Slanted, but not to be discounted

[msmcghee]

(Referring to HRW and AI's recent accusations against Israel and the IDF)

****************************

JPost Online Editorial - David J. Foreman - Dec. 10, 2006

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1154526038296&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

<snip>
In the area of Human Life, the IDF Code of Conduct states: "The sanctity of life in the eyes of IDF servicemen will find expression in all their actions, in deliberate and meticulous planning, in safe and intelligent training and in proper execution of their mission. In evaluating the risk to self and others, they will exercise constant care to limit injury to life to the extent required to accomplish the mission."

Regarding Purity of Arms, the IDF Code of Conduct states: "IDF servicemen will use their arms only for the purpose of achieving their mission, without inflicting unnecessary injury to human life or limb, to dignity or property, of both soldiers and civilians - with special consideration for the defenseless."

Therefore, we should express a measure of appreciation to HRW and AI for rightfully, albeit maladroitly, raising a central question: During the recent fighting in Lebanon, did we hold fast to a traditional mandate to limit civilian deaths? Or did we become careless, fatigued by the burden of war, and violate not the prejudicial standards of HRW and AI, but the moral standards of our Jewish historical legacy?

**************************

Would anyone here care to publish the "Hizb'allah Code of Conduct in War" if there is such a document?

Also, I would be surprised to find on the front page of any Arab newspaper an editorial questioning whether Hizb'allah actually followed any self-imposed rules "to reduce unnecessary civilian deaths" in their operations. But, if there is such an article, perhaps it would be useful to compare it with this one - as a way to better understand the motivations of the respective parties.

[Jim__]

1. There's an old saying ...

"Actions speak louder than words".

All the pretty words in the world don't count for anything if their not backed up by action.

[peacetalksforall]

2. This Rabbi makes some thoughtful points:

"AND SO there are legitimate reasons for us to feel obligated to struggle with our own moral behavior notwithstanding what the Arabs did in the war, or whether human rights groups held Israel to a double standard."

snip

"After all, we educated the world that the Zionist enterprise would be different, that it would be a model of an ethical society."
snip

"Therefore, we should express a measure of appreciation to HRW and AI for rightfully, albeit maladroitly, raising a central question: During the recent fighting in Lebanon, did we hold fast to a traditional mandate to limit civilian deaths? Or did we become careless, fatigued by the burden of war, and violate not the prejudicial standards of HRW and AI, but the moral standards of our Jewish historical legacy? "

snip

"The writer is a former chairman of Rabbis for Human Rights."

Thanks for posting.

[breakaleg]

3. But if the soldiers don't follow this code of conduct, if they do what

they want, with no fear of consequences, then it's just a peice of paper now isn't it?

[pelsar]

4. ever speak to an israeli combat soldier?

or even try to, ever attempt to apply the code of conduct (i can give you some situations if you would like, and you can answer...if you dare).....otherwise how would you know about whether or not he fears the consequences or whether or not he understands the moral considerations.....or is hearing what they say not even necessary because............................................

[breakaleg]

5. What I was thinking of when i said what I did was all of the civilians

dead in Gaza over the last few months.

I can't reconcile any code of conduct that would allow those deaths. Especially the 56 children. And if Israel's does, then it's not worth much.

[pelsar]

7. so whats "your code of conduct"

in a war zone...perhaps you could enlighten me? ..counting dead bodies in urban combat do not really tell the story of the environment, it points more to good or bad intelligence, mistakes, agressivness, human reactions, and a thousand other aspects....but hey, thats just reality.


if your really so convinced that you understand the "code of conduct"...please ask me for a few situations and you can then explain the proper actions......just ask, i'll give you some real ones.

[pelsar]

6. assymetical combat also has assymetical moral standards....

hizballa isnt expected to follow any kind of "moral western code"....the definition of the "non state actors" is by definition "immoral". The definition puts them in civilian clothes, apt buildings, terrorizing the locals etc, they are by definition "anti state" and all it represents ..its the standard for them.

which is why AI, HRW, "leftests" dont have much to say about them, one cant criticize what is in essence a "way of life" hence it would be like talking to a wall. Does one tell a person of black skin color in Detroit that he "talks funny?"...of course not, that is his/her cuture. Does one tell hizballa not to attack civilians, not put their weapons in/near apt buildings? wear uniforms?....course not...its part an parcel of their definition.

[breakaleg]

8. that's the responsibility that comes with being a democracy...

taking the moral high ground regardless of what your adversary does.

[The Magistrate]

9. That Is Hardly The Case, Sir

No one can be held to a higher standard than another: to do so is, in the most profound sense possible, to declare one superior and the other inferior in their worth as human beings. In application to this particular conflict, to state that Israel should adhere to a higher standard of conduct than Hamas and Hezbollah and others, is to quite frankly state that the latter are inferior persons who cannot possibly be held to fully human moral standards, because they are not capable of living up to them, and so holding them to such standards is simply not fair. Persons who press this line may well shrink from exploration of its full implications, and would do themselves, and the objects of their greatest concern, a great service by dropping it entirely.

