Israel and Gaza

[Nin]

This is not specific about the Israeli conflict, but the assumption that in wars before WWII civilians were less protected is historically wrong. In fact, even in WWI, the number of soldier victims is higher than the number of civilian victims and WWII is considered the first war in which the number of civilian victims is higher than the number of soldiers fighting. Which is one of the reasons for the change of legislation and the establishment of protection rules for civilians.

In older wars, as Beutlin pointed rightly, the term of civilian did not exist per se. Yet, in absence of mass destruction weapons and technics able to kill a huge part of the population like air bombing, civilian population only suffered in the immediate fighting area and not in the surroundings. I have worked a lot about the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and although it was a murderous and long lasting war, it was not continuous like modern wars are and in the areas in which no battles took place, life continued more or less like before. The greatest fear of the rural population was looting of their crops (with famine threatening), rape of the women and recruitment for the men. In a conquered city, everyone could be put to the sword, but only few persons lived in cities. And as armies were not national, men were rather recruited than killed, if a region was taken. Still some regions lost half of their population or more - also, because the war lasted so long that the next generation was simply never born because of a lack of men.

Anyway, just a short correction to point out that the creation of laws to protect civilians is a reaction to the fact that more of them got killed and also, that despite those rules actually in modern wars, more civilians get killed than in pre-industrial wars - in absolute numbers as well as in percentage.

I have read huge parts of the thread, but am reluctant to express myself on many items. I also define myself as a pacifist. I realize that some wars have to be fought (like WWII) but that does not make them morally more bearable to me. Also, I know that I could not fight them. I have been in situations where I have been physically aggressed and found myself unable to strike back, even in self-defense. I could not lift my hand and strike or stop the hand that was raised to strike me. So, in the end, I have to come to the conclusion that I'd rather be killed than kill and I assume that there are other persons like me.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Nin,

I'm not sure anyone was making the point that you are correcting above (though I may have missed something). Laws to protect civilians, as I mentioned, emerged after WWII, in large part because of the sheer number of civilians that were killed during both WWII and the Great War, which was a result of both new, highly destructive, and indiscriminate weapons systems (and delivery mechanisms), and the deliberate targeting of civilians, and particular civilian groups, with the intention of committing genocide. As such, the international legal regimes put in place to protect civilians post-WWII represent, in my view, a critical advancement in humanitarianism and human rights (and perhaps one humanity's most important non-scientific advancement in the 20th century).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Catchy tune:



Don't get me wrong. The fact that other countries do bad things too by no means excuses Israel. But it does seem that a different standard is sometimes applied.

[Frelga]

Just a word of warning - some portions of the video have very graphic images, so maybe don't play it around young children.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Hamas claims that an extended cease fire agreement has been reached, although no confirmation from the Israeli government has come as of yet. I hope it is true, and that it leads to more comprehensive peace talks.

[Frelga]

There are now reports that Hamas and Israel agreed to a "permanent" ceasefire. As a Russian proverb goes, better a poor peace than a good quarrel.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Permanent as in, "until the next time."

Rarely have I so hoped to be wrong.

[Beorhtnoth]

Deja vu?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Over and over and over again. Both sides have very legitimate concerns. Both sides take actions that are completely not commensurate with those concerns. Israel far more than the Palestinians. As a Jew, and a family member of Holocaust victims and survivors, and as a human being, it hurts my heart.

[Beorhtnoth]

Over and over and over again. Both sides have very legitimate concerns. Both sides take actions that are completely not commensurate with those concerns. Israel far more than the Palestinians. As a Jew, and a family member of Holocaust victims and survivors, and as a human being, it hurts my heart.

I do not think equating Isreali acts with Palestinian acts is justified. The argument appears to be that both sides should "fight fair", but this assumes "fighting fair" would result in a "fair fight". When a premier world military power is pitted against an opponent without army, navy or air force, it is not a "fair fight".
And that is ignoring what is being fought over.
One party claims a theological right to the land, and expels the other, replacing them with immigrants. The other claims the right to remain on the land they have lived on for generations.
Which has the better claim? Who would deny a cornered animal the right to fight for its life with any means available?
It hurts my heart that those fighting for their very existence are determined aggressors.

[Sunsilver]

Bëor, I have seen videos of Palestinian school children being taught to march around their classes with wooden rifles, chanting anti-Israeli slogans. They are being thoroughly indoctrinated to hate.

On the other side, Israeli soldiers are shooting kids for throwing stones at their tanks.

As for who belongs there, I think both sides have legitimate claims to the land. Jerusalem has always been an important center of faith for both Muslims and Jews (Christians too, of course.) It's just a shame that they can't find a way to share the land peacefully.

[Beorhtnoth]

Bëor, I have seen videos of Palestinian school children being taught to march around their classes with wooden rifles, chanting anti-Israeli slogans. They are being thoroughly indoctrinated to hate.

On the other side, Israeli soldiers are shooting kids for throwing stones at their tanks.

As for who belongs there, I think both sides have legitimate claims to the land. Jerusalem has always been an important center of faith for both Muslims and Jews (Christians too, of course.) It's just a shame that they can't find a way to share the land peacefully.

