Israeli Army Kills 8-Year-Old Palestinian Boy

[CyberGnu]

Ned:

However, how do you explain the evidence of active participation in terrorist activities that Israel uncovered when it took down the PA some months ago. Fabrication?

More detail, please.

But you also have to realize that the situation is very muddled after two years of intifada. Arafat can't be seen as opposing the struggle, or he'd be out of office in a heartbeat... Replaced by Hamas.

[CyberGnu]

lightblue, I think your views are nice on an ideological level, but they fail in practice.

If people come and take your land and kill your kids because you happen to live within shootin range from a bunch of demented settlers who are so far from reality that they believe palestinians have no right to be on that land, you as a government (note freelance action is terrorism...) have the duty to protect your citizens. However you should not target civilian targets that have nothing to do with the clash points. If the settlers shoot at you, you shoot back.

But the settlers are protected by the IDF. So it would be quite one sided.... "We can hit you, but you can't hit me."

The solution:

Complete withdrawal from the occupied terrotories by Israel, however if anything happens in the remainder of Israel in terrorist acts, the IDF has every right, and will be assisted by the PA, to bring the culprits to justice, even it results in collateral damage.

It would take roughly 5 milliseconds for Israel to invent a reason for heavy punitive attacks, and the cycle starts again. The only way you'll get peace is to make sure Israel can't attack.

And a simple treaty won't do it: Israel has the same respect for treaties as the US goverment had for Indian treaties...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

I disagree. An Israeli trying to board the bus is at the very least paying taxes which supports the IDF. He might also be working in industry directly supporting the IDF, such as food, fuel or arms manufacturing/transportation.

What's to keep the Israelis from making the same argument and then purposefully targeting Palestinian civilians for the same reasons? Both sides think that they are fighting a just war. Why shouldn't the Israelis simply prosecute the war in the same way the allies prosecuted WWII?

[CyberGnu]

Siro

Even palestinian researches of the Beir Zeit (iirc) university, reported that there were several bodies of "fighters" among the dead. They were infact, iirc, Iraqi commandos.

Source?

[CyberGnu]

*sigh*
No where have I seen such a bold claim, trying to seriously declare armed conflict an atrocity, besides some philosophy lessons. There is absolutely no basis for it.

What armed conflict? You mean Israels occupation of a nation without an army?

However, you claim that it is completely moral to consider every (israeli) civilian a potencial soldier and thereby kill him.

Your chemistry grade must be pretty high to counter them low grades in ethics and philosophy you ought to be getting.

Well, I have good company: Truman and Churchill are agreeing with me.

Your chemistry grade must be pretty high to counter them low grades in ethics and philosophy you ought to be getting.

You again and again prove you lack of knowledge of the morality and laws of war.

Could you speak up a little? I have a kettle behind me who loudly is calling me black. Wait, is that kettle you? Oooooooh, that would make sense.

The day you stop advocating that might gives right you can come back and lecture on ethics and morality.

I've recently laid my hands upon a good hebrew book on the matter, which gave me insights into how great philosophers have analyzed armed conflict.

I suggest you pick up a similar book too. I can give you several sources out of the bibliography of my book, which you can read.

Sure, post away. Are you sure you aren't reading the hebrew translation of Nietshze though?

[CyberGnu]

What's to keep the Israelis from making the same argument and then purposefully targeting Palestinian civilians for the same reasons?

Because last time I checked, palestine is not occupying Israel.

Remeber the simple rule? If attacked, you have the moral mandate to do antyhing in your power to the attacker until he relents. Israel is occupying palestine, and the palestinians are thus morally justified in whatever measures they chose to stop the occupation.

That both sides claim that they are fighting doesn;t matter... Every side in every war in human existance has done the same... Only one side can be the aggressor, though, and in this conflict it is Israel.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Because last time I checked, palestine is not occupying Israel.

Remeber the simple rule? If attacked, you have the moral mandate to do antyhing in your power to the attacker until he relents. Israel is occupying palestine, and the palestinians are thus morally justified in whatever measures they chose to stop the occupation.

That both sides claim that they are fighting doesn;t matter... Every side in every war in human existance has done the same... Only one side can be the aggressor, though, and in this conflict it is Israel.

