I think there is sometimes a confusion in the minds of some about pacifists. My guess is that most pacifists are not opposed to a nation actually defending herself (even though we may choose not to fight violence with violence, ourselves). Rather, it is deadly violence applied in the course of something other than defense that we typically reserve our criticism for.
I bring this up in light of both our Iraqi invasion and the ongoing violence in Israel and Lebanon. Many have defended Israel's right to defend herself and expressed outrage that people would oppose a nation's right to self-defense.
So, to clarify at least my position, I'm not opposed to Israel or anyone else acting in their own self-defense. If the US were invaded, I accept that most people are going to want to shoot back at the invaders.
What I'm opposed to, here or in Israel or anywhere else, is stupidity and random violence in the name of self-defense. If Israel is truly defending herself that is one thing. But as soon as Israel starts killing massive numbers of civilians - babies included - then Israel has made herself the enemy and done a disservice to her own self-defense.
Allow me to elaborate.
After 9/11, Al Qaida was a pariah around the world. The world was united behind the US because we had been attacked by a few criminals. If we had treated them as the criminals and outlaws they are, I suspect world support would have remained with us.
But instead, we invaded a nation that had nothing directly to do with these criminals. We validated the terrorists' position that the US was a real danger. World sympathy turned against us and we were/are perceived to be the greater threat to world peace than these terrorists!
We are losing a popularity contest to thugs and terrorists!
By attacking and killing innocent people (and I know neither the US nor Israel is desiring to kill innocent people, but we have taken actions that have just as assuredly led to their deaths), we have made ourselves the enemy. We've given support and strength to terrorists that would otherwise be marginalized in their violence.
We've aided and abetted the enemy by attacking people in their vicinity.
And so, while I support a people's right to self-defense, I reject the notion that Israel or the US is doing anything but making themselves LESS secure by attacking places where innocent people will be killed.
The tools of destruction are only good for one thing.
43 comments:
It seems to me that a lot of Christians have trouble separating Christianity from the State, at least when it comes to matters of war. The point isn't necessarily that the United States shouldn't fight in wars, but that Christians shouldn't fight in wars.
Dan, I agree with both you and wasp jerky. I am among those who argue that nations CAN develop the tools of nonviolent self-defense that would make military self-defense obsolete. But I also know that few nations are ready to try this right now. Gospel nonviolence cannot be required of nation-states as it can be of Christians (since we have higher loyalties than the nation.)
But far too much is done in the NAME of self-defense, things that don't even meet the standards of just war theory, never mind nonviolence. That's why protests are growing now even in Israel. No one wants their nation to commit war crimes--not even in a struggle against lawless terrorists like Hezbollah.
This is mostly in response to the Israel thing. I agree that civilians should not be targeted, but Kadnine (http://kadnine.blogspot.com/2006/07/on-over-abused-words.html) brings up an interesting point about how "civilian" a person really is. Yes, here in the states a person is typically military, or they are a civilian, but the lines in other countries are not so clear. When we hear on the news about civilians being killed, we must ask ourselves if we are being told the whole story. After all, the civilian may have a gun firing at the troopers. Not to say actual innocent civilians are never killed.
Dan,
This is why I also pray for the civilians and non-combatants. I'm guessing Lebanon has not enjoyed safety since groups like Hezbollah have taken over their neighborhoods.
Lebanon has suffered much under muslim attack...and Israel is doing it's best not to hurt civilians.
No, Israel is NOT doing her best to not hurt civilians. Yes, the lines between civilian and combatant can be hard--that has been a problem with guerilla war since the Middle Ages. However, Just War Theory (embodied in military laws in all modern nations and in international law) is clear: You have to take extra precautions to avoid injuring or killing civilians--EVEN if the other side doesn't play by the same rules and EVEN if this puts your soldiers at greater risk.
Air strikes in heavily populated neighborhoods because you suspect some of the houses have Hezbollah tunnels, etc. is NOT doing all you can to avoid civilian casualties. Neither is bombing the airport or the water supply, etc.
I'm not singling out Israel here. The U.S. is guilty of these same kind of war crimes in Iraq and Hezbollah is deliberately aiming missiles at civilian targets (mostly missing.) But everyone always says, "Well Israel is doing EVERYTHING it can to minimize casualties" and it just isn't true.
