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Apparently, the IDF takes their PR job very seriously and provides Hamas with children's bodies for their advertising efforts.
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)As long as Hamas continues to threaten its people with rockets, Israel is justified in acting to eliminate its ability to do so.
Yogi362
(38 posts)When the occupied people resist.
TiredOfNo
(52 posts)a guy comes out of the restroom and walks up to the gorilla and smacks him. The gorilla turns and flattens the guy.
Later in the hospital a friend asks the guy, "why did you smack the gorilla?"
The guy answered, "because he took my chair."
The moral of the story: If you don't want to be flattened, take another chair.
malaise
(269,057 posts)Israel is committing war crimes but the UN Security Council sees no need for an Emergency meeting for those dead Palestinians. You see all humans are not equal.
cali
(114,904 posts)kids with drones? I ask because I see you as wholly inconsistent in your condemnations.
malaise
(269,057 posts)When has the US been condemned at the Security Council... Britain, France - name one Western power condemned by the UN Security Council. The US defends Israel even when she violates resolutions. They do the opposite when the country is not their ally - and you call me inconsistent.
I have no effect on humanity. My position on drones is clear as day. I am against them.
But the rules of war since 9/11 are made up by the US. Cheney's wife laughs when people attempt to arrest him and shout send him to the Hague. Ask them why they laugh!!
As long as any amorphous war continues they can pretty much do what they want until the powers that be says otherwise.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)There will come a time when the many will rise up against the few, and like in South Africa, things will change. Many will die in the process, but somewhere down the line, all will learn to live together.
cali
(114,904 posts)In any case, I hope for a better solution.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)It seems to me that we have an issue where bullies abound and no one is willing to give in..Israel "appears" to give in (in public media), and then just keeps on building houses in disputed areas. Possession is their hole-card.. and since the large families of Palestinians continue to mature, we are in for a long struggle.. Apparently many Palestinian women are starting to prefer smaller families, but we still hear of families with 12 children (sometimes more). The ones who grow to adulthood, after living a life of containment and hassles, will rebel.
One well armed bully can terrorize many weaker people until someday when they all just "go for it" and topple the bully..
Words have ceased to matter in many places in the world 
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Now, there is the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth about the results, territory was taken and rightfully and justifiably so in my opinion.
I perhaps would not have reacted so proportionately to such an existential assault.
Typically, it seems to me once we strip off that layer the real truth comes out, the person arguing, like Hamas in essence does not agree with the right of Israel to exist.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)with neighboring states. As long as Palestine is a fragmented state with many "leadership organizations" and Israel has a belligerent right wing government, there will always be strife. 
Yogi362
(38 posts)But an invading, occupying force doesn't have the right to "defend" itself against an "existential assault".
Seriously, how do people like you manage to rack up almost 20,000 posts on a progressive forum when you have such abhorrent, fascist views?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)diaspora, huh?
I love it. I'm generally cast as a fringe pony lover but can be a neonazi depending on the moment in the day.
Fucking silly and dishonest. You want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and want to call someone a fascist when the last crew that had power was shoving the Jews into ovens and gas chambers.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Nobody has said they don't believe Israel has the right to exist, so don't put words in their mouths. What many people don't believe is that Israel has the right to occupy Palestinian lands, to build expanding settlements there, to treat Palestinians as second-class citizens in an apartheid state, and to retaliate for the acts of terrorist groups with collective punishment and huge numbers of civilian casualties.
Since I won't put words in your mouth, I'll ask you, do you think Israel has the right to do these things?
locks
(2,012 posts)Of course not. Peace is how nations and tribes and communities live together with respect, without guns and without fear. How can Jews turn Moses' commandment Thou Shall Not Kill into "except for Muslims?". The Prophet Muhammad himself built a peaceful coalition of warring tribes with a campaign of nonviolence. How did Catholics come to believe that the Prince of Peace who said "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" would approve of "just wars"? And why do humans think they are civilized and no longer barbarians while they are still killing each other?