Once conflict is joined to the point of violence, the only standard either side can really be held to is doing whatever is necessary to prevail in it. Since all warfare contains a substantial political component, there are frequently quite sound reasons to conduct the fight in a manner that be proclaimed as "moral" and "legal", as doing so may bring political and diplomatic benefit worth having in pressing operations to victorious conclusion. Doing whatever is necessary to prevail is frequently heard as urging a policy of force without stint or limit, but that is a misunderstanding. In fact, it is generally in the best interest of any party to a conflict to do the least degree of harm that can secure the desired objective against what opposition is present, and so to do what is necessary to prevail is actually a limiting factor, that properly understood and adhered to will much more often than not operate to minimize the degree of force employed.

Where one makes recourse to legal standards, these can only be applied if they are applied to all parties, if their application is ever to be taken seriously. To claim one side must obey the law in all particulars, while claiming the other side is excused from compliance with part or all of the law, is utter nonesense, and is simply a recepie for the discredit, and ultimate total disregard on all sides, of the very concept of law in application to the field. No one who is serious about the idea of law applying to war can possible hew to such a view of its application.

"No law which conflicts with the ability of a force in the field to survive is ever likely to be much obeyed."

[breakaleg]

10. you are stretching what I said.

Pelsar said that Hezbollah isn't held accountable to certain standards and implied why is Israel.

I'm simply saying that Israel shouldn't lower it's standards because it's opponent has, especially as Israel receives all kinds of support from democratic nations and they depend strongly on western support. If they want to risk losing that support, they are free to conduct themselves as they have been. But it won't last forever. Israel, the nation, has a lot more to lose than a militia in the long term.

[The Magistrate]

11. It Is Not A Stretch, Sir

Merely a convenient opportunity to engage a very problematic line that often appears here.

The problem of unequal standards remains unengaged. The unequal application of standards constitutes the essence of the great bulk of comentary on this matter wherever it is encountered. It is a pernicious tool.

[breakaleg]

12. are you suggesting

that if an opponent resorts to actions that are lower than yours, it's ok for you to do likewise? Because all we can do is to control our own behavior, not someone elses.

[The Magistrate]

13. A Meaningless Question, Sir

Violent confrontation is not an exercise in striking moral postures: it is concerned with doing harm and avoiding same, with serious forfeits for poor performance at it.

But the line you are pressing here has points of interest. Are you acknowledging that the various militias in conflict with Israel routinely behave very badly, indeed, worse than the Israeli armed forces do? For that would seem the thrust of the question you asked me, applied to the case at hand.

[breakaleg]

14. Yes, I'm saying that often militias and such don't always fight

to the standards we would like them to. And that regardless of how they fight, it doesn't give us the right to respond in kind. I'm saying just because an opponent stoops to a certain level, it doesn't give us the right to throw our code of conduct out the window because they did it first, or some other ridiculous reason. Which is what the person at the top of this sub-thread is suggesting.

I'm not debating whether it is right or just or moral. As I said, we can only be responsible for our actions, not theirs.

[pelsar]

15. and i'm saying....what code?

if your opponent uses methods that are "unacceptable" or lower.......the "purity of arms" or "western moral standard" one cannot then maintain such a standard in a war zone (which by the way, tends to get thrown out in the middle of battle....)

i shall give an example since no one here has ever taken me up on the challenge to "to show their purity"...I watched this in "real time"


a helicopter gunship was sent to destroy some kassams being set up to launch: there were 5 of them, launch time was 5 seconds, they were in a courtyard, over the wall about 5 meters away were some kids playing soccer, the blast of the missile MAY destroy the wall and hurt those kids:

to shoot or not to shoot?..whos kids are "worth more"?...keep in mind those kassams have hit schools....


well?....which code of conduct decides what to do? (got dozens of these if anybody would like to show me the proper code-funny how nobody does here....)

[breakaleg]

19. don't shoot. that was an easy one. the kids that are in an

immediate danger should be your first concern - those kids by the wall.

But I bet you disagree. I say that based on the reports of collateral damage I've seen come out of Israel.

[pelsar]

36. dont shoot....fine...

lets assume that is now the standard, with kids in the vicinity, the IDF will not shoot.

....so next time..the "militants" can set up in a playground and instead of rushing it, they can take their time...shoot one missle, watch where it lands, adjust fire..(its called bracketing)..and in the next volleys hit the homes and schools of sederot... (which is what their aiming for). In fact they can setup of 20 kassams in the middle of palestenain square, have a celebration party and then shoot....


this would be the natural outcome and the next step if its clear that there is no shooting if kids are in the vicinity.


so do you agree.....? (and thanks for answering...this is a first...)

[breakaleg]

40. first of all, you'll have to lose the sarcasm if you expect me to

answer any of your questions.

And I'm shocked and appalled to see that that is not the standard already!!

But anyways...what was your question? Do I agree to what - that your theory is a possible outcome or that that possible outcome is acceptable and I should stick to my "don't shoot" stance?