This strict distinction between combatants and non-combatants is called the principle of discrimination. Any weapon or tactic which makes this impossible or difficult is ruled out. (That's what makes nukes, chemical and biological weapons, landmines, etc. illegal.) Thus, torturing captured prisoners (no matter how much info. they have), shooting anything that moves, starving a community, destroying water supplies, etc. are all ruled out. "Softening up" an enemy through missile or bomb attacks in civilian areas before going in with ground troops almost always violates this principle.
But discrimination isn't the only principle of Just War theory. There is also the principle of proportionality. That means that, no matter how much you are provoked, your response cannot cause more damage or destruction than necessary. You don't start a full-scale war to rescue one soldier in Gaza or 2 in Lebanon. (A commando raid--even a commando raid while pretending to negotiate for their release--is justified. Blowing up everyone in an area where you think your enemy is hiding is NOT.) You are to inflict the minimum damage possible to stop the other's evil.
Again, Israel is not unique in violating this. Look at the mess the U.S. caused in Iraq--all out of proportion to the gains sought in preventing Hussein from using nonexistent WMDs. But don't give me this **^&^ of watching a whole country being destroyed, hundreds of civilians dead (including at least 100 children so far) and hundreds of thousands displaced and made refugees (with the threat of starvation and, thanks to bombed sewage treatment centers, disease killing far more) and then tell me that Israel "did all it could" to avoid civilian casualties. It's a LIE.
Yes, Hezbollah has been equally unconcerned with civilian life (and only incredibly bad aim has kept their missiles from killing far more Israelis than they have), but they have never made any pretence to honor the standards of Just War Theory. Israel presents itself as a moral democracy--it holds up higher standards.
Steve Clemons at the Washington Note is blogging the John Bolton hearings: [Bolton] suggested that one of the reasons why the U.S. has resisted calls for immediate cease fire in the region is that it wants to generate a "comprehensive solution". He said "we need to use current circumstances as a fulcrum to move towards a more stable, longer term solution."
This, to me, is very telling of the "pragmatic" approach of the US political establishment toward foreign relations. Our foreign policy is not about right and wrong -- once you get past the rhetoric employed, at least -- but about leverage and strategic advantage. Letting the carnage continue is an acceptable approach if it helps us achieve our larger strategic goals . . .
Chance raises another interesting point. The line between civilian and soldier does, indeed, become blurred when a foreign military force comes rolling in. I daresay if we found ourselves in the same situation, Americans would largely disregard questions about the attacker's "right to exist" and assertions of self-defense. We'd fight tooth and nail to repel the invaders, and expect our friends and neighbors to do the same.
This is pretty much what's been going on in the Mideast ever since the UN declared there was going to be a nation called Israel, in the middle of the Arab world, run by European emigrants.
The war crimes in the Middle East make me so angry that I can hardly think of a way to write about them. You have done well and I am pleased to see this done by a U.S. citizen! Even our conservative government seems to be making stupid statements that appear to support Israel in spite of what their bombs have done to the UN observation post with one of our non-combatant soldiers in it and the many children that have been killed. I think the members of a government that are upset with another government should go, themselves, to confront their problems instead of sending bombers to kill everything in the area.
thanks for the interesting comments, all. One comment for now:
Chance said:
"After all, the civilian may have a gun firing at the troopers."
While there may be some validity to your suggestion, keep in mind that a large number of the dead and wounded are children (and then there are the UN observers which Israel killed). Which gets to my point - even if you are a huge supporter of Israel (and I wish them only peace, myself), this is not the way to Israel's safety.
If we were bombed by Mexico for allegedly killing two illegal immigrants, how much sympathy would we have for Mexico? Would we say, "well, we did start it by killing two illegal immigrants..."?
No. As soon as innocents die - especially children - people are going to set their face against the enemy and it will be hard to come back to peace.
Dan, what should Israel do? The Lebanese are striking then hiding among civilians.
No. I don't think that's the case, Rusty. From what I hear, some Lebanese are striking then hiding.
And Israel should treat the situation the same as we should if some Saudi Arabians were to strike the US, killing themselves in the process...
[wait for it...]
Invade Iraq.
Israel should treat it as the criminal situation it is, working with their police and the Lebanese authorities to seek their arrest.
Now, if these acts are being done with the support/encouragement of the Lebanese gov't, then I suppose that might constitute an act of war.
If it were a war, then Israel could prosecute a war within the boundaries of their law and/or international law (which I'm guessing doesn't allow for the bombing of civilian centers).
The thing is, Israel will not make herself more secure by killing civilians. It will incite further hatred towards Israel.