Many people claim that it is Israel who is suffering from aggression, having merely taken the offensive steps necessary (see above) to defend themselves. Leaving aside whether this argument is valid for the moment (as you certainly won't convince anyone one way or the other at this late date), don't you see where your "anything in your power" argument leads? It could very easily lead to massive slaughter of civilians by the Israelis, even as it has led to massive numbers of murders against civilians by the Palestinians.

If the Palestinians are justified doing "anything in their power", then so is the other side by default. All sides in almost any war will look upon themselves as the righteous party as you point out above. This means that in order for any sort of palliative effect upon conflict by international law, convention, or morality, both sides must adhere to the same set of rules, regardless of the putative righteousness of their cause.

[Arrian]

don't you see where your "anything in your power" argument leads? It could very easily lead to massive slaughter of civilians by the Israelis, even as it has led to massive numbers of murders against civilians by the Palestinians

Ah, but you see:

If attacked, you have the moral mandate to do antyhing in your power to the attacker until he relents. Israel is occupying palestine, and the palestinians are thus morally justified in whatever measures they chose to stop the occupation.

The bolding is mine. Because the reason you will get nowhere in this conversation, Sikander, is Cybergnu view that all Israelis are "attackers", as so:

An Israeli trying to board the bus is at the very least paying taxes which supports the IDF. He might also be working in industry directly supporting the IDF, such as food, fuel or arms manufacturing/transportation.

A nice, neat, logical explanation of why it is alright, no - check that - morally proper, to strap a bomb to oneself, board a public bus, and detonate said bomb.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned:



More detail, please.

But you also have to realize that the situation is very muddled after two years of intifada. Arafat can't be seen as opposing the struggle, or he'd be out of office in a heartbeat... Replaced by Hamas.

Well finally. All is not black and white in the conflict.

Today's news includes reports that the Pals regret starting the armed resistance. As well, Sharon is quoted as agreeing to a Pal state - demilitarized, of course.

There seems to be a basis for peace in the above.

[Ming]

One can only hope... sigh...

[Felch]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Umm, actually, Israel started the war by springing into existance... You've basically bought into the idea of accepting a fait accompli.

Remeber the simple rule? If attacked, you have the moral mandate to do antyhing in your power to the attacker until he relents.

Israel was attacked. By your logic they could exterminate every Arab in the world that threatens their security.

[Vesayen]

Re: Israeli Army Kills 8-Year-Old Palestinian Boy

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_8169

Discuss.

In response to the original thread, and the ONLY response needed:

"Palestinian suicide bomber kills 20 on a bus, including multiple children and women"

[Sirotnikov]

2 things.


1. It's sad to see gnu using his absolute libertarian logic again, without any regards to morals.

2. vesayen - that is in no way a needed, or proper response.

Israel is not doing that in vengance, nor are the two events equal or similar. While Israel attempts to minimize civilian casualties, the palestinians try to maximize them.

In any case, whether a civilian is killed by accident or not, the death is unsettling and sad.


-

Source?

About bir zeit - It was quoted in one of the pro-Israeli (yet non Israeli based) sites on the internet. An exact reference was given, I don't have it available though.


In any case, if the Jews are wealthy enough to control German"Die Welt" and dictate stories there, I'm sure an American based site is absolutely unrelaible.

(Or have you forgotten you accused Die Welt of inventing facts, and blamed it on "german newspapers are owned by Jews" ?)


--

What armed conflict? You mean Israels occupation of a nation without an army?

A nation with a wide-spread deep-reaching guerilla terrorist force, which commits assaults on civilians.

Well, I have good company: Truman and Churchill are agreeing with me.

Good.

Qoute a passage if you will, whereby Truman and Churchill advise targetting and seeking out innocent german / japanese civilians and children, and killing them.

Could you speak up a little? I have a kettle behind me who loudly is calling me black. Wait, is that kettle you? Oooooooh, that would make sense.

The day you stop advocating that might gives right you can come back and lecture on ethics and morality.

You know, ethics and morality is much more than that sentence. That sentence is unrealistic. While ethics dictate the perfect world, they also dictate us ways of living in our imperfect world.

