[kobe]

If she says that attacking civilians is a form of resistance, and then states that resistance is a right, she is certainly condoning attacking civilians.

Resistance to occupation is a right. It is undeniable that killing civilians can be a tactic of resistance. I don't see what that has to do with Jews. Nor do I see why acknowledging the two facts means condoning civilian deaths. Besides, who has killed more innocent children, the Israeli military or the Palestinian resistance?

[wat0n]

Resistance to occupation is a right. It is undeniable that killing civilians can be a tactic of resistance.

Is attacking civilians a form of rightful resistance?

I don't see what that has to do with Jews.

The standard is applied unequeally when it comes to Israeli Jews versus everyone else.

Nor do I see why acknowledging the two facts means condoning civilian deaths.

Because she says it is resistance and that resistance is a right as a way to deflect criticism over attacks against Israeli civilians.

Besides, who has killed more innocent children, the Israeli military or the Palestinian resistance?

The Israeli military has killed more people in general, it has also killed more armed people than the Palestinians have and furthermore, children make up a higher percentage of the Palestinian population so it is to be expected that more incidents will involve innocent children given that fighting tends to take place in urban environments, an environment the Israelis don't really enjoy for a host of reasons.

However, innocent children represent a higher percentage of people killed by Palestinian armed groups than as a percentage of people killed by the Israeli military. That is a better indicator than the absolute number of people killed as it eliminates the factor associated with the difference in firepower between both - which in itself has no independent value for moral analysis, being militarily strong is not really a sin.

[kobe]

Is attacking civilians a form of rightful resistance?

Is bombing civilians a rightful form of occupation?

The standard is applied unequeally when it comes to Israeli Jews versus everyone else.

That's just your persecution complex. You're trying to get a double standard when it comes to killing civilians when it comes to your own side. The accusations of anti-semitism are so passé.

Because she says it is resistance and that resistance is a right as a way to deflect criticism over attacks against Israeli civilians.

Your state is occupying territory that belongs to other people. Expect armed resistance and attacks on civilians. This is not about you being Jewish, it's about the realities of a colonial state. You know the type of brutality utilized by the Iroquois, the Cherokee, the Comanche was not exactly in accordance to the Geneva convention either. It would really be unprecedented for the Palestinians to run a resistance that is not at least partially based upon civilian casualties.

The Israeli military has killed more people in general, it has also killed more armed people than the Palestinians have and furthermore, children make up a higher percentage of the Palestinian population so it is to be expected that more incidents will involve innocent children given that fighting tends to take place in urban environments, an environment the Israelis don't really enjoy for a host of reasons.

However, innocent children represent a higher percentage of people killed by Palestinian armed groups than as a percentage of people killed by the Israeli military. That is a better indicator than the absolute number of people killed as it eliminates the factor associated with the difference in firepower between both - which in itself has no independent value for moral analysis, being militarily strong is not really a sin.

Ok, so the Israeli military kills more children than Palestinians, but the Palestinians are the ones who should stop killing Jews? Come on man, you're making us look bad to the goyim.

[Rich]

Resistance to occupation is a right. It is undeniable that killing civilians can be a tactic of resistance.

Rights are important to individual action. Humans are highly moral creatures, however inconsistent and prejudiced. people do refrain from action because believe they lack the right.

What is futile is argument over universal laws of conflict and war. In what war have the losers accepted the result as a fair fight? Even Germany, the most thoroughly brain washed population, although most Germans accept they were in the wrong in world war II, few seem to accept the Allied and Soviets methods of warfare as right and moral. Even the American civil war fought between two culturally similar groups as you're likely to get, a hundered and fifty years latter the confederates are still whining that the Yankees cheated.

When will a people ever accept their enemmy's right to kill their civilians? Jesus you only have to look at Sport: the Tour de France, Athletics even in Sports the losers frequently complain about the victors cheating. How people expect to fight a war "fairly" is beyond me.

[kobe]

Well Rich, I don't disagree with you at all. As an extension to that, of course I don't expect wat0n, a direct beneficiary of the civilian deaths of Palestinians, to acknowledge that his sides tactics were deplorable. I would settle for him acknowledging that occupation begets resistance.

