Tel Aviv bombing is part of self-defense: Hamas

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by atawa


Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt every healthy Israeli required to do 2 years in the army after witch time they are constantly on standby should something happen?

If this is true then every Israeli over 18 could be considdered a military target. If they choose to hide among the civilian population then according to your post the whole country makes "perfectly legal targets of military action"

constantly on standby = a member of the reserves not yet mobilized = a civilian.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

That has to be one of the most convoluted stretches in logic to jsutify civilians as military personnel EVAR.

Its simple if on active duty military if off duty civilian.

By such stretches of imagination any nation's population could be a legit target as it is within governements historical purview to impress populations into military service.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

If combatants hide inside civilian population, and use that as a base for military activity, it renders the facilities and combatants themselves, perfectly legal targets of military action (say, a direct missile strike).

Legal, yes. Maybe even legitimate in some cases.
And, I concede that the side that hides among civilians must carry the full responsibility for putting those civilians at risk. But that is not equal to actually killing them - at least not quite.

The side who fires the missiles - knowing full well that civilians are likely to be in harms' way - also has some responsibility here, even if their actions are technically legal.

Originally posted by atawa


Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt every healthy Israeli required to do 2 years in the army after witch time they are constantly on standby should something happen?

If this is true then every Israeli over 18 could be considdered a military target. If they choose to hide among the civilian population then according to your post the whole country makes "perfectly legal targets of military action"

You're not a military target unless you're in active service. When a reservist is miles away from his base, unarmed, in civilian clothes, riding a bus to work, he's a civilian, just like anybody else on that bus.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I think Olmerts plan for seperation, though still somewhat vagues, is a good basis for thinking about how to achieve seperation unilaterally, should that prove necessary. Certainly how to implement it with miminal humanitarian side effects should be addressed.

I am curious to hear your thoughts on how Olmert/Israel will 'sell' this unilateral separation to the international community?

Won't the same problems still exist?

[Az]

Good - a question then.
I had the impression from several books I've read that the convention has a paragraph which directly puts blame for civilian casualty on unmarked combatants who put civilians in jeopardy.
I couldn't find any such specific passage.


It can be inferred to an extent, as long as the damage of a military assault is not "extensive" which as we all know is a crap measurement unit.

I don't remember such a paragraph - because it doesn't exist. This is exactly the situation right now - unmarked ( or marked ) combatants using civilian population as shields - crime of war. Using too much of a bang to get them - crime of war, also.

However, I find it clear that the spirit of the convention is that an army fighting such a force shouldn't use the crimes of their opponents for the extermination of the civilian populace - which clearly has nothing in common with the situation on the ground.

Even if a more "to the letter" interpretention is adhered to, the convention is quite clear on the "don't use civilians as shield part", while the limitations on the legality on the use of force against such criminals are, in fact, very vague, and can be easily shrugged off in the case of Israeli actions.

[Sirotnikov]

Legal, yes. Maybe even legitimate in some cases.
And, I concede that the side that hides among civilians must carry the full responsibility for putting those civilians at risk. But that is not equal to actually killing them - at least not quite.

The side who fires the missiles - knowing full well that civilians are likely to be in harms' way - also has some responsibility here, even if their actions are technically legal.

Obviously killing inncent people is bad.

And most often, plans are cancelled when military learns that there are civilians nearby.

However, the intelligence can't give you 100% information.
And even then, there are several seconds between the missile launch and the hit.

I personally saw a video when a missile was launched at a car in an empty intersection, and then, suddenly, out of the blue this kid ran out of a near by building and was quickly in the blast zone.


It is also a question of ethics which you can't measure. Is killing a terrorist and 2 innocent people worth it? Obviously many people think it is, if you save 20 innocent people elsewhere. But it isn't clear.

Are you willing to kill a terrorist and a single innocent person when you don't exactly know how many people will that save? That terrorist could after all fail miserably and get caught, instead of exploding and what not.

It is an issue that most people have really easy answers for, but that is only because they don't have to deal the situation daily, or when its their relatives at risk.

I obviously think that hitting people, even by mistake - is bad. I think it is ethically troublesome. However, I do condone it, since I see myself in a net zero game situation.

Obviously arresting people is much better. And the IDF strives to do that, and some 95% of its activity is actually arresting terrorists. This is rarely displayed in western media though.

It is also more risky for Israeli soldiers, than just flying a plane though... So Israel does jeopardize its soldiers, each day, to avoid some palestinian casualties.

And not to mention that arrests aren't always smooth and people tend to get in the crossfire too.

[atawa]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
"People on standby" as in - reserves - don't count. Because potentially if each Israeli is a soldier then each palestinian is a terrorist ;-)
I think that you didn't see me use that line.