As long as you have a relative few individuals committing terroristic acts, you have a criminal problem (a serious one). But once you start killing civilians, you've transformed the situation from Israel fighting a few criminals (which will have world support), to Israel being the bad guy, too.
For some specifics about how to combat evil without embracing it, try this site:
http://www.fcnl.org/ppdc/
Thanks for asking, Rusty. It's an important question.
Rusty, Hezbollah may be hiding among civilians. According to the laws of war, Israel is STILL not allowed to mass bomb civilian areas where they think Hezbollah is hiding. They teach these things in basic training in Israel and the U.S. (and most modern armies) with extra course in this for officers.
Hezbollah's initial action was to kidnap 2 Israeli soldiers. Now, that's an act of war. Israel regulary exchanges prisoners, so I don't quite understand its over the top response to the kidnapping of one soldier in Gaza by Hamas and two in the North by Hezbollah. But if they had tried an Entebbe style commando raid to free them, people would have cheered. Instead, Israel began bombing. THEN Hezbollah started launching missiles. (Yes, they launched them at civilian areas--Hezbollah is as guilty as Israel.)
It isn't nearly as simple a question as the terrorists being viewed as criminals and (in the case being discussed) Israeli and Lebanese police tracking them down. While the civilians might not be actively participating in the terrorism, they are in sympathy with it and often aid it.
An example of what I'm taking about is the abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolf who dissappeared into the Pisgah forrest not far from here. Many of the the local populace were in sympathy with him and hundreds of police, military, and others looking for him for years couldn't find him. One reason was that several locals left false trails for them to follow.
The Hezbollah terrorists could not exist at all without rather widespread civilian cooperation and the government turning a blind eye. Hezbollah is also a political party in Lebanon which holds a number of important seats.
If it were just a matter of a few terrorists hiding among otherwise totally innocent civilians, your point would carry more weight. Alas, it isn't.
The moral question you rais ins't that simple either. It can be argued that if a thief or embezzeler is the parent of small children, sending them to jail for ten years punishes the innocent children more than the thief. Does this mean we don't send the thief to jail? We handle that moral question by viewing the person doing harm to the children not as the thief, not the state nor the courts.
When the Hezbollah use civilian areas as shields for their rocket launches and raids into Israel, they become like the thieving parent. It is THEY who are harming the civilians.
This should be a separate comment I thought. The reason this might seem like a knotty puzzle with the two sides Dan suggestes (self-defense/self-destruction) is because the real reason for ALL wars is being left out of the formula. It's economic. ALL wars of all times have ALWAYS been economic wars. There is always a transparent veneer painted over them to cast them as religious wars, self-defense, free the slaves, liberate the people, etc.
The lie is not even a very good one. If the goal is to liberate the Iraqis, then why not the Ethiopians? If the goal was to free the slaves, then why didn't the US continue the war into Mexico and the Caribbean where the slaves were far worse off?
There wil be non-violent solutions to the problems currently addressed by warfare ONLY when the underlying motivation and imptus for the warfare is eliminated, that is, an easy life based on the plunder of another people's resources and labor.
If I were to ask the active non-violent-ists here, "If a person were using an innocent as a shield and about to kill several members of your family, you could kill the person and tendanger he innocent and save yourself and your family, what would you do?" I wouldn' be surprised to hear the dedicated non-violent-ist say the would still not harm the innocent.
Fine. But once we recognize that it is our economy that is causing the innocents to die around the world, why is it "I'm working on it." Why no urgency? Why not at least as much urgency for that as for calling for a ceasefire in the wars? Can you see that it sounds a bit like 'fair weather pacifism'?
"Why no urgency? Why not at least as much urgency for that as for calling for a ceasefire in the wars?"
Who says there's no urgency? That this isn't consuming a good portion of our time and energies? What do you know about anyone else?
Clearly, the majority of the world is busy trying to be upwardly mobile/upwardly consumptive, but not everyone is.
We did not arrive in Babylon overnight and, at least for some of us, we may not be able to untangle ourselves from Babylon overnight. And so we urgently try to disengage, recognizing (at least some of us) that it IS our lifestyle that is contributing to, if not leading our wars.
With apologies to those who've been able to leave Babylon sooner, and appreciation for showing us a way.
eleutheros wrote:
"When the Hezbollah use civilian areas as shields for their rocket launches and raids into Israel, they become like the thieving parent. It is THEY who are harming the civilians."
