Israel strikes Hard at Hamas In Gaza- Dec/ 27/ 2008
- Thread starter Bruce Monkhouse
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,716
- Points
- 1,160
tourza said:
Yes!
See here. There are many more like it but, not surprisingly, I couldn't find a similar one in which an Israeli uses a child for a human shield.
I have ranted on a whole lot about "Culture Matters!" and, in this case, I think you are seeing a cultural difference regarding the relative 'value' of women and children.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Coincidentally enough the video referenced in E.R. Campbell's post is replicated in today's entry in my in situ buddy's e-diary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.N. spoke and so has HAMAS!
Last night the Security Council decided on the cease fire plan.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653258,00.html
And HAMAS made their statement by firing over 20 rockets into Israel at the time of my writing this.
HAMAS makes their reply to the U.N: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653267,00.html
This really makes one wonder what the F? I really mean it WTF? Here we have a cease fire plan and the answer to it is to open fire. Hmmmmmmm? Am I brain dead here? I’m sure I’m not but then I come from a culture that doesn’t play “SANDBAG” as a child!
“SANDBAG”? You ask! WTF is “SANDBAG”? I’ve never heard of this game before!
Oh yes you have. You just don’t know it the way I know it. So I’ll explain it to you here.
The game of “SANDBAG” gets played in the Palestinian controlled areas, it is played mostly by children but often enough a few older folks join it either by choice, or as many refuse to admit, they are forced to join in on the game. How the game is played:
1. Don’t go to school or work.
2. Hang out on the street because your mom and dad aren’t going to stop you.
3. Find an armed terrorist.
4. Hang out with him or her for a few hours
5. At this terrorists command start throwing rocks, bottles and other nasty stuff at the police and or soldiers in the area.
6. Keep a tight ring around the terrorist so he or she can’t be seen by the soldiers or cops.
7. When he opens fire on the troops stay still don’t run.
8. Get hit by bullets that are fired in return, don’t move cause the point of this game is to die protecting the terrorist, if the terrorist gets killed your team loses the game.
9. Gain more points for the most sandbags hit by the return fire and bonus points for the most press photographers on the scene as you get shot up for being a live sniper pit.
This game has been played for years,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p6dWja_Q3g
While I worked in GAZA during the first INTAFADA I saw the makings of this game. I often asked the parents of the kids playing it “WTF?” and their answers were “They refuse to go to school” or “HAMAS closed the school and demanded that I let the kids out to play with them”.
OK I ask all of you, if you heard “Hi Mrs. Smith, Can Jimmy come out to play?” from a terrorist what would you do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.N. spoke and so has HAMAS!
Last night the Security Council decided on the cease fire plan.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653258,00.html
And HAMAS made their statement by firing over 20 rockets into Israel at the time of my writing this.
HAMAS makes their reply to the U.N: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653267,00.html
This really makes one wonder what the F? I really mean it WTF? Here we have a cease fire plan and the answer to it is to open fire. Hmmmmmmm? Am I brain dead here? I’m sure I’m not but then I come from a culture that doesn’t play “SANDBAG” as a child!
“SANDBAG”? You ask! WTF is “SANDBAG”? I’ve never heard of this game before!
Oh yes you have. You just don’t know it the way I know it. So I’ll explain it to you here.
The game of “SANDBAG” gets played in the Palestinian controlled areas, it is played mostly by children but often enough a few older folks join it either by choice, or as many refuse to admit, they are forced to join in on the game. How the game is played:
1. Don’t go to school or work.
2. Hang out on the street because your mom and dad aren’t going to stop you.
3. Find an armed terrorist.
4. Hang out with him or her for a few hours
5. At this terrorists command start throwing rocks, bottles and other nasty stuff at the police and or soldiers in the area.
6. Keep a tight ring around the terrorist so he or she can’t be seen by the soldiers or cops.
7. When he opens fire on the troops stay still don’t run.
8. Get hit by bullets that are fired in return, don’t move cause the point of this game is to die protecting the terrorist, if the terrorist gets killed your team loses the game.