Perhaps the reason your questions go unanswered, aside from your insulting sarcasm, is that your questions are vague.

edited to add:

to save you a step: if that is the outcome, the Israel should come up with a more acceptable form of counter attack. Don't tell me missiles off of helicopters are your only option. If it means being creative to save the lives of innocent children, then so be it.

[The Magistrate]

43. What Is Your View, Sir, Of The Launch Team In Question?

What standing have they, choosing a position to carry out a combat action in which children serve them as human shields? That is a crime of war.

[breakaleg]

54. I don't know enough about it to say. It could be.

Quarters are quite cramped over there so to say there were children on another side of a wall and near the prospective launch site doesn't stand out as "human sheilds".

If it was determined to be a war crime, after the fact, would make no impact on the decision of that pilot and whether he shot or not. All he needs to know is that there are children very near that could die if he did shoot.

[The Magistrate]

62. There Is No Doubt About It At All, Sir

For a combatant to take up a fighting position in which there is a likelihood non-combatants will be harmed if the enemy engages him there is a grave violation of the laws of war. Doing so places the onus for any harm to non-combatants resulting from an engagement with that combatant on him and his leaders. Those who engage him must still take reasonable precautions to avoid harming non-combatants, but they are not required to refrain from engaging him at all. Nor is their engagement of him wanton criminality by any reasonable definition, as it would flow from the initial criminal act of the combatant who took up such a position, and would not have occured without that preceeding grave violation. Until those who make great play of condemnation of the Israeli forces as "war criminals" seriously engage violations of this nature, their condemnations of the side they oppose will continue to ring hollow, and be in reality nothing more rhetorical bludgeons, worth no more respect than any other extended campaign of propaganda.

[pelsar]

45. there was no sarcasim meant....

if the standard is "dont shoot" while kids are around, its obvious that it will be taken advantage of...who wouldnt?

or why wouldnt they?

and the "cop out".....israel must come up with a "more acceptable form"...there is no magic here, what would be acceptable to you?

[breakaleg]

48. probably. But then I place a very high value on the lives of children -

all children.

If you are asking me for a military solution, that's not for me to say. But isn't that a military does? Adapt, change their approach depending on the situation. Maybe that can be the one way US military dollars is put to good use.

Don't misquote me - the words cop out are yours, not mine.

[pelsar]

50. the "cop out"....were my words....

because saying the "military" must find a solution is good only to a certain point....for the technical aspects. coming up with a concept, anybody can do, use your imagination and they try to apply it, thats all there is to it.

and whether or not you put a high value on children is not relevant to the problem/solution.

you have stated clearly that if kids are around then the IDF cannot shoot..how long do you think it would take before every kassam launcher brings some kids along to watch?

dont stop now...were actually attempting to apply your beliefs to "the ground" as it were with the "two standards that you accept, one for miltias and one for democracies"

[breakaleg]

53. you are asking a civilian in another country to come up with a

military solution to a situation they've never been remotely close to - me.

I don't know how long it would be before children were brought in. But that wouldn't change my opinion.

You have deliberately misrepresented my views. Israel uses the actions and methods of their opponent as an excuse to indiscriminately kill civilians. The whole "what do you expect us to do" and "they want to push us into the sea" lines and many more. I was trying to make the point that Israel cannot use these excuses to justify actions that most western democracies find deplorable.

Considering the US funds Israel, I do expect a little more out of them. I do expect them to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. If you choose to interpret that as two standards, that's your choice.

[pelsar]

56. if one can criticize..then its also reasonable to ask for options

i dont believe i have misrepresentative your views....i have just applied them.

your saying israei methods are deplorable....thats "fine", but with that i'm asking for which actions if any would be acceptable, that too is reasonable......being a civilian in another country does not stop you from thinking up options that would be acceptable to you.

as far as the children being used a shields, i find your answer very enlightening: Let me clarify what i understand and apply it: If there are children in the area, the IDF cannot shoot, ireguardless what the jihadnikim are doing (sniping, setting up kassams etc.).

and since they are very aware of the IDF rules of engagement, they would quickly pick up on it....so:

the obvious scenario would be kassams on apt building roofs with children watching. That would give the shooters better aim, the ability to adjust and increase their kill numbers of israelis (incl children), knowing full well that the IDF cant attack.

or snipers shooting from an apt building with kids in the house....that too is the obvious scenario...

i've just applied your "cant shoot back if children are in the area".....and your ok with this? Meaning your preference is that israeli children be killed rather than the IDF protecting them and attempting to kill the jihadnikim (and civilians in the area of hte shooters?)

If i've applied it wrong, please explain.

(as far as the double standard, i believe it was you who made it clear that you hold western democracies to one and militias to a "lower one" for reasons that remain unclear to me.)

[breakaleg]

57. well

Yes. I am ok with this. But it's not a given that Israeli children will be killed as a result. As someone pointed out earlier, the homemade missiles are very inaccurate and often miss. And if you look at the body counts on both side, this will bare out.