It's not that simple. If a criminal takes a human shield hostage and the police just shoot through the human shield to kill the criminal, the police will ALSO be brought up on charges. The charges won't be dismissed simply by saying that the criminal put the civilians in danger in the first place.
If Israel pursued Hezbollah house to house and, after taking all precautions for the civilian population, some still got killed, there would still be an inquiry, but the blame would fall all or almost all on Hezbollah. However, using bombs to blow up civilian homes because your intelligence dudes tell you that Hezbollah PROBABLY has hidden tunnels there violates the laws of war.
Deliberately targetting the airport so that Hezbollah leaders can't flee (thereby also stranding civilians who might try to flee) and destroying water and sewage facilities (thereby almost ensuring the spread of disease, dehydration, and starvation) is completely beyond the pale.
Americans have a strange idea that if one group (Hezbollah) engages in criminal or terrorist activity (bad guy), someone opposing them (Israel) must be heroic and justified in any action they take. The idea that the "hero's" actions could bring them to the same level of criminality as the villain seems never to occur to us. This is especially the case if the "hero" is the U.S. or Israel, whom we seem to believe can do no wrong.
Now, eleutheros, I know you don't fall precisely in this category. You hold (rightly) that the U.S. is part of a global Babylon. But your critique is almost entirely economic --and while this critique is legit and your resistance through simplified life a partial answer to the empire--it is not everything.
Thanks, Michael. I was getting prepared to answer that part of his comment and you've gone and saved me the trouble. Thanks.
What he said, E.
I'll add that, if the police in an effort to capture Rudolf had started bombing the neighborhoods where they suspected he was, there would be an uproar and rightly so. EVEN IF the neighbors were supportive of Rudolf, committing crimes is not the way to solve crimes.
Human Rights Watch has just posted an excellent guide to international law as it relates to the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict--and which groups have committed which violations. Check it out and make it available to others:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0728-14.htm#1
...having said what I've said about treating terrorists as criminals rather than bombing nations, I'll admit that this is NOT as simple as the criminal analogy. I'm using that analogy to make the point.
It is certainly much more complex when you have relationships between Hezbollah and Lebanon, for instance, or somewhat (very) tenuous relationship between "terrorists" and Saddam. But despite this complexity, I think it is the criminal model we need to follow in dealing with terrorism, not the war-between-nations model.
Our dealings with Iraq and Israel's with Lebanon are ample evidence that the war-as-solution tack is only making things worse. We just need to invest more time and effort in to coming up with better solutions.
I'll continue to offer up the Friends (Quakers) website as one source of ideas of better directions we ought to be chasing:
http://www.fcnl.org/ppdc/
Dan:"We did not arrive in Babylon overnight and, at least for some of us, we may not be able to untangle ourselves from Babylon overnight."
We didn't start bombing nations to maintain our economic status overnight either, did we? We've been doing it for a jolly lot of years now. So does the same proviso apply then? Sure, we should stop bombing, but in five years, maybe ten. In the mean time we'll try to cut back from bombing 200 civilian homes a year to 175 a year.
A call to halt all military agression immediately should go with a pledge to halt all excesses of consumption, all lack of productivity, just as immediately.
Or else both gradually over time.
Michael:"But your critique is almost entirely economic --"
It is, in fact. But consider why: have we not each of us mentioned how hyper complex the situation is? It's not exactly like two sovereign nations warring, not exactly like the case of the criminal. It is in fact as Douglas Adams was wont to say "a puzzle of mind mangling proportions!"
Let's suppose (yes, another inaccurate comparison, what else do we have?) you come into house of many rooms and hallways and you smell electrical smoke hanging in the air. It could be an active arc, it could be in the wiring bus, in the breaker box, in a light fixture, in a receptical, someone could have been hurt in an electrical circuit already. A complex and urgent problem, what do you do?
Go the the breaker box and pull the main breaker! This starves a complex and unfathomable problem of its source of danger and now you can find the problem at your leisure without anyone or anything else being hurt.
That's why I cast it as primarily an economic problem. As long as anyone in the world is living by someone else's labor, the potential and likelihood of the problem remains. We've been trying to unravel knotty problem from the wrong end for many years with almost nothing to show for it.
Michael, I don't agree with your concerning LOAC. You where right that they teach it in basic training. I sat for hours learning about lawful warfare. Since none the hezbollah are "individuals authorized by governmental authority" yet they attack Israeli troops then they are illegal combatants, and are in turn legal targets. Israel has to distinguish targets to the "maximum extent feasible" This means no one expects them to magically know it all, they just have to show the potential a target has of been a military objective.