9. Gain more points for the most sandbags hit by the return fire and bonus points for the most press photographers on the scene as you get shot up for being a live sniper pit.
This game has been played for years,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p6dWja_Q3g
While I worked in GAZA during the first INTAFADA I saw the makings of this game. I often asked the parents of the kids playing it “WTF?” and their answers were “They refuse to go to school” or “HAMAS closed the school and demanded that I let the kids out to play with them”.
OK I ask all of you, if you heard “Hi Mrs. Smith, Can Jimmy come out to play?” from a terrorist what would you do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
.... there is the perception that women & children who are killed become martyrs to the cause.
All martyrs are praised - as they will be blessed by being admitted to paradise...
Any kamikaze bomber who detonates a bomb that kills even one Israeli citzen is venerated as a martyr for his act.... and any Palestinian citzen who happens to be present when the bomb goes off.... becomes another martyr to the cause.
A little bit of sanity at this time would be really nice.... IMHO
All martyrs are praised - as they will be blessed by being admitted to paradise...
Any kamikaze bomber who detonates a bomb that kills even one Israeli citzen is venerated as a martyr for his act.... and any Palestinian citzen who happens to be present when the bomb goes off.... becomes another martyr to the cause.
A little bit of sanity at this time would be really nice.... IMHO
E.R. Campbell said:
Mr. Campbell,
The first clip is of a fighter pushing a child away from the 'front line', per se, not towards the fighting. Look at the direction all the other children standing against the wall are looking toward.
The second clip is of a fighter running across the street, grabbing a child from the middle of the street. I've seen the entire clip somewhere else, and the child was sitting in the middle of the street exposed to the IDF down the road, and the fighter ran across the street, grabbed the child, and threw him with the rest of the children huddling against the wall. I can't remember off the top of my head where I've seen it, but I'm guessing it was at least a few years ago?
I expected better from you.
Regards.
E.R. Campbell said:
Mr. Campbell,
For your consideration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjEd4hJNVCE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV1scn536BU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjTxK9C2VYY&feature=related
Courtesy of the "lefties and Palestinian stringers" of the MSM (ok, maybe not so MSM). Interesting that this issue had to go to the Israeli Supreme Court for review...especially since it doesn't happen?
Regards.
- Reaction score
- 3,076
- Points
- 1,260
tourza said:
Well, even though it's not this round, some might say firing rockets from a school isn't exactly showing regard for the safety of children (those in the school, anyway).
Or are you saying a Hamas official is lying when he says this?
- Reaction score
- 4,716
- Points
- 1,160
The operative word, tourza, is child - and I chose it and the video I cited for a reason.
The IDF is hardly blameless and I'm not trying to excuse it. I'm asserting that the Arab and Western cultures differ in how they value lives - including their own.
The IDF is hardly blameless and I'm not trying to excuse it. I'm asserting that the Arab and Western cultures differ in how they value lives - including their own.
- Reaction score
- 1,114
- Points
- 1,160
There are many references to the fact stated below. The proceedings have even been televised and played on Cdn TV.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002355
The Wall Street Journal, Sep 2002
In any case, requiring a settlement of the Palestine question as a prerequisite to dealing with Saddam Hussein sends him a clear signal that he must at all costs prevent such a solution. Saddam Hussein has indeed already responded to that signal in various ways, both secret and open. The most notable of his open responses is the increase of the [size=10pt][size=10pt]bounty he pays to the families of suicide bombers [/size] [/size] from $10,000 to $25,000. This is the most public but probably not the most important of his contributions to the conflict. To make the settlement of that conflict--which even in its present form is more than half a century old--a prerequisite for any action concerning Iraq is a sure formula for indefinite inaction.