Why shouldn't Palestinian children be taught to know those who oppress, persecute and deprive them of nationhood, and to be ready to fight them? Throughout history, those who are enslaved have been taught that one day they will overthrow their enslavers. Why should Palestinians be expected to act differently to all those other enslaved peoples?

As for who belongs there... who has the better claim, someone who has no record of ancestors living anywhere else, or an immigrant from Minsk who cites a claim to residency ended two millennia past?

This really isn't an "on the one hand, and on the other hand..." situation. A people, the Palestinians, are being ethnically cleansed to make way for an immigrant population.
It is colonialism. It is wrong.

[N.E. Brigand]

I can only speak from the media we are getting here, but the talk of Hamas using "human shields" seems to have been pretty much debunked. Gaza is extremely densely populated so any carpet bombing being carried out will perforce have civilian casualties. Israel seem to be making no attempt whatsoever to target Hamas. Hamas are also firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel, but their attacks are completely ineffective. At last count the Israeli casualties were under 50 while Palestinian casualties were over 1000.

I know I'm responding to a post from seven years ago, but I don't think anyone previously addressed this bolded point, and it is still relevant. I firmly believe that Israel should allow Palestine to exist as an independent state and that Israel's response to Palestinian violence has been wildly disproportionate. But as a journalist reporting on the suffering of the Palestinian people said earlier this week: Gaza may be very densely populated, but it still has lots of open space, much of it agricultural (as a quick check of Google Maps confirms), and therefore Hamas often is deliberately choosing to base its operations in locations where counter-attacks from Israel risk injuring or killing Palestinian civilians.

Now it may be, as Beorhtnoth appears to suggest, that the cause of Palestinian freedom is such that Hamas is right to resort to such techniques.

[Beorhtnoth]

I can only speak from the media we are getting here, but the talk of Hamas using "human shields" seems to have been pretty much debunked. Gaza is extremely densely populated so any carpet bombing being carried out will perforce have civilian casualties. Israel seem to be making no attempt whatsoever to target Hamas. Hamas are also firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel, but their attacks are completely ineffective. At last count the Israeli casualties were under 50 while Palestinian casualties were over 1000.

I know I'm responding to a post from seven years ago, but I don't think anyone previously addressed this bolded point, and it is still relevant. I firmly believe that Israel should allow Palestine to exist as an independent state and that Israel's response to Palestinian violence has been wildly disproportionate. But as a journalist reporting on the suffering of the Palestinian people said earlier this week: Gaza may be very densely populated, but it still has lots of open space, much of it agricultural (as a quick check of Google Maps confirms), and therefore Hamas often is deliberately choosing to base its operations in locations where counter-attacks from Israel risk injuring or killing Palestinian civilians.

Now it may be, as Beorhtnoth appears to suggest, that the cause of Palestinian freedom is such that Hamas is right to resort to such techniques.

I feel the statement "Israel's response to Palestinian violence" exhibits unconscious bias. It frames the conflict as instigated by the Palestinians, with Israel being the victim. Is this the case?

As for where Hamas bases its operations, is the fact Hamas operates from cover really so heinous? I am sure Israel would appreciate Hamas locating to easily identifiable, and easily neutralised, positions, but in an existential war, why should those facing extinction make it easier for their enemies?

[N.E. Brigand]

As for where Hamas bases its operations, is the fact Hamas operates from cover really so heinous? I am sure Israel would appreciate Hamas locating to easily identifiable, and easily neutralised, positions, but in an existential war, why should those facing extinction make it easier for their enemies?

Right, I already acknowledged the possibility that it could be morally correct for Hamas to conceal its operations amidst a civilian population. I was merely noting that it was a choice and not something necessitated by the population density in Gaza.

But is it really an existential war?

[Beorhtnoth]

But is it really an existential war?

For Palestine and its prospects as a functioning state, yes. For Palestinians, as a recognised people, again yes.
The inhabitants who peopled the Levant prior to 1948, and their descendants, are having their existence erased.
This is but the latest chapter in a 50+ year war to remake Palestine as an exclusively Jewish homeland. Palestinian identity is under existential threat.
Yes, this is an existential war.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

While my perspective about this issue is quite different than yours in some ways, unfortunately I agree with you about that.

[N.E. Brigand]

But is it really an existential war?

For Palestine and its prospects as a functioning state, yes. For Palestinians, as a recognised people, again yes.
The inhabitants who peopled the Levant prior to 1948, and their descendants, are having their existence erased.
This is but the latest chapter in a 50+ year war to remake Palestine as an exclusively Jewish homeland. Palestinian identity is under existential threat.
Yes, this is an existential war.

What date would you use as the start of that 50+ year war?

[Beorhtnoth]

1967

[N.E. Brigand]

1967

Thanks. So I agree with the views of those who have long held Israel is playing with a demographic time bomb. The non-Israeli population of the Palestinian territories is four times what it was in 1967. Even if Israelis were so inclined, they do not have the capability to either kill or expel four million people. Naturally to the degree that they seem to be contemplating any such move, they must be dissuaded. And the U.S. and others must more harshly condemn Israeli violence against the Palestinians. But there's no good outcome for Israel that doesn't end in a two-state solution, no matter how many times people claim that outcome is impossible.