I saw you use:

since - after all it is a region of war

Maybe not right and legal but quite logical. If you kill one soldier he/she is replaced by a reserve. Why not use the same resources and kill 10 reserves and wound 20 more? Sad but true...

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Obviously killing inncent people is bad.

And most often, plans are cancelled when military learns that there are civilians nearby.

I am aware of this.
Countrary to what some people seem to believe, Israel generally does try to avoid hitting civilians.

However, the intelligence can't give you 100% information.
And even then, there are several seconds between the missile launch and the hit.

I personally saw a video when a missile was launched at a car in an empty intersection, and then, suddenly, out of the blue this kid ran out of a near by building and was quickly in the blast zone.

I have not seen this video myself, but I am familiar with the problem.
There is a simple game called "September 12th" that lets you "explore certain aspects of the war on terror." It claims to be a simulation - which it is clearly not - and it is obviously colored by the political views of those who made it, but it does have a point.

In this game, you see parts of a city with terrorists walking amongst the civilians. You have targeting crosshairs that you can move around with your mouse and clicking the left mouse button will fire a missile. As the introduction says, "The rules are deadly simple: You can shoot. Or not."

You can check it out at http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm

It is also a question of ethics which you can't measure. Is killing a terrorist and 2 innocent people worth it? Obviously many people think it is, if you save 20 innocent people elsewhere. But it isn't clear.

I can tell from this and several other posts of yours that you've been doing some serious thinking around these things. Yes, it is a question of ethics which you can't measure, but it also has a more practical cost-benefit aspect. Okay, let's assume that by killing one particular terrorist, you can save 20 innocent people elsewhere. And let's assume that it is not possible under the circumstances to get this terrorist without the risk of also hitting a couple of innocent people. If it's those two innocent people right there and then versus 20 innocent people at some other place and time, then yes, many people will think this is acceptable. But like you say it's not that clear. Also, if you fire that missile and kill those two innocent people along with that dangerous terrorist, some friend or relative of the innocent person might in turn be driven to pick up arms against you, in effect creating a new terrorist who could become just as dangerous - or worse - at some future point. Once again, it's not clear and it's virtually impossible to measure the risk of something like this happening. But it's something you should be aware of when you make the decision about whether or not to shoot that missile, because you and your people will have to live with the consequences.

Are you willing to kill a terrorist and a single innocent person when you don't exactly know how many people will that save? That terrorist could after all fail miserably and get caught, instead of exploding and what not.

It is an issue that most people have really easy answers for, but that is only because they don't have to deal the situation daily, or when its their relatives at risk.

Exactly. A person may argue that it's better to have 10 terrorists go free than to kill a single civilian. But he might suddenly see things from a slightly different perspective if buses and markets started blowing up in his own neighborhood or close to people he cared about. Likewise, a person who thinks it's okay to kill one or two bystanders to get at some dangerous terrorist might want to reconsider if it turned out that terrorists were operating close to where his children play. Like you say, people who have simple solutions to these issues generally don't have to live with the consequences.

I obviously think that hitting people, even by mistake - is bad. I think it is ethically troublesome. However, I do condone it, since I see myself in a net zero game situation.

Obviously arresting people is much better. And the IDF strives to do that, and some 95% of its activity is actually arresting terrorists. This is rarely displayed in western media though.

It is also more risky for Israeli soldiers, than just flying a plane though... So Israel does jeopardize its soldiers, each day, to avoid some palestinian casualties.

And not to mention that arrests aren't always smooth and people tend to get in the crossfire too.

Military operations are always risky. And when they are conducted in urban areas or otherwise close to civilians, then those civilians will be at risk also. It's easy for an outsider to point a finger at Israel and bash on you for conducting military operations against targets where you know that civilians can get hurt. But Israel has enemies who are actively using civilians as "human shields", and you can't always choose not to strike.

In the real world, unlike in "September 12th", terrorists are not just walking around minding their own business and not hurting anyone. If that had been the case, then yes, things would have been simple...

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by atawa
I saw you use:

Erm - that's not quite the same though

What I said is that a civilian area which contains militants, can not be considered a proper civilian area. Especially if it contains actual militant head quarters, laboratories and what not - in civilian disguise.

This does not condone purposeful targetting of civilians. Infact, this shows a condemnation of mixing civilian and militant areas and population.

Israel does a very good job of seperating militants from civilians. The military has set bases and goes aroud in groups, where you can reasonably target a military target without hurting a ton of civilians.

That's because Israel uses its military to protect its civilians. Not the other way around.

Maybe not right and legal but quite logical. If you kill one soldier he/she is replaced by a reserve. Why not use the same resources and kill 10 reserves and wound 20 more? Sad but true...

Again, this is not what anyone here is saying, except maybe Hamas and Islamic Jihad...