Lebanon has been asked to dis-arm Hezbollah years ago. I would not expect Israel to sit by and let its citizens die. From Israel's point of view an Israeli life is more precious than the life of a Lebanese. I would expect that is true for any civilized nation. So I would say self defense is warranted.
Dan the 9/11 hijackers came from several counties. Would you have us launch a multi prong attack on the entire middle east? Take a look at Iraq. It is in the center of the middle east and borders six other counties and has access to the Persian Gulf. Now this is what no one in Washington is saying but everyone knows. One day the middle east is going to go 100% nuts. If we don't start preparing now it will be bad. Iraq was already in violation of a cease fire so therefore we could legally go to war. Sooner or later (hopefully later) Americans will be glad we have a base in Iraq. They will think it was pure luck.
You're mistaken, Eleutheros, at least in part. Yes, I call for immediate ceasefires and often try for immediate initiatives for peace. But I DON'T think that we can overcome militarism overnight anymore than we can our economic imperialist nightmare. I try to work on longterm peace solutions IN ADDITION to the immediate actions. So, on economics, I think there are things that we can try immediately and some things that will take longer. Some things individuals can do, and some will take collective action.
It's not an either/or.
Michael:"But I DON'T think that we can overcome militarism overnight anymore than we can our economic imperialist nightmare."
I wouldn't have assumed you'd think that. It would be dense, unreasonable at any rate.
Let me echo what Rusty was saying above, not only are we not going to end it soon, I am, alas, convinced that it is going to get far worse before it gets any better. I have been eye witness (meaning contemporary) to the midEast goings on since before the Six Day War and this current situation just feels bad.
I glance at the news from several divergent sources (WSJ, NPR, internet) to find some good news. I'm not finding any. World grain supplies are very short and the US's grain harvest is baking under a killer drought. With oil and the trouble it is causing at a very sensitive situation, we are escalating our consumerism as never before. A lot of debt is coming due (personal, mortgage, national, pension, all of it) and when we can't find good solutions to our debts, we do stupid and harmful things around the world to try to mitigate it.
You peace activists have your work cut out for you. It seems to me that a juggernaut has started rumbling and the momentum is building. It will run its erratic course not much we do individually in the way of economics (me) or activism (you) is going to affect what is set in motion. Not globally at any rate.
For me it's a matter of dealing (personally) with the concept of right livelihood. That concept has got to take root if we are ever to do better than this.
We all have to plant our own seeds in this. Don't assume I'm pissing on your efforts, no indeed, I'm watering your seeds.
Rusty,
How could Lebanon disarm Hezbollah while Syria occupied them? The new Lebanonese government is weak and in no position to disarm Hezbollah and the international community abandoned Lebanon right after the "Cedar Revolution."
Now, I agree that Hezbollah is a legal target (although Israel did not declare war), but the civilians are NOT. If the only way that Israel can get at Hezbollah is by killing hundreds of civilians (and let's look at the body count, shall we? far more innocent Lebanese have died than innocent Israelis), then it has to choose some other tactics.
And Dan's original point remains. These are self-defeating tactics. Hezbollah didn't EXIST until Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon in the 1980s. It had been declining in influence in much of the Arab world (not in Lebanon because it created lots of social programs for the poor when no one else would, thereby winning hearts and minds) until the Cedar Revolution and would have been unable to continue without aid from Iran and Syria. Bush is right about that (very hard to write those words), but he acts like all this is independent from U.S. and Israeli actions.
It is quite possible to transform a terror-using guerilla group into a legitimate political party. Many of the Israeli parties, including Likud, began as terror-using guerillas. So did some of France's parties that emerged from WWII where they used terrorism in resisting the Nazis. It seems as if Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland is making the transition. The African National Congress's armed group, Spear of the Nation, sometimes used terror tactics.
NOTE: I don't support any of this! But, sometimes such groups do make a transition to legitimate parties. There were movements in Palestine to help Hamas make that transition and movements to help Hezbollah make that transition. Israel's all out wars on Gaza and Lebanon, with full U.S. support, is undermining that. It reinforces the hardliners and makes the potential democrats lose ground. Hamas and Hezbollah are now more popular in the Middle East than decades. And the anger at Israel and the U.S. is also reaching new heights.