As for a suggestion, I have hesitated to give you one because as I stated many times, that's not my place. I am allowed to believe that Israel should not be permitted to shoot at children without being required to provide them with an alternate solution to their problem.

But here it is: How about Israel withdraw from all occupied lands and return them to the Palestinians? Please don't tell me they did that in Gaza - I've been down that road and I'm not going there again. The land too valuable for Israel to give up?

OK. How about if they insert troops from those helicopters they have and actually track down the guys that are sending off the missiles? It's not perfect, they may not get them all, and I'm sure those guys would sooner or later come up with an alternate plan to attack.

But there it is.

Oh, and this whole line of argument is completely futile. As I said, the world can ask that Israel refrain from killing children without having to provide an alternate target.

[pelsar]

58. you tried.....

and some reasonable answers....as pointed out, a large part of the kassams inaccuracy is precisly because they have little time to set up and fire...give a crew time to adjust "for accuracy" and the israeli body count will go up.

your "return the lands" is great in principle....now apply it. Weak govts cant control the militias in their midst (lebanon to name one, sudan etc), what happens if the kassams start flying out of hebron?....that is the question on every israelis mind when someone brings up the 67 borders......and if you still apply your "dont shoot when children are present" + your "acceptance" that the jihadnikim will be shooting at israeli children, you've certainly put me in an interesting situation...my kids can get shot at, but i cant shoot back to protect them.

that scenario is probably far more realistic than all the jihadnikim suddenly putting down their weapons.

and the helicopter scene?...i thought you were against kidnappings?....if the IDF goes into gaza (car or walking is preferred, its quieter), your recommending that they "kidnap" palestenians, (once away from the kassam rocket, they will be defined as civilians.....)

so i believe you would in essence criticize your own solution....got any others?

perhaps you see this "whole line of arguement is futile"...I find it very interesting, but so far your not offering me much moral justification to defend my kids when they're being shot at by the various miltias that in fact do have kids around them as "given" as thats their environment

[breakaleg]

60. I've written several responses to your post and deleted them all.

Frankly, I'm appalled at the giant leap you made. There are so many things wrong with it, that I can't be bothered to get into them.

Because you aren't interested in alternate options that may save the lives of innocent children. You are more interested in proving that Israel is correct in it's actions.

It's just unfortunate that Israel has so little regard for the lives of the people who's country it's stolen.

I'm out.

[pelsar]

61. i dont see the leap...

nor do the vast majority of the israelis, which is why so many backed the lebanon war, and are so against leaving the westbank so quickly....perhaps its a cultural thing...i thought this place was supposed to be "understanding of various and different cultures?

its called communciation...if you cant communicate your ideas and theories to someone who tries to put them into reality, then what good are they? Be patient and explain what you think is the leap....because my "projection" in to a future scenario is an essential part of the process here: Kassams and katushays out of gaza and lebanon were both predictions from the right end of the israeli political spectrum....they were right, the left was wrong when we said leaving lebanon would give us a peaceful northern border. Even peres has said the "land for peace ideal" isnt valid....

i dont believei am doing anything more then taking your theories of "if kids are around one cant shoot"...and placing them in an urban war zone....with multiple militias fighting an occupying democratic power.

if your honest, you will find the compexity and inherent contradictions involved having a single inflexible "set of rules".....no one has them in real life except fanatics and cultist

[The Magistrate]

65. Do You Seriously Imagine, Sir

That insertion of commandos to carry out raids of that sort would not put non-combatants, including children, at great risk? How could such actions not frequently result in shoot-outs pitched among the populace of the place?

People really need to wrap their minds thoroughly around the fact that this is a war, and that war is not a clean and precise endeavor. It cannot be conducted without harm to people who are not uniformed or active participants in it, and where one side of the conflict makes it a deliberate practice to use its own non-combatants as cover, there will necessarily be much injury to them. It can only be avoided by an end to that practice, or an end to the war.

[msmcghee]

66. I admire your patience . . .

. . to continue to act as if those you are engaging with are truly wrestling with the very serious logical and ethical consequences of actions taken by two warring sides in order to deal reasonably with the very grave and serious questions of the injury and deaths of non-combatants in war - shows a great respect on your part for reasonable dialog in human conflict.

At some point however, one must deal with the obvious - and ask if some in this discussion are simply attempting to justify the actions of their side - and vilify the actions of the side that they have decided to view as their enemy.

When every possible logical explanation, meticulously laid out with abundant objective evidence drawing from human history, philosophy, ethics and law - is met with a, "Yes but (fill in their favorite non sequiter here)" - and especially when those engaging in such distractions are obviously reasonably intelligent persons - the answer becomes ever more obvious - as it certainly was from the start.

However, there is some value to me in seeing the continuing efforts in this exchange in terms of the psychology of ideological belief systems - and I encourage your labor.

[The Magistrate]

67. Of Course, Ma'am, Many Merely Justify 'Their' Side, And Assail The 'Other'

That is what people do as a general thing: as someone said long ago "The chief use of reason is the support of prejudice."