[wat0n]

Is bombing civilians a rightful form of occupation?

There is a difference between targeting and collateral damage.

That's just your persecution complex. You're trying to get a double standard when it comes to killing civilians when it comes to your own side. The accusations of anti-semitism are so passé.

The accusations may be similar, but the proposed measures to change Israeli policy are quite particular.

In any event, none of what I said above is false.

Your state is occupying territory that belongs to other people. Expect armed resistance and attacks on civilians. This is not about you being Jewish, it's about the realities of a colonial state. You know the type of brutality utilized by the Iroquois, the Cherokee, the Comanche was not exactly in accordance to the Geneva convention either. It would really be unprecedented for the Palestinians to run a resistance that is not at least partially based upon civilian casualties.

Well, European Jews who were occupied by the Nazis did not engage in random stabbings on German civilians in Berlin. In fact, they didn't really target civilians in general.

Ok, so the Israeli military kills more children than Palestinians, but the Palestinians are the ones who should stop killing Jews? Come on man, you're making us look bad to the goyim.

You didn't read anything, right? Maybe Israel should let Palestinians kill more Israeli children to satisfy your concerns. As an equalizer, you know

Well Rich, I don't disagree with you at all. As an extension to that, of course I don't expect wat0n, a direct beneficiary of the civilian deaths of Palestinians, to acknowledge that his sides tactics were deplorable. I would settle for him acknowledging that occupation begets resistance.

I'm not sure of how I benefit from Israel's occupation, what about you explain that to me? I don't live in Israel so I assume you have at least bothered to look at my profile before saying this stuff.

Certainly an occupation will lead people to fight the occupier and this applies to the Palestinians as well, but targeting Israeli civilians will only convince Israelis that leaving the West Bank is a security risk - especially since ending occupations doesn't necessarily end conflicts, as Israel learnt with regards to Lebanon and Hezbollah. I don't see why only one side's concerns should be taken into account, no matter how much certain people may hate it

[Rich]

There is a difference between targeting and collateral damage.

Is there? Why? Thank you you really have encapsulated the moral banality of Liberalism in nine words.

So let me think through the implications of this moral philosophy So you could firebomb entire cities and it would be OK because any causalities would be accidental collateral damage. But if some people without access to bombers went in shot up a hundred people in night club that would be evil. How convenient!

[wat0n]

Is there? Why? Thank you you really have encapsulated the moral banality of Liberalism in nine words.

So let me think through the implications of this moral philosophy So you could firebomb entire cities and it would be OK because any causalities would be accidental collateral damage. But if some people without access to bombers went in shot up a hundred people in night club that would be evil. How convenient!

Well, that analysis usually considers the civilian casualty ratio as well. How many people killed in the firebombing scenario would have been civilians and how many would have been combatants? If you don't specify that statistic it is quite hard to evaluate.

The people shot in the night club would presumably be civilians, and as importantly, there would be little if any combatants killed there (as it went in France). Certainly there is a difference in this case

[skinster]

2200+ people - vast majority being civilians - killed in the brutal attacks on Gaza last year alone are just "collateral damage", anti-Semites!

Let me convince you with a bit of whataboutism...

[wat0n]

2200+ people - vast majority being civilians - killed in the brutal attacks on Gaza last year alone are just "collateral damage", anti-Semites!

Let me convince you with a bit of whataboutism...

Chances are that it will turn out that around half weren't civilians just like it ocurred in Cast Lead and pretty much all the other operations in the last decade or so, where early reports were corrected to that effect.

Not that you actually care about casualty statistics, after all, you consider killing Israeli civilians a rightful form of resistance, even when Palestinian armed groups have actually higher civilian casualty ratios than Israel ever since the beginning of the Second Intifada began, according to BT'selem's statistics.

[skinster]

Your opinion is amusing.

Tell us more how an oppressive occupier is a victim in this scenario.

[wat0n]

Thank you for making it clear that you regard stabbing children as a rightful form of resistance.

