Israeli Police Beat 15 year old American Citizen

[Sava]

I can't really disagree with that. And the US enables them.
But just because they fall for it, doesn't justify using them.

Killing someone to get them to do what you want just doesn't justify killing someone.

Just to avoid any unnecessary threadjacks, I'm posting from the perspective that violent acts against others is wrong... rocket firing included. Those are terrorist acts and the responsible parties should be held accountable. Neither side in this conflict has any justification for their actions.

That's my perspective in this whole mess.

However, Israel's actions deserve more criticism (at present) because of the number of dead. The proportional use of force is one of the most basic tenets of a "just war".

There's simply no excuse for targeting civilians the way Israel has in this latest conflict. No excuse whatsoever.

At best, the pro-Zionist posters here engage in the moral equivalent of Holocaust denial. At worst, they are actively cheering war crimes. I see no difference, morally, between those people and the anti-Semitic asswipes who actually call for Israel's annihilation.

[The Mad Monk]

Proportional use of force has nothing to do with "just war". It has to do with "unending war".

[Sava]

Proportional use of force has nothing to do with "just war". It has to do with "unending war".

What's scary is that you manage a factory/plant. You aren't some peon working on the floor.

I went to school for this. These are basic, 100-level class, concepts.

There are high school kids who understand this material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

[The Mad Monk]

Why would I do that?

Why indeed?

At least you're catching up with Boris.

[Sava]

Why indeed?

At least you're catching up with Boris.

By not feeding your strawmen?

I don't even think that's a strawman... it's just pure nonsense.

[rah]

I really do have a problem if Hamas wails about all the civilians that are killed when their intent when they fire rockets is for civilians to be killed as everyone here seems to claim.

[The Mad Monk]

What's scary is that you manage a factory/plant. You aren't some peon working on the floor.

I went to school for this. These are basic, 100-level class, concepts.

There are high school kids who understand this material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

It's not that I don't understand the concept, it's that I think it's malarkey.

[Sava]

I really do have a problem if Hamas wails about all the civilians that are killed when their intent when they fire rockets is for civilians to be killed as everyone here seems to claim.

Sure. But strategically, it's the best move they have.

And if that's what Hamas is doing, the best way to defeat them is to.... not kill civilians!

[Sava]

It's not that I don't understand the concept, it's that I think it's malarkey.

That's fine.

Do you disagree with the basic fundamentals of any other subject? Like for math... is addition and subtraction just a bunch of BS?

[Fake Boris]

Please explain how pacifism works when your opponent has no sympathy and no concern for appearances.

Another day, another repeat of the same facts

Gaza is under siege and the people there can't do anything. Latest stats show 70% of Gazawis live with a dollar a day or less. Life conditions there are bordering on Warsaw ghetto levels.

If trade were allowed, one can suppose economic improvements would be rapid, as is often the case when a population rebuilds from scratch after total wreckage. This would significantly erode support for war and Hamas, as people would stand to actually lose something if a siege were reinstated.

It won't happen without pressure from the US, because:

1) Imperialist parties in Israel are electorally strong and their real objective is to annex more land
2) The imperialist program remains popular because years of war, propaganda, and civilian casualties have sparked racist sentiments in the general Israeli population. Arabs are literally seen as "sand ******s" and Israeli attitude towards them is often comparable to that of slave owners wrt to Blacks.
3) There is a significant economic benefit from the settlements stolen in the valuable areas and these benefits can only be offset through a corresponding reduction in military aid

Unfortunately the US needs a stable ally in the region to counter Iran and (eventual) panarabism, and Israel seems to be their only choice at the moment.

[Sava]

It's not that I don't understand the concept

Also, I don't believe you.

[The Mad Monk]

Another day, another repeat of the same facts

Gaza is under siege and the people there can't do anything. Latest stats show 70% of Gazawis live with a dollar a day or less. Life conditions there are bordering on Warsaw ghetto levels.

If trade were allowed, one can suppose economic improvements would be rapid, as is often the case when a population rebuilds from scratch after total wreckage. This would significantly erode support for war and Hamas, as people would stand to actually lose something if a siege were reinstated.

It won't happen without pressure from the US, because:

1) Imperialist parties in Israel are electorally strong and their real objective is to annex more land
2) The imperialist program remains popular because years of war, propaganda, and civilian casualties have sparked racist sentiments in the general Israeli population. Arabs are literally seen as "sand ******s" and Israeli attitude towards them is often comparable to that of slave owners wrt to Blacks.
3) There is a significant economic benefit from the settlements stolen in the valuable areas and these benefits can only be offset through a corresponding reduction in military aid

Unfortunately the US needs a stable ally in the region to counter Iran and (eventual) panarabism, and Israel seems to be their only choice at the moment.

I like how I ask about pacifism and you talk about everything except nonviolent resistance. You're back in the lead.

[Fake Boris]

What in my post does hint at me not being a pacifist?

[The Mad Monk]

...and pulling ahead. Sava, you need to up your game.

[Sava]

...and pulling ahead. Sava, you need to up your game.

?

Well, if you feel like sharing any other concepts you don't understand, I'll be happy to correct you again.