These actions are not just immoral--matching criminality with officially sanctioned criminality on a greater scale--but they are STUPID and self-defeating. The CIA calls this "blow-back," and we will be seeing the blowback from the past month's idiocy for decades to come, I fear. (Please God, may I be wrong.)
Y'all are doing just fine without me.
Carry on...
(Thanks again, Michael.)
Michael said: "If a criminal takes a human shield hostage and the police just shoot through the human shield to kill the criminal, the police will ALSO be brought up on charges. The charges won't be dismissed simply by saying that the criminal put the civilians in danger in the first place."
That is a lie.
CG:"That is a lie."
Yeow, a bit harsh, isn't it?
But you are correct that it isn't true. When a criminal takes a hostage, it is viewed as the criminal committing one more crime. Almost all law enforcement bodies have policies of not negotiating with hostage takers.
If a criminal is an immediate threat to others, for example "I am going to detonate this bomb and kill 1000 people but you can't shoot me because I've got granny here as hostage." They will shoot granny.
Dealing with agressors is not a nice business.
Well, I don't know about the bomb of 1,000 people scenario, folks, but my parents helped create the civilian review board for the police department in Jacksonville, FL in the '70s, and police who shot through hostages or even failed to do everything possible including die themselves before letting a hostage die WERE brought up on additional charges.
I have seen variations on this from place to place, some stricter and some less strict, but I DO NOT LIE. In every city in the U.S. of which I am aware, EVERY time a police officer fires a gun, even if NO ONE dies, there is an inquiry and the officer is put on desk duty or leave until the shoot is investigated. If someone dies, especially a civilian, the inquiry is stricter.
Now, war doesn't offer as many chances for review, although more are available with the new International Criminal Court. But, I am a former soldier turned pacifist. I can no longer quote chapter and verse of the uniform code of military justice, but I know that any commander found to be deliberately targetting civilians is likely to be court martialed. Just as with the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the fact that Lt. Calley believed (falsely) the whole village was hiding Vietcong (as some other villages did) was no excuse. Israel is deliberately targetting civilian areas of Lebanon.
This violates the Just War principle of discrimination and the laws of war based on it. People have been tried for war crimes BOTH for actions like what Hezbollah is doing AND for actions like Israel is doing. For that matter, the U.S. sale of arms to Israel for aggression is a violation of the U.S. Arms Control Act which specifically states that no party given or sold weapons from this country can use them for anything other than self-defense in compliance with international law. So, we are also guilty.
You can be contrary all you want. People who delude themselves into thinking they are divine, probably make other mistakes, and I make plenty myself, but I do not lie.
Michael:"Israel is deliberately targetting civilian areas of Lebanon."
Hmmm ... how you choose to word things makes a difference, Michael. The way you've stated this, it sounds as if the Israelis are saying "Say, there are some civilians in this area, let's go kill some of them." The way you've worded this makes it sound as if the town was bombed as a surprise hit completely out of the blue and with no warning. Is that what you think?
Several days ago Israel dropped leaflets over Cana and all of Tyre identifying the areas it believed held Hezbollah terrorists and warned the civilians to leave those areas. The ones caught in the bombing are the ones who chose not to leave. If you get a leaflet dropped from an enemy with known ability and predisposition to bomb your town, what would you do with your children?
I for one, as one of your readers, would like you to clarify "deliberately targeting civilians". It's a serious thing to say and much of credibility depends on it. If you think the Israeli government is saying "Let's deliberately kill some civilians", what is your evidence?
Michael said:
"Israel is deliberately targetting civilian areas of Lebanon."
Eleutheros responded:
"Hmmm ... how you choose to word things makes a difference, Michael. The way you've stated this, it sounds as if the Israelis are saying "Say, there are some civilians in this area, let's go kill some of them."
I think we all know that Israel deliberately has targeted areas where they thought that Hezbollah existed and where they knew innocent bystanders existed (including the dozen or so children killed this morning). The comparison to policing is sound: IF the police were to bomb a neighborhood where they suspected criminals existed, they WOULD be in deep doo doo.
We also can probably assume that no Israeli soldiers look forward to killing innocent bystanders, but not wanting to see it happen and then taking actions that will ensure it happens does not cut it.
Madame Goddess, you'll have to do better than merely asserting that a statement is a lie - a little evidence to back up such an assertion would be appreciated and help what you're saying be a little more believable.
As it stands, it seems clear to many that Israel is violating the US and international law (I'm guessing Israel has this or a similar law, too) that states:
Article 25:
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Article 26:
The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
Hague Convention of 1907, signed in to our law by the US Congress in 1908, I believe.
