Comments on: On display in Gaza: The true Israeli narrative

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:37:39 +0000

Ps. For those who think this is an outrageous topic, I’d just like to point out that the same subjects and arguments are discussed in Israeli universities (grad course in english). And there, as well as here, you get the whole spectrum.
.
Also, I wrote down some of the thoughts about the course and the difficult questions discussed there back then: http://bunkingaround.blogspot.com/2010/05/thus-far-and-no-further.html

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:30:28 +0000

Interesting discussion, which I’m apparently too late for. Non the less, thanks a lot to everyone who participated.
.
I just want to add one source, which discusses these things very well: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66349/michael-l-gross/moral-dilemmas-of-modern-war-torture-assassination-and-blackmail
.
I had the pleasure of doing a seminar course on the same topic with Prof. Gross in Haifa and we went through many of the same arguments as here. Yeah, highly recommended.

By: AIG

AIG — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:59:01 +0000

Larry,

In the end, we can only count on our intuitions about what is moral or not and who is to blame in certain situations. If we asked Israelis the following question:
Who is to blame if a rocket from Gaza kills 5 kids?

the response would be overwhelmingly that the majority of the responsibility and culpability lies with the people who fired the rockets, not the Israeli government. I humbly suggest that it is your view which is out of sync with “real life”.

I never heard of a theory of morality that is based on probability. In my book, it is intent that matters. If you try to kill someone but don’t succeed, that is just morally despicable as killing someone on purpose and less despicable than killing someone by accident. Probability of success has nothing to do with it.

The kirya is a military base. How can targeting it not be legitimate? Are you saying that military targets in war are not legitimate? What is then a legitimate target?

Regarding your point about the weaker side. Are you arguing that in war the weaker side is allowed to commit war crimes? In addition you seem to be arguing that the side that has a just cause is allowed to commit war crimes. I know the literature of just war quite well and you hold a unique position if I understand you correctly. It could be very interesting if you flesh it out (seriously).

By: Jazzy

Jazzy — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:49:57 +0000

Comment deleted and user banned

By: Larry Derfner

Larry Derfner — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:12:49 +0000

AIG, about the rocket that kills five kids, as I wrote, it would be immoral to aim a rocket at children, but if that’s the result of one of them, the blame lies with Israel. You disagree, but imply that if a Palestinian F-16 were to bomb the kirya and kill 100 children living nearby as “collateral damage,” that would be legitimate. And, of course, the thousands of Palestinian children who have been killed as “collateral damage” or in “self-defense” by Israeli soldiers since 1967 – that’s “legitimate.” I think you’re putting forth a morality that’s unhinged from real life, that disregards probability, and that also disregards the issue of which side has more power, and which side is the aggressor. And now I really have to stop debating like this, much as I would like to continue.

By: Larry Derfner

Larry Derfner — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:12:35 +0000

Jazzy, I live in Israel, I served in the army, I had thousands of stones thrown at me on reserve duty in Gaza, I sat in a gas mask in Tel Aviv for all of Saddam’s Scuds in 1991, my sons will serve in the army. You, I gather, live in NY. My political purpose in writing this stuff is to end the occupation, which I believe would make life much safer and better for Israelis. For all your sophistry, you favor continuing with the way things are, which makes all Israelis’ lives more dangerous, including my family’s. Your claim that I enjoy violence against Israelis is stupid and cheap. God, I love chickenhawks. Go comment somewhere else.

By: Jazzy

Jazzy — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:57:40 +0000

Larry: Another thing – leaving aside the question of whether 1967 was self-defense, you’re willing to call ISRAEL the aggressor because of something that happened in the 60′s, but you’re NOT willing to compromise Palestinians’ victim status AT ALL even though the Intifada was only 10 years ago….why is that? And what EVER prevented Arafat from making a COUNTER OFFER? – the eternal question that plagues these stupid argument about whether Israel offered this or that. If you NEVER hold the Palestinians RESPONSIBLE for ANYTHING BAD they do, you’re not being MORALLY SERIOUS.

By: Jazzy

Jazzy — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:49:30 +0000

Larry: bow out if you want, but you’re mischaracterizing my argument. Firing rockets is not self-defense because it, VERY DEMONSTRABLY, doesn’t ‘defend’ anyone – it doesn’t make Palestinians any safer (short term defense) or bring them closer to statehood (long term defense). It seems like you have strong sympathy for Palestinian frustration and violence, but you don’t have a coherent moral argument. The concept of a ‘right’ to resist depends on their being an end goal. If the goal is kicked farther down the road because of the ‘resistance’, why should such a ‘right’ exist in the first place? If Israel’s detente with Hezbollah is really your ideal outcome, its doesn’t feel like you’re being serious. I think you just have a guy sympathy for violence against Israelis and no moral case at all. Which is hypocrisy. If you’ve got no argument to make for the people defending you, why live in Israel? If you don’t think you deserve to be a beneficiary of the IDF’s protection, then why don’t you go to the South and try to catch a rocket with your teeth? Serious, why AREN’T you doing this? Because you don’t want to DIE maybe? Do you have any decency at all? Its ok for children to run to shelters but you’re cool in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or whatever.

By: AIG

AIG — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:38:52 +0000

Larry,

For some reason you seem to think that we are denying the Palestinians the right to self-defense. That is just wrong. We are denying them the right to a certain kind of self defense. Your view is that any self defense is justified. Ours is that deliberately targeting civilians is never justified and especially so when it is ineffective. It seems to me you are saying that they have few options. That is true. But so what? If they start kidnapping Israeli civilians, would you support that also? What is the difference between that and shooting rockets at civilians? And you never said what happens if a rocket kills 5 kids. Does it stay legitimate in your book?

Of course I would not want them to hit the kirya. But if they did, that would not be a war crime. That is a legitimate target. Even on the battlefield there is honorable and less honorable conduct. The end never justifies the means.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

By: Larry Derfner

Larry Derfner — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:12:23 +0000

OK, gents, my last remark on this issue: Your arguments add up to denying the Palestinians the right to self-defense, which you would never deny to your own country. On the issue of civilians, if the Palestinians had Israel’s weaponry and could decimate the Defense Ministry compound (kirya) in Tel Aviv, which is one of the most densely populated parts of the country, resulting in numerous soldiers killed along with numerous civilian deaths from “collateral damage,” that would be preferable to the rockets aimed at the South? I don’t think so. Good arguing w/you guys.