The addition of law and charges of crime into any matter is a double-eedged weapon. The old Taoists said that "The more laws there are, the cleverer men become," and it was not meant as indicating a good thing that this was so. Law pretends to a neutrality that it seldom actually possesses. Once present, many regard it not so much as a guide to their own good conduct, but rather as a tool to be gripped and wielded in their own interests, and against those of their opponents. Its letter will generally offer many opportunities for this, whatever violence the exercise may do to its spirit.

[msmcghee]

68. Everything you say is true.

Especially the part about, "The chief use of reason is the support of prejudice." However, it is also true that the values of the enlightenment were the first significant repudiation of that tendency - in terms of the laws of society.

I always appreciate healthy cynicism but not when it is assiduously used to avoid important questions. At some point one must attempt to reconcile their position with some philosophical notion of right and wrong.

It's always easier to avoid, as you know, than engage that one - and cynicism is a most useful dodge. My only problem is when you also belittle others' attempts at it and characterize their honest attempts as justifications of their prejudices.

If you think my assertion that it is possible to discern an objective right and wrong in these questions is posturing - then show me where my logic fails. You have less respect for my attempts to find some objective basis for right and wrong in these actions - than you do for those who so obviously use their reason in the support of their prejudices - and ignore the need to justify their views on any such scale.

I believe that ethics and morality have a basis in reason. That is what the enlightement was about. It is disingenuous to argue from respect for those values - while you belittle my attempts to apply them.

[The Magistrate]

69. It Is Not Possible For Me, Ma'am, On Available Evidence

To reliably discern an "honest attempt" from "justifications of prejudices". What seems to be such a distinction may be merely different level of skill with language, or a more or less passionate temperament, or a variety of other factors.

It is my view, on the largest of the questions you propose, that a search for objective standards of right and wrong is chasing a mirage. Individuals have each their own standards in this regard, and in practice, these are remarkably flexible, both in varying circumstances and over time: about the only constant in them is that individuals generally manage to believe what they do themselves is right, and what others do that hampers or harms them is wrong. Do not imagine me to be exempting myself from that statement: it emerges as much from knowing myself as from the observation of others in action. From the rooting in distinct individuals of all conceptions of right and wrong follows the certainty that, as there is a wide variation in individuals and their circumstances, there will be a wide variation in the standards of right and wrong individuals employ. That there may be, in a group of individuals, a degree of overlap in some elements of these varied standards does not suffice to establish that something objective and outside of them produces this agreement, or can be appealed to to settle the differences that do exist between them. All any individual can really do is to insist that he or she is correct, while accepting that no one else can be relied on ever to agree freely that this is so. In such a situation, of course, coercion is an option, and will sometimes take on the aspects of a necessity, if one is to uphold in any concrete fashion one's own view something is wrong and must be stopped, or is right and must be done. Most things, examined closely enough and long enough, come down to differentials of force in all its various aspects, personal and social and cultural. Not a particularly comfortable conclusion, but one it has been impossible for me to escape over the years. Cetainly, there are people who will disagree, even violently disagree, with it.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Obviously it's okay to shoot the kids...

After all, they're only Palestinians, therefore it's okay to kill those kids because a missile *might* (no certainty there at all) hit a school..

[pelsar]

37. i didnt say anything....

and you didnt answer the question (the missle in question might not hurt the palestenains kids as well)

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Now it's yr turn to answer a question...

I did answer the question, and seeing as how I've now seen yr reaction to breakaleg's answer, it's time for you to answer a question. You claim that the missile *might not* hurt the Palestinian kids. If you know the missile *will* seriously harm or kill those kids would you still shoot?

[pelsar]

44. did you know...

in all of the time i've been, i've never been asked?...its always been "assumed" what i would do....and infact I've cant even recall when i've ever given my opinon.....

I'd rather wait for "breakalegs answer" to my response, but you asked:

in principle i have no problem with letting the missle go simply because it has to be clear that "human shields" will not help and not work, as i wrote above.

in the particular instance, and this precisly the situation that many IDF pilot and combat soldiers find themselves in....making decisions based on value judgements with an outcome that is unknown. What if the pilot doesnt shoot and those kassams land on a school and kill 10 kids....who knows.

me? what would I personally do?.... i dont know, I really dont.

i've never been in that situation and "praise god" that i've never been. Its clear to me that in principle the missle must be shot, human shields cannot be an accepted practice, however the actual shooting of the kids, is hard to accept as well.

and the pilot in that case?..didnt shoot. (when i saw the video, during a briefing, i was pissed at the pilot, yet understood)

[Violet_Crumble]

51. I think the pilot in question did the right thing...

What are the rules of engagement for Israeli pilots? Ours can refuse to shoot if there's a risk of civilians being hurt, and one of our pilots involved in the invasion of Iraq pissed off the Americans by refusing to hit a target. The situation the Israeli pilot was in was one of *what if's*. What if the missile harmed the kids playing nearby? What if the Qassam hit a school? Given the chances are much higher that the kids playing nearby would be hurt than a school being hit by a Qassam, the danger to the lives of the playing kids is more immediate than anything else and that'd be why I think the pilot made the right choice....