tourza , if you feel so very, very strongly that Hamas et al are in the right, you should jump on a plane and go to the Gaza . You must follow your heart. You must folllow your beliefs. You have obviously searched your heart and honestly believe in the cause of the Palestinians. Go. Go. There is probably nothing better than fighting for a cause you truly believe is right and just. And when you come back you can inform all of us, from first hand experience, what is really happening. A bonus will be that now you will have some military experience that will allow you to interact with others here. Also you can then fill in your profile with a summary of your military experience.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002355
The Wall Street Journal, Sep 2002
In any case, requiring a settlement of the Palestine question as a prerequisite to dealing with Saddam Hussein sends him a clear signal that he must at all costs prevent such a solution. Saddam Hussein has indeed already responded to that signal in various ways, both secret and open. The most notable of his open responses is the increase of the [size=10pt][size=10pt]bounty he pays to the families of suicide bombers [/size] [/size] from $10,000 to $25,000. This is the most public but probably not the most important of his contributions to the conflict. To make the settlement of that conflict--which even in its present form is more than half a century old--a prerequisite for any action concerning Iraq is a sure formula for indefinite inaction.
tourza , if you feel so very, very strongly that Hamas et al are in the right, you should jump on a plane and go to the Gaza . You must follow your heart. You must folllow your beliefs. You have obviously searched your heart and honestly believe in the cause of the Palestinians. Go. Go. There is probably nothing better than fighting for a cause you truly believe is right and just. And when you come back you can inform all of us, from first hand experience, what is really happening. A bonus will be that now you will have some military experience that will allow you to interact with others here. Also you can then fill in your profile with a summary of your military experience.
- Reaction score
- 4,716
- Points
- 1,160
If you would like to think a wee bit deeper on this matter then consider this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen web site:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/duty+care/1156320/story.html
The duty to care
BY PAUL ROBINSON , THE OTTAWA CIIZEN
JANUARY 8, 2009
Should states value the lives of their own citizens over those of other people? And if so, what are the limits to this preference?
In the light of Israel’s current military operations in Gaza, these questions have acquired special significance. Opponents of Israeli policy argue that the killing of hundreds of Palestinians is out of proportion to the handful of Israeli deaths caused by Hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets. Israel’s supporters, in contrast, argue that a state’s primary responsibility is to protect its own citizens, and that the Israeli government had no option but to act as it did. Both sides oversimplify what is actually a complex moral equation.
Philosophers call the concept that a state owes more to its citizens than to non-citizens “compatriot preference.” With some important qualifications, two very eminent Israelis, Professor Asa Kasher and General Amos Yadlin, embodied the idea in a theory of the ethics of fighting terrorism written in 2005.
According to Kasher and Yadlin, states considering the use of force and questions of proportionality should give priority first to citizens who are not engaged in combat, second to non-combatants who are not citizens but are under the effective control of the state, third to citizen combatants, fourth to non-combatants who are not under the effective control of the state, and fifth to non-citizens who are engaged in combat. The distinction the authors make between non-citizens who are under state control and those who are not is important for reasons I will further elaborate on below.
Although the idea of compatriot preference is emotionally appealing, it is not immediately clear why it should be valid. Clearly the lives of all human beings, citizens and non-citizens, are of equal value. State leaders are humans too, and as such they have moral obligations to the whole of humanity. It seems odd that people should consider it acceptable to kill one innocent person in order to save another, simply because the latter is a co-citizen and the former is not.
Compatriot preference rests on two primary arguments: the first is utilitarian; the second relates to the nature of a state.
The utilitarian position is that if states had an equal responsibility for everybody everywhere on the planet, they would be unlikely to fulfill well their specific responsibilities toward those over whom they have direct authority. The failure of socialist economics plainly demonstrated that when property is owned by everybody, nobody feels much responsibility toward it. The result was neglect and decay.
Compatriot preference is also an essential part of what makes a state a state. Countries acquire the right to regulate the lives of their citizens only because they provide those citizens with something in return, such as security and public services. They have no such social contract with strangers outside their borders.