I'll say it again: Israel will not make herself more secure by killing innocent people and breaking their own and international laws. And whether or not you agree with it, many of us will push for war crimes to be prosecuted, whether they're by the US, Israel, Iraq or Lebanon.
Then, Michael, would it not be more accurate to say that Israel targeted what it believed to be Hezbollah positions but was indifferent to possible civilian casualties rather than saying that Israel deliberately targeted civilians?
We have an unfortunate tendancy to try to heighten the effect of things we don't like by giving them as bad and shocking a label as we can. For example, people have used the term 'rape'to include all manner of things including non-sexual contact to the point that the term no longer has much shock value and we end up lumping together an unprovoked assault on an old lady in a parking lot with unsolicited comments from coworkers.
'Targeting innocent civilians' is a very serious thing and if that is, by the ordinary meaning of the words, not what Israel was doing, then you have put up a serious stumbling block in your own efforts.
First, this isn't 1907. Long range attacks and remotely detonated devices didn't exist then.
But even at that, according to Israel, Hezbollah WAS defending the town and the authorities WERE given warning.
As to pushing for war crimes trials, be careful what you wish for. Recall that during the Reign of Terror (and other times) when the world changed and was in a state of flux, people who had an easy living on the backs of world's poor were considered guilty of capital crimes as well and were summarily dispatched.
War crimes trials? By all means. But let's expand that inquest to take in all the people who are the real cause of the war and punish them as well.
Amen on that?
the discharge of a gun by an officer being investigated is not the same as him being brought up on "charges" (and implied criminal charges no less) and so, sorry, I'd still call that a lie. Divinely inspired, one of us, no doubt.
and Dan, I offered as much evidence of my assertion as Michael did.
Eleutheros, I have called Hezbollah "criminals," so naturally I would like to see them tried as such. However, you insist that Hezbollah is SOLELY responsible and I don't buy that. The kidnapping of soldiers is allowable under international law, but only if war is declared. Again, had Israel simply launched an armed rescue attempt, Hezbollah would have been the ONLY party in the wrong. (Most Arabs seem initially to have blamed Hezbollah, too, but not after Israel's actions. They now have more support than ever.) When Hezbollah said they were holding the soldiers hostage, that violated international law even if a war had been declared. Still, Israel's response was weird since it arranges prisoner exchanges all the time. Why start a full scale war, now?
The towns of Cana and Tyre were given warning in the way of leaflets. That is something. The initial airport and border towns were NOT given such warning, nor the water and sewage plant. And, after bridges and roads had been bombed, including WHILE fleeing civilians were using them, it was far more difficult for the people of Tyre and Cana to leave than before. Israel had not yet opened its "humanitarian corridor" and when they did BBC and Reuters reporters said that bombs were still falling in the supposedly safe corridors. The American Press, having its collective lips firmly secured to Israel's (and the U.S. Pentagon's) butt, has said no such thing, of course.
Now, in my book, deliberately targetting an area where you know there are civilians is the same morally as aiming at the civilians. It fails to respect discrimination. Now, Hezbollah's launching of rockets into Israeli towns is also immoral and illegal, but no one seems to deny this. It is only Israel that they see totally on the side of the angels. I don't think that has ever been true, and definitely not since 1967.
E said:
"War crimes trials? By all means. But let's expand that inquest to take in all the people who are the real cause of the war and punish them as well."
Well, even though I agree that our overly-consumptive culture has a large share of the blame, it is not against any laws to be overly consumptive. We could try to expand the inquest, but no laws were broken, so I doubt that you'd get anywhere. Maybe some awareness would be raised, but you generally seem to be against awareness-raising efforts, or am I wrong there?
The Goddess said:
"I offered as much evidence of my assertion as Michael did."
The difference being is that Michael wasn't calling any of my visitors a liar. And he has offered evidence since.
Moreover, the point remains with pristine clarity: If a police force were to deliberately take actions that endangered innocent bystanders (children included) - even bystanders that tacitly supported the criminals being sought - they'd be in big trouble and rightly so.
Michael:" However, you insist that Hezbollah is SOLELY responsible and I don't buy that."
Actually I'd might consider you and Dan to be primarily responsible. But as Dan is wont to remind me, I don't really know your circumstances so I'm not sure. Almost all the 'jobs' that exist in the US produce nothing but passing around bags of air to each other, shuffling papers from one side of the desk to the other. You both might be employed in a right livelihood for all I know. If you are not, you are responsible for the deaths in Lebanon and Israel.