[pelsar]

52. ROE....(rules of engagment)

its the pilots decision.....and there is no questioning it.

what you wrote, was probably the thought process that went through his mind in those seconds of decision making

[The Magistrate]

24. My Inclination Would Be To Fire, Sir

Would a missile have been the only option? The real goal being to kill the operators, would strafing have been a possibility?

The real sticking point with a thing like this example is the general ineffectuality of the qassam rockets. The odds no one would be harmed by a successful launch are pretty good. Men in the act of employing them, however, are certainly worth killing: they are open combatants, and wholly legitimate targets.

[pelsar]

38. strafing is far worse....

the platform (helicopter, etc) is a not very stable, hence the bullets must start before and finish after, which would include an area of 100m or so. The bullets could very easily tear a simple wall apart....and given the rate fire one would have hundreds of projectiles being launched at the target area that will "rebound" off of rocks metal etc....and accuracy is a problem.

Part of the reason for the ineffectuality of the kassams is the pressure that the crews are under: setting up, firing and getting out of there.... Nobody wants to hang around, check where the first one landed, and adjust aim for the second and third, when an IDF helicopter is just over the horizon...

[The Magistrate]

41. There Are Possible Consideration Of Angle, Sir

It was simply a question: the precise performances of the most modern systems are not in my line.

It is certainly the case that hurry is part of the innaccuracy, though lack of precision in the manufacture probably contribute: variations in weight and burn rate of the charge, for instance. The fear to use them is certainly to be encouraged....

It also interests me that no one seems to have engaged the point of the launch team setting up near the children, for their doing so is certainly a criminal act.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. What are you wanting people to engage?

It also interests me that no one seems to have engaged the point of the launch team setting up near the children, for their doing so is certainly a criminal act.

That'd be because it's totally irrelevent to the question that was asked, and I'm not exactly sure what needs to be engaged about it...

[breakaleg]

42. Interesting choice given that you stated the odds are no one would

be harmed even if the launch was successful and given the likelihood that children could die as a result, you would still choose to shoot.

There is something seriously wrong with your risk assessment if the likely outcome of Palestinian children dying outweighs the less likely outcome of casualties on Israel's side. But the numbers of Palestinian casualties certainly indicate that to be Israel's policy.

[The Magistrate]

46. Not Really, Sir

The people employing the rocket are combatants: it is not a question of risk from the enemy action, but simply one of engaging an exposed enemy when opportunity is offered. That is what is done in war: no justification but the sight of an enemy soldier is required for making the attempt to kill him, and doing so is the default position. It is also true, as Mr. Pelsar points out, that a good deal of the innaccuracy of the weapon is the result of the need to employ it hurriedly, and fire it by map rather than by observation of earlier result. This does place a long term premium on action that will continue this suppressive effect on accuracy.

[The Magistrate]

16. But That Is Not What Is At Issue, Sir

One item that is at issue is why, if the misbehavior is general, so great a proportion of the condemnation for misbehavior is aimed in only one direction. If the condemnation is not as general as the misbehavior, then different standards are being applied in judging the behavior of the various participants, and we are back to the uncomfortable implications of such a practice outlined above.

One item that is at issue is the view that one side is violating standards because the other has done so first, which is something of a schoolyard interpretation of something much more involvd and serious. "Peoples' War" by its very nature immerses the active militants in a supportive yet non-combatant populace: the cover these provide are absolutely essential to its practice. It is not possible to engage the active militants without involvement of non-combatants. To ignore this, and to treat what is done in combating an opponent employing such techniques as either a simple exercise in crimes against non-combatants, or as being criminal just because the other side did it first, is to miss the point of the entire exercise. Because it is an openly stated element of the practice of the technique to ensure such harm to the non-combatant populace, and seek political and propaganda profit by it, doing this is tantamount to taking sides, and not as a reasoned choice, but as the object of a successful deception employed by one party to the conflict.

"Revolution is not a tea party."

[Violet_Crumble]

18. 'Uncomfortable implications'?

What do you mean by that?

[The Magistrate]

21. That Is Spelled Out In No. 9 Above, Ma'am

You may have seen similar comments from me over the years; every so often it seems worth pointing out anew....

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I think it's total crap, sir...

Sorry, but I do. I do hold the Israeli military, as well as the militaries of other western countries to a higher standard than militia groups. I expect more of them given that in most cases the state is a party to many UN Treaties put in place to try to protect civilians. While it'd be good for militant groups to abide by the same rules, I have no expectation that they will. I'm not sure at all how that has anything to do with placing a worth on some human beings as being inferior - it's got everything to do with the reality that I just described. Personally I see this whole subthread as nothing more than an attempt to steer any and all criticism away from the Israeli military....