But from this it also follows that there are some things which states may do to citizens that they may not rightfully do to non-citizens who are not part of the contract. They may, for instance, conscript the former but not the latter for military service. In some instances, therefore, a principle of non-compatriot preference applies.
This is especially true in cases where the state exerts effective control over persons while denying them the equal rights of citizenship. In such cases some special obligations rest on the state vis-à-vis those persons in order to justify this unequal status.
Feminist philosopher Annette Baier has noted that most ethical systems assume chosen relationships between equals, whereas in reality many relationships are unchosen and unequal, those between parents and children being an example. In these cases, those who stand in a position of authority over those who have not chosen to be subordinate have a duty to exercise an “ethic of care” toward them.
In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, the relationship is certainly unequal and unchosen. Israel has exercised control over the occupied territories for 40 years, and under the terms of the 4th Geneva Convention, and in accordance with the findings of the Israeli Supreme Court, the International Court of Justice, and previous legal precedent, Israel legally remains the occupying power in Gaza. The Palestinians have never willingly accepted their subordination, and yet, not being Israeli citizens, they have no say in the decisions of the government which rules over them. Because of this, one may argue that the Israeli state has the obligation to adopt an “ethic of care” toward the Palestinians, and that compatriot preference does not apply.
This is in accord with the view expressed by Prof. Kasher and Gen. Yadlin that the lives of people who are not citizens but are under the effective control of the state and are not engaged in terrorist activity should take priority over the lives of citizens fighting in the armed forces of the state. In assessing whether to strike a target, this principle would dictate that the harm which may be done to Palestinian civilians should be considered more highly than the harm which may result for soldiers of the Israel Defence Forces if the target is left untouched.
But is this enough? Given the unequal and unchosen nature of the Israel-Palestinian relationship and the control which Israel has for decades exercised over the Palestinians, the argument for preferring Israeli non-combatant citizens over Palestinian non-combatant non-citizens is not as strong as is often supposed. The Israeli state has an important moral duty to protect its own citizens, but it also has a duty to care for others over whom it exercises control. The latter obligation may in fact be even stronger than the former precisely because these others are not citizens.
Rather than debating the permissible proportion of dead Palestinian civilians to dead Israeli civilians, both opponents and supporters of Israel’s actions need to take a closer look at Israel’s obligations toward those who have no voice in its government and the extent to which these are compatible with taking military action against them.
Paul Robinson is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, and the author of numerous works on military history and military ethics. He is a former army officer.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------
One of the keys to Paul Robinson’s case is: does Israel still have de facto and de jure ‘control’ over Gaza? If it does then the people of Gaza are ‘higher’ up the duty to care list than if it (Israel) does not 'control' Gaza.
But, regardless of that, if Israel is exercising all reasonably possible care to avoid civilian casualties then the proportionality debate is meaningless.
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/duty+care/1156320/story.html
The duty to care
BY PAUL ROBINSON , THE OTTAWA CIIZEN
JANUARY 8, 2009
Should states value the lives of their own citizens over those of other people? And if so, what are the limits to this preference?
In the light of Israel’s current military operations in Gaza, these questions have acquired special significance. Opponents of Israeli policy argue that the killing of hundreds of Palestinians is out of proportion to the handful of Israeli deaths caused by Hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets. Israel’s supporters, in contrast, argue that a state’s primary responsibility is to protect its own citizens, and that the Israeli government had no option but to act as it did. Both sides oversimplify what is actually a complex moral equation.
Philosophers call the concept that a state owes more to its citizens than to non-citizens “compatriot preference.” With some important qualifications, two very eminent Israelis, Professor Asa Kasher and General Amos Yadlin, embodied the idea in a theory of the ethics of fighting terrorism written in 2005.