[mikema63]

Its certainly...biblical if nothing else.

IIRC the profit Elysha sicked bears om them for calling him bald.

This kind of stuff is what weve always been doing as a species, its funny how surprised and outraged people act about it.

[wat0n]

Sure, genocide has also been a pretty constant feature of human interaction. So have been ethnic cleansing, mass rapes in warfare, and so on.

I like to believe things can get better in that regard.

[mikema63]

As long as palistinians feel threatened and desperate they will revert to human nature.

[wat0n]

Nice try, that can apply to any human group believing it is under attack. And good god it is common for this to happen in conflict.

That doesn't excuse anything. If you being the human nature argument to forget about civility, then everyone can play that game and that means the militarily weaker side is the one that loses it.

[mikema63]

Are you under the impressiom that callimg the children killed by israel "collateral damage" provides moral absolution?

To me personally it seems like a weak moral argument, though moral arguments arent going to do anything for anybody in this mess except provide justifications for the winner once the dust settles.

Regardless, the main part where your wrong is that its not just between israel and palastine. The rest of the world is involved in some form or another.

Supporting Israel has been very expensive for the US and the benefits seem slim. The benefit to the US of continuing the conflict between israel and palastine seem slimer.

Israel has been bucking the leash amd id strongly prefer putting a choke collar on them.

[wat0n]

Are you under the impressiom that callimg the children killed by israel "collateral damage" provides moral absolution?

To me personally it seems like a weak moral argument, though moral arguments arent going to do anything for anybody in this mess except provide justifications for the winner once the dust settles.

So intent makes no moral difference to you?

I'd say it is a fairly big difference both in ethical and practical terms - if Israel did actually aim to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible, their death toll would be much, much higher and there would be more women and children in it. It's not like it lacks the means, after all.

Regardless, the main part where your wrong is that its not just between israel and palastine. The rest of the world is involved in some form or another.

Indeed, the rest of the world also plays a role.

Supporting Israel has been very expensive for the US and the benefits seem slim. The benefit to the US of continuing the conflict between israel and palastine seem slimer.

Israel has been bucking the leash amd id strongly prefer putting a choke collar on them.

Being part of the network of alliances that helps to secure the Mediterranean for NATO is a major benefit for the Americans. Of course, they'd certainly benefit even more if Israel and the Palestinians signed peace - but Israel has been and still is an useful ally for the Americans and NATO, and the Palestinian issue is peripheral in comparison.

[Heinie]

So intent makes no moral difference to you?

I'd say it is a fairly big difference both in ethical and practical terms - if Israel did actually aim to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible, their death toll would be much, much higher and there would be more women and children in it. It's not like it lacks the means, after all. ...

Intent is everything. What indicts Israeli's massacres of Palestinian children and civilians is that they intentionally disregard the welfare of innocent people.

[mikema63]

So intent makes no moral difference to you?

Collateral damage isnt a surprise, Israel knows that every bombing may kill children but they will do it anyway. You dont get to wiggle out of moral responsibility for doing something you know will kill children by saying you werent aiming for the children specifically.

But like i said that doesnt matter. It matters even less to the palisrinians. I doubt they care what your justifications are when they see their childrwn killex by Israeli bombs.

'd say it is a fairly big difference both in ethical and practical terms - if Israel did actually aim to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible, their death toll would be much, much higher and there would be more women and children in it. It's not like it lacks the means, after all.

I disagree that just because you could kill more you are absolved of killing some.

Being part of the network of alliances that helps to secure the Mediterranean for NATO is a major benefit for the Americans. Of course, they'd certainly benefit even more if Israel and the Palestinians signed peace - but Israel has been and still is an useful ally for the Americans and NATO, and the Palestinian issue is peripheral in comparison.

Israel damages our ability to get stuff done in the middle east, especially its current government. The Israel palastine issue inflames tensions between us and every middle eastern state. The issue has grown, and threatens our relations with those countries. Israels benefit to NATO doesnt exceed the cost of the conflict to our geopolitics.