[The Magistrate]

30. You Are Free To Do So, Ma'am

But it is, and will remain, my view. To hold someone to a lesser standard than I apply to myself is the deepest act of disrespect for another human I am aware of. To state that one side of a contest must obey rules that another is excused from doing is ludicrous. Would you agree that, if you contracted with someone to purchase an item for a settled price, that when you had paid the price that person was entitled to say, "Well, I do not have to abide by the laws of contract, you cannot expect a seller like me to do so, after all, and I am not going to hand it over to you after all"? A standard that is not applied to all parties cannot rightly be applied to any party.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. And yr free to keep on being very wrong about it, Sir...

One, comparing the behaviour of military or militant groups to yr own individual behaviour towards other people you deal with just doesn't work. They're so very different things. btw, on a day to day basis I tend to hold children to a lower standard than I do of adults in a whole variety of things. I can't see how there's any disrespect involved in that...

Also, the contract example you brought up. I mentioned UN Treaties as one of the major reasons why I do hold higher expections upon those who are signatories to them. In yr example both parties had agreed to abide by the contract, in the case of militant groups, they've never agreed to abide by UN Treaties that Israel is signatory to,...

[The Magistrate]

34. It Works Vey Well For Me, Ma'am

"People are fucking people, and that is fucked up!"

[Violet_Crumble]

49. I just pointed out why it can't work...

There are different standards and different sets of expectations put upon different people all the time in our day to day life. I gave you one obvious example, which is children...

[The Magistrate]

63. We Would Seem, Ma'am, To Live Our Lives A Little Differently

The example of children hardly applies between adults, unless you wish to press a claim that the militants are mere children, while the Israelis are adults, which is simply a re-stating in different terms of my point that to hold people to different standards is to hold some superior to others.

When it comes to law, certainly, no distinction is made, or ought to be made, in its application: everyone is to abide by it. No one asks your consent to the laws of your country. Your consent is your presence there, and nothing more is required. A person may be judged, after committing a criminal act, to be mentally unable to possess criminal intent, and thus not guilty of a crime, but again, that is a judgement that person is of an inferior sort, not in his or her right mind.

Your claim that militant bodies are not bound by treaties carries no weight to me. Much of the law is "customary", and so applies to all regardless of any signature. The treaty law remains the standard of behavior against which actions are to be judged. The list of items states are to abide by in relation to theoretical states that have not signed the treaties is pretty short and general, and leaves little ground for accusations of war cimes in any present case. If the point you are attempting is pressed towards its logical conclusion, the militant bodies are simply criminals, and their use of violence against anyone simply civil murder, and their very existance nothing but a standing conspiracy to commit murder. That is not my view, but it is the logical extension of what you have pressed above. My view is that they are quasi-state actors, to be treated as essentially state bodies at war, in all respects. My practice is to employ a unitary standard, and apply it equally as is possible for me to do, whatever my view of the particular party engaged in some action or other.

[breakaleg]

22. I don't know that it is aimed in one direction.

Isn't it possible that we hear more reports of one side than another a result of their being more damage on one side than another?

Compare the physical damage and casualties in Lebanon and Israel. There simply was more to report in Lebanon on these issues than there was in Israel. More bombs feel, more civilians killed, more homes destroyed - with people in them.

Do we give equal time to both sides of a conflict even if there is more to report on one side? If we did, wouldn't that make it seem like both sides were suffereing equally even if that wasn't the case?

[The Magistrate]

26. The Volumn Of Denunciation, Sir

Is weighted to one side. This is particularly true where certain elements on the left are concerned. The issue of whether standards and laws have been violated is not determined by the efficiency of arms employed.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. It happens from both pro-Palestinians AND pro-Israeli DUers...

When it comes to denunciation being weighted to one side, that's a tendency I've seen regularly happen on both sides of the argument and is not confined to only one side. btw, I see denunciation as being very different from having lower expectations of the militants. I do denounce attacks by militants yet I still hold them to a lower standard than the Israeli military for the reasons I explained in my last post...

[The Magistrate]

31. It Is True Enough, Ma'am, That Individual Persons Here And Elsewhere

Tend to aim more in one direction or another. Obviously no indicidual, even should he or she make the attempt, will manage a perfect balance. But the mass of commentary by all persons does assay out as aimed more in one direction than another, certainly here.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Not much more in one direction than another.....

In this forum at least it's pretty evenly spread when you take into account the number of posters on either 'side'....

[Tom Joad]

25. Israeli minister of justice said there were no non-combatants in

south lebanon, that all that had not evacuated were guilty, and the actions of the military acted on that premise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/wmid28.xml

[Scurrilous]

29. Ex-Minister of Justice:

Former justice minister's trial opens Monday

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3302159,00.html

<snip>

"The trial of former Justice Minister Haim Ramon is set to open Monday morning at the Tel Aviv Magistrates Court. Ramon was indicted for indecent assault of a female soldier employed at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem.

According to the woman involved in the affair, she knew Ramon briefly through her job and came to his office to get a photograph taken photograph taken with him. After the photo was taken and they were left in the room alone, Ramon attempted to kiss her aggressively and put his tongue in her mouth, the woman charged. She added that she did not resist the minister because she "didn't know what to do."

