Comments on: Does Israel intentionally target civilians?

By: RichardNYC

RichardNYC — Sun, 01 May 2011 05:39:43 +0000

@DIRECTROB

Your outside sources are irrelevant. Roi concedes up front that by “targeting”, Goldstone meant “killing.” He takes issue with Goldstone’s definition for the purpose of inserting a new meaning that Goldstone never intended.

By: directrob

directrob — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:34:24 +0000

@Richard NYC,
“targeting civilians” includes non lethal force.
.
see: http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4817
.
see:http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo8.html

By: RichardNYC

RichardNYC — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:54:16 +0000

@Roi
This piece is an exercise in duplicity. Knowing that the phrase “targeting civilians” has come to mean “trying to kill them”, you attempt to fashion a new definition that more accurately describes Israeli policy (which, you concede, does not “target” civilians in this sense). However, for some mysterious reason, you still think it is appropriate to maintain the terminology of the now discredited allegation (“targeting civilians”). As justification for this rhetorical decision, you offer us a ridiculous moral proposition: “Are these policies better than intentionally causing civilian casualties? Morally, I think the distinction is shaky.” Really Roi? I don’t believe you. I think you see a difference between deliberately killing someone and deliberately bombing their chickens. Of course, you knows that, when you says “Israel targets civilians”, most people are not going to understand what you “really” mean. Credible journalists don’t mislead their audiences by re-defining precise phraseology and then employing it in a way that will be misunderstood. Writing a piece to cover yourself in the event someone notices your deception doesn’t redeem this kind of behavior, especially when the cover is not believable at best or dishonest at worst.

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:39:22 +0000

Nir Sarig has a point. Civilians who support enemies of the state have to be handled somehow.

Imagine a province where most of inhabitants support rebels. Given vast area, bad state of the road etc. rebels are hard to find, but the civilians are not. So we can reasonably put forth a policy of destroying some villages, except that this is hard work and we have not enough troops. But not all is lost! There are volunteers, patriotic folks, who will do it with only most rudimentary support from the state.

What is the difference between Sudan vs Darfur and Israel vs Gaza? Basically, IDF is more organized, has better weapons, can try a much larger variety of collective punishments than unimaginative Janjaweed (did they try to deny coriander to the Furs?), and keeps the killings at the lower level. But the basic principle, to go after civilians because the armed opponents are too bothersome to apprehand, is the shared principle.

The responsibility for massacres of Furs is squarely in the hands of Fur rebel movements.

Lastly, very good argument by Jacob: Israel could carpet bomb Gaza, and it did not! This is the principle of massive moral superiority. Suppose that you could kill 10000 and you killed 10, then your morality coefficient is 10000/10 = 1000.

Thus Israel could make a “parking lot” out of Gaza and it did not, for the morality coefficient of 1000. In the same time, Hamas killed 8 Israelis, and perhaps they could not even kill 9! Give or take, their morality coefficient is at most 2. This moral calculus explains craving for nuclear weapons. Suppose Hamas gets nukes. Presto! morality coefficient shoots up from 2 to 10000.

Needless to say, the possibility of, say, morally superior Iran, presents intolerable danger.

By: Monster

Monster — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:23:45 +0000

I would ask those that are saying Israel is completely in the right for its war crimes, and that negotiation with Hamas is inconceivable – what about the current leaders of Israel? The vast majority of them are the children of the terrorists that created Israel through violence, terrorism and force…Irgun, Stern, and Hagana ring a bell, anyone?

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:22:55 +0000

Hamas has declared war on Israel. It is not fighting to end the occupation but to end Israel’s existence. In a war civilians always suffer, especially when combatants hide among civilians and store weapons in private homes and places of worship. The Geneva Convention clearly states that the presence of civilians does not grant immunity from military attacks. When Hamas fires its weapons, while using civilians as human shields, it can not enjoy any immunity from attack. Those who use civilians in that way are responsible for the
civilian casualties.
Israel could have used carpet bombing in Gaza without endangering any of its soldiers. But that would have caused tens of thousands of civilian deaths. It did not do that, precisely because it did not, and does not, target civilians.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:37:51 +0000

The answers that you quoted were not answers to questions, but assertions that could have been associated with other questions or contexts. Its correlative at this point.

My point about the set of legally admissible targets remains, that in war that set includes communications and electrical infrastructure, while in a contained skirmish, it doesn’t.

I don’t doubt that Israel sought to inflict the greatest inconvenience that it could among admissible targets. (Maybe they just ignored prudence entirely. From the Goldstone report, the number of instances of responsible training and selection criteria described, indicates to me that they didn’t ignore prudence. The Goldstone Report described the norm of prudence and adherence to international law as a basis of identification of exceptions that were then more conspicuous.)

If some of those exceptions shifted in any way from inadmissible to admissible, as a result of the Goldstone qualification, that is a big deal.

It does not make it good policy, nor does it excuse actual war crimes (a smaller set).

By: Roi Maor

Roi Maor — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:09:58 +0000

@Richard – the vast majority of my article was quotes from official Israeli sources. There was hardly a mention there of the logic you present. There was talk about destroying villages, and creating a refugee crisis, however. How do you address that?

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:34:03 +0000

Is it actually true that there was state intention to cause civilian discomfort as policy?

I’m not sure.

If the setting is war, different than skirmish, then the set of genuine military targets expands greatly. Civilian infrastructure that is inadmissible in a skirmish, becomes potentially admissible in a war.

Electrical infrastructure, communications infrastructure, logistical infrastructure.

I don’t see any logical military justification for targeting sewage, but MANY of the contested targets sited in the Goldstore report, are in that set of targets that could be admissible in a war, while not admissible in a skirmish.

I don’t think you proved your point, so much as asserted it. “It must be true”, isn’t necessarily.

By: Danny

Danny — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:00:54 +0000

Nir Sarig – by your logic, would the people of Sderot be considered a legitimate target for Qassam rockets because the majority of them are Likud/Lieberman voters? Or does your argument only apply to Arabs?