According to Kasher and Yadlin, states considering the use of force and questions of proportionality should give priority first to citizens who are not engaged in combat, second to non-combatants who are not citizens but are under the effective control of the state, third to citizen combatants, fourth to non-combatants who are not under the effective control of the state, and fifth to non-citizens who are engaged in combat. The distinction the authors make between non-citizens who are under state control and those who are not is important for reasons I will further elaborate on below.
Although the idea of compatriot preference is emotionally appealing, it is not immediately clear why it should be valid. Clearly the lives of all human beings, citizens and non-citizens, are of equal value. State leaders are humans too, and as such they have moral obligations to the whole of humanity. It seems odd that people should consider it acceptable to kill one innocent person in order to save another, simply because the latter is a co-citizen and the former is not.
Compatriot preference rests on two primary arguments: the first is utilitarian; the second relates to the nature of a state.
The utilitarian position is that if states had an equal responsibility for everybody everywhere on the planet, they would be unlikely to fulfill well their specific responsibilities toward those over whom they have direct authority. The failure of socialist economics plainly demonstrated that when property is owned by everybody, nobody feels much responsibility toward it. The result was neglect and decay.
Compatriot preference is also an essential part of what makes a state a state. Countries acquire the right to regulate the lives of their citizens only because they provide those citizens with something in return, such as security and public services. They have no such social contract with strangers outside their borders.
But from this it also follows that there are some things which states may do to citizens that they may not rightfully do to non-citizens who are not part of the contract. They may, for instance, conscript the former but not the latter for military service. In some instances, therefore, a principle of non-compatriot preference applies.
This is especially true in cases where the state exerts effective control over persons while denying them the equal rights of citizenship. In such cases some special obligations rest on the state vis-à-vis those persons in order to justify this unequal status.
Feminist philosopher Annette Baier has noted that most ethical systems assume chosen relationships between equals, whereas in reality many relationships are unchosen and unequal, those between parents and children being an example. In these cases, those who stand in a position of authority over those who have not chosen to be subordinate have a duty to exercise an “ethic of care” toward them.
In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, the relationship is certainly unequal and unchosen. Israel has exercised control over the occupied territories for 40 years, and under the terms of the 4th Geneva Convention, and in accordance with the findings of the Israeli Supreme Court, the International Court of Justice, and previous legal precedent, Israel legally remains the occupying power in Gaza. The Palestinians have never willingly accepted their subordination, and yet, not being Israeli citizens, they have no say in the decisions of the government which rules over them. Because of this, one may argue that the Israeli state has the obligation to adopt an “ethic of care” toward the Palestinians, and that compatriot preference does not apply.
This is in accord with the view expressed by Prof. Kasher and Gen. Yadlin that the lives of people who are not citizens but are under the effective control of the state and are not engaged in terrorist activity should take priority over the lives of citizens fighting in the armed forces of the state. In assessing whether to strike a target, this principle would dictate that the harm which may be done to Palestinian civilians should be considered more highly than the harm which may result for soldiers of the Israel Defence Forces if the target is left untouched.
But is this enough? Given the unequal and unchosen nature of the Israel-Palestinian relationship and the control which Israel has for decades exercised over the Palestinians, the argument for preferring Israeli non-combatant citizens over Palestinian non-combatant non-citizens is not as strong as is often supposed. The Israeli state has an important moral duty to protect its own citizens, but it also has a duty to care for others over whom it exercises control. The latter obligation may in fact be even stronger than the former precisely because these others are not citizens.
Rather than debating the permissible proportion of dead Palestinian civilians to dead Israeli civilians, both opponents and supporters of Israel’s actions need to take a closer look at Israel’s obligations toward those who have no voice in its government and the extent to which these are compatible with taking military action against them.
Paul Robinson is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, and the author of numerous works on military history and military ethics. He is a former army officer.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------
One of the keys to Paul Robinson’s case is: does Israel still have de facto and de jure ‘control’ over Gaza? If it does then the people of Gaza are ‘higher’ up the duty to care list than if it (Israel) does not 'control' Gaza.