Later, the woman said, she was crying, and spoke to her direct manager about what happened after her co-workers noticed her tears. The manager was the one who filed the compliment with police."

[Tom Joad]

35. I wish murdering Lebanese children was a crime in Israel. eom

[pelsar]

17. so you are accepting two standards.....

one for the militias and one for the democratic states....correct me if i am wrong, but i dont recall condemnations of yours concerning hizballa with the same intensity and quanity that you would give israel...that implies if not acceptance at least an 'understanding" of their "inability to have those same standards"

and that leads us directly to this, as so well written above by The Magistrate:

In application to this particular conflict, to state that Israel should adhere to a higher standard of conduct than Hamas and Hezbollah and others, is to quite frankly state that the latter are inferior persons who cannot possibly be held to fully human moral standards,

[breakaleg]

55. someone said it very eloquently here a while ago but I'll try to

sum up their words.

When the prevailing sentiment is one way, is it necessary to acknowledge this view in every post and then go on to the counter argument?

Must I state in every post that I agree Israel has the right to exist? Or that shooting civilians is wrong? Or that sending missiles into Israel is wrong? Or that suicide bombers should be stopped. And on and on when those things are pretty obvious to most of us here.

We start off with a basic premise - the things I just mentioned - and we move on from there. I think that people who accuse me (and many of us here) of not supporting those ideals do so because it suits their argument and they choose to believe the worst. Even when it's not true.

I don't think it's necessary to state the obvious every time I post. What is necessary is for me to stand up for the people that are being crushed by this occupation.

[pelsar]

59. the double standard.....

is not that you dont mention in every post that shooting civilians is wrong......its more that how its accepted as what "hizballa does".

for instance...can you find me a single post that mentions that someone in Hizballa should be charged with war crimes?....i cant recall one....how about the katusha hits on israeli hospitals...any outrage there? (vs the posts on the ambulances that may or may not have been hit).

lots of posts claiming israel is targeting civilians and the Lebanese infrastructure and how much of a war crime that is.....cant find the "outrage about hizballa actually targeting cities randomly.

why "pussy foot around"...we all know why that is, hizballa is given a different standard as you mentioned in the very beginning. They are not a democracy therefore you dont expect them to live up to the basic human right values of democracy...but if thats true (is it?) then why on earth would you back such an anti democratic/human rights movement in anything they do! (i have not followed your posts specifically on this so i may be wrong).

[breakaleg]

64. First of all,

I do not back Hezbollah and I'd like to ask how you came to that conclusion.

I've never seen any support for Hezbollah. Israel tends to see things in black and white. If I don't support Israel in all things, then I support terrorism or I support Hezbollah. If I defend Palestinians in some instances, then I support suicide bombers.

Criticism of Israel is viewed as support for the other side.

None of those things are true. And if you were honest with yourself, you'd see that.

[pelsar]

70. wow...where did that come from?

that israel see things as black and white?...not from me....i've been here for quite a while, attempting many times to explain just how complicated the situation is.....

and few are willing to discuss with me the situation beyond mere sound bites.....eventually they "leave" (your an example in the above post)

all I'm doing is taking your simplistic "never shoot if they're are children in the vicinity" and applying it to a war scenario and to the environment....at least as many israelis see it...your response is to "stop the discussion"...why?....and your claiming that I see things as black and white?....on the contrary i'm simply showing you the complexity of such a simplistic viewpoint...and where it takes us.

i do give you credit, most of the posters here dont even go that far with me...after a few "sound bites" that i question with the view from the ground, or via night vision goggles they usually go away......with various claims how i 'twist their words etc"....all i'm doing is applying it.....

Criticizes israel all you like,,,but give us the courtesy of offering alternatives that work. Dont agree to israel shelling gaza to limit the kassams? thats understandable, what would you suggest israel do...commando raids?...i'll explain some of the problems with them, if you dont know....other ideas?, spill them...but the idea of letting missiles fly across the border into israeli cities and villages isnt to acceptable to most of the israeli population.

your stance on Hezballa?..i wasnt sure about and wrote that i might be mistaken...i was specifically writing about whether anybody even mentioned putting hizballa up for war crimes with the same intensity of the posts about that for israel.

as far as honesty goes....i dont have a problem with it, one can easily support the Palestinians and not be anti israel...I do...I support their right to live in dignity, in a democratic LIBERAL society, free from fear, be it from israelis or their own theocratic semi dictatorship that puts women in ninja costumes. (mainly because only a stable liberal palestenian society will have the best prospects for long term peace and not some theocratic govt based on a govt that is not fully democratic)

[Tom Joad]

23. How can their be "purity of arms" by an army of occupation?

Their mission is to protect the occupation (certainly in the West Bank and Gaza).

and it should be noted that amnesty international accused Israel of undertaking war crimes, not merely "being fatigued"

Not only is it committing wanton war crimes, add to this self-righteous idiocy, which is not illegal, but certainly just adds to the problem.