You, being the liberterian you are, seem to ignore the base of reality completely, and choose to analyze those little facts you are willing to acknowledge about the world, using a moral code which is maybe fit for a world according to john lock.

Furthermore, I doubt it would stand the law of applicability set out by Kant. If everyone in the world had seen things in black and white as you do, and blieved they can slaughter a whole bunch of innocent people if they feel somehow opressed or disinherited, then there'd be no human alive today.

Sure, post away. Are you sure you aren't reading the hebrew translation of Nietshze though?

I've read some Nietschze too. I bet you haven't and have no idea what he's talking about, other than the regular "nietschze bad" ****. In any case, Nietschze did warn in his books of people who would not get the true meaning of his philosophy, and how it can be abused.


As far the sources go, the sources mentioned in the text body itself are of many different philosophers from all periods, and I doubt you'll have time or energy to read all.

I'll post some of the bibliography, hoping that some of it contains similar context:

---

• Bailey, S.D. Prohibition and Restriction in War, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1972.


• Best, G. Humanity in Warfare, Widenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1980 (B).


• Brownlie, I. International Law and the Use of Force by States, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1963.


• Butler, P.F. "Legitimacy in a States-System: Vattel's Law of Nations", in: M. Donelon (ed.), The Reason of States, George Alien & Unwin, London, 1978.


• Cassese, A. The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, Editoriali Scientifica, Napoli, 1979.


• Clark, J. Limited Nuclear War, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1982 (B).


• Cohen, M. et al. (eds.). War and Moral Responsibility, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1974.


• Goodwin, G. (ed.). Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence, Croom Helm, London, 1982.


• Hare, J. E., & Joynt, C.B. Ethics and International Affairs, McMillan, London,1982.


• Hoffman, S. Duties Beyond Borders, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 1981.


• Holmes R.L. On War and Morality, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1989 (B).


• Howard, M. Restraints on War, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979.


• Johnson, J.T. Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War: A Moral and Inquiry, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1981 (B).


• ————. Can Modern War be Just? Yale University Press, New Haven, 1984 (B).


• Lupis, I.D. de. The Law of War, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.


• Meltzer, Y. Concepts of Just War, Leyden, Sijthoff, 1975 (B).


• Midgley, E.B.F. The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations, Paul Elek, London; Barnes and Noble, New York, 1975.


• Nardin, T. Law Morality and the Elations of States, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983 (B).


• Nye, J.S. Nuclear Ethics, Free Press, London, New York, 1986 (B).


• O'Brian, W.V. The Conduct of Just and Limited War, Prager, New York, 1981


• O'Brian, W.V. & Langan J. (eds.). The Nuclear Dilemma and the Just War Tradition, Lexington Books, Lexington, 1986.


• Osgood, R.E. & Tucker, R.W. Force Order and Justice, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1967.


• Pangle, T.L. "The Moral Basis of National Security, Four Historical Perspectives", in: N. Knorr, (ed.). Historical Dimensions of National


• Security, University of Kansas, Kansas City, 1976. Paskins, B., & Dockrill, M. The Ethics of War, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1979.


• Walzer, M. Just and Unjust Wars, Alien Lane and Basic Books, London and New York, 1977.


• Wasserstrom, R. A. (ed.). War and Morality, Wadsworth Publishing Co. Belmont, 1970 (B).

---

[Sirotnikov]

If you're wondering, the ethics is just a part of the book, a large section of which deals with strategy and war in general.

Harkabi Y., War and Strategy, "Systems" Publishing, The Israeli Department of Defense, Tel Aviv 1990 (2002 2nd Edition).


If you're wondering, it's not an official IDF handbook or anything. "Systems" publishing, is a publishing house run by the DoD used mainly by previously military personel, or books about the army and war.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
2. vesayen - that is in no way a needed, or proper response.

Israel is not doing that in vengance, nor are the two events equal or similar. While Israel attempts to minimize civilian casualties, the palestinians try to maximize them.

Oh I wasent saying it was revenge, I was just saying that this isnt a case of the "poor innocent palestinians" being opressed, when they are far from innocent.