But, regardless of that, if Israel is exercising all reasonably possible care to avoid civilian casualties then the proportionality debate is meaningless.
Shec said:
Shec,
Land confiscation, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, home demolitions (I haven't seen the cement trucks for years though - ask Shec, he knows what I mean), collective punishment, extrajudicial assassinations, settlements, roadblocks, Qana 1996, Qana 2006, Sabra and Chatilla, the SLA, Colonel Gaby and the south gate at Khiam prison (again, ask Shec, he knows what I mean), water diversion, the friend or family method, the Arabist units in South Lebanon in the 90's (ask Shec), Flotilla 13, should I go on?
Democratic alright.
Regards.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
The terrorists that Israel and us are fighting dont care a wit about civilian casualties and in fact invite casualties by operating in civilian areas. They use schools,mosques and hospitals as arms depots and wont hesitate to fire on their enemy from those locations because they know we are hesitant to return fire. Its a violation of the rules of war of course but they arent a party to Geneva. In the case of Gaza the news coming out of that place are from palestinian stringers for AP and other western outlets, in effect the enemy have a built in propaganda arm.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
tourza said:
Nice try pal but in quoting that paticular comment it appears that the point of it , namely the existence a free and critical press is a fundamental characteristic of a democracy, obviously went over your head like a Qassam. Tell you what I'm prepared to do though. Make a convincing case and I'll get you a Flotilla 13 wannabe t-shirt.
Regards to you too.
- Reaction score
- 1,114
- Points
- 1,160
And, most if not all of the UN employees are locals. So why wouldn't they smuggle pallets of uniforms or whatever amongst humanitarian supplies, or put armed Hamas in the back of an ambulance.
Ever notice the number of photographers in the background when there are casualties? The same tactic was used in Lebanon.
Ever notice the number of photographers in the background when there are casualties? The same tactic was used in Lebanon.
Shec said:
Nice try Shec..but the existence of a free and critical press is not the only fundamental characteristic of a democracy. That fact obviously went over your head like a Katyusha rocket (sorry - I couldn't resist). If everything else remained the same and the KSA, HKJ, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, et. al. were to have a free and critical press, would that make them democracies? Hardly.
I'll tell you what I'm prepared to do though, make me a good case for how Israel can be, and do, all those things I mentioned and still be a democracy (via PM if you want), and I'll send you a Canada bumper sticker for your car.
I eagerly await your response.
Regards.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
tourza said:
Got one already thanks, just to the right of my Ontario plate, which BTW is flanked on the other side by a Support Our Troops decal (Canadian). But that is not the issue. Where did I say it was the "only" fundamental characteristic - don't put words in my mouth.
What colour do you want that Tee in - green, white, red, or black? Do feel free to flip the details, especially the size, along with my lesson in Canadian values.
Hugs
Rifleman62 said:
Rifleman62,
It's common knowledge that Saddam Hussein would send the family of every martyr (not only suicide bomber) about $10 000US. And I'm using the word martyr in the Arabic sense of the word in that it would encompass everyone who dies during the course of a struggle, even if they were not actively participating in the struggle. Did this encourage more martyrs, I don't know. Would I encourage my son or daughter to explode themselves for $10 000...I'd be no better than an animal if I did. Did Palestinian parents encourage their children to explode themselves for $10 000? I don't know. But I'm pretty certain that the Palestinians (and Israelis) love their children as much as I love mine (or you love yours).
As for the rest of your post...I'm tempted to extend to you the same disrespect and ignorance you have shown me, but civility dictates I must refrain. This post reflects poorly on your character (or lack of it).
Regards.
Shec said:
Shec,
I admire your tenacity. As much as I have enjoyed sparring with you, I'm afraid that the mods are going to censure us for hijacking this thread. Let's get this thread back on track...
What do you think the long term implications of this attack on Gaza by the IDF will be for the Israeli people, the Palestinian people, and Hamas?
Regards.
Similar threads