But that aside, since admittedly I don't know, yes, Hezbollah is primarily responsible and both Israel and Lebanon should be working together to eliminate them. What other goal does the "Party of God" have now besides destroying another sovreign nation simply because it exists?
In our police standoff sceanrio, it would be more like a sniper holed up in a large building and randomly shooting and killing people first from this window and then from that. Given a chance the police would shoot to kill him even if they weren't sure there were civilians that might still be in harm's way.
Hezbollah is not a civil government function. You can take Israel to task in its own courts. You can take people in the US to task in their own courts. But where are you going to take Hezbollah even if you get your hands on them. They will not answer subpoenas nor warrants, they will not identify themselves, and they have no judicial function to police their own actions which is under public scrutiny as are the courts in US and Israel.
I don't like Israel. The motive force there is Zionism which is as dangerous and untrustworthy as any other fanatical group in the world. But the verbage dished out to Israel on this discussion compared to the verbage dished out to Hezbollah and other Islamic concerns reminds me of the old bit about the man searching intently under a street light. When his friend comes upon him and asks him what he's looking for, he says:
"I've lost my watch."
"Did you lose it here?"
"No, a block and a half down the street."
"Then why are you looking here?"
"Because the light's better!"
Bush hating is a pathology and the light's better on Israel.
Dan:"it is not against any laws to be overly consumptive."
Ah ... yes it is. Many countries and international agreements contain laws against over consumption. For example, in India it is illegal to use any oil suitable for foodstuffs as motor fuel. Many aspects of the (loooong) Kyoto treaty make our over-consumptive lifestyle illegal. Many of you have argued that by rights we are still under the treaty .. fine .. then you are breaking the law by consuming too much.
The flip side is that the US and Israel are making the argument that they are doing nothing illegal. Even in international law, you have to prove your case presented to the proper forum before the party is guilty. Hasn't been done, so even as we speak, Israel is guilty of nothing.
Dan:"Maybe some awareness would be raised, but you generally seem to be against awareness-raising efforts, or am I wrong there?'
In spirit perhaps you are right. It's not that I am against awareness-raising, it's just that I recognize that it does no good. Look how fervently I've been trying to raise awareness that anyone with an ivory tower job tossing about bags of air is the actual cause of the midEast conflicts. Have I gotten anywhere with that? I most seriously misdoubt it.
E, it seems you're slipping. You stated:
"Bush hating is a pathology and the light's better on Israel."
When there's no "Bush-hating" going on here. In this particular post, the only mention of Bush (other than yours above) is when Michael said, "Bush is right about that (very hard to write those words), but he acts like all this is independent from U.S. and Israeli actions."
Hardly Bush-hating.
Beyond this post, all you usually hear from me or those who disagree with me are Bush policy criticisms (although, admittedly, when policies are costing lives, there are some of us who's ire raises enough to snipe at Bush himself, but that's to be expected, no?)
Usually when people call "Bush-hating" it is a way of deflecting light from the argument and is below your usually insightful comments.
As to your earlier comments on "war crimes" for over-consumption: There are no US laws limiting consumption - perhaps there should be, but I don't think there are.
And even if we were to prosecute over-consumption crimes (if there were any such laws), usually when you're talking war crimes, you're generally talking about prosecuting the decision-makers or policy-makers moreso than the grunts who merely comply. Certainly grunts are wrong to comply with bad or immoral ideas, but it is a bit of human nature to comply with the rules imposed upon us.
Dan said, "usually when you're talking war crimes, you're generally talking about prosecuting the decision-makers or policy-makers moreso than the grunts who merely comply."
I only wish that were true. It was true in the Nuremberg Trials after WWII that set the standards for what constitute's a war crime. In the Hague tribunals on the Balkans and on Somalia, there has been an attempt to concentrate on the leaders--which has been less effective than at Nuremberg because few leaders since then have kept the meticulous records of their own crimes as the Nazis did.
But during Vietnam, Gulf War I, and the current Iraq occupation, only low-level grunts and one low-level officer have been tried or even charged. In some cases, such as the ones involving Abu Ghraib prison, the paper trail leads all the way back to Rumsfeld and Gonzalez (then White House Counsel, now Atty. Gen). But those dudes will never see the inside of a U.S. courtroom.
Thanks for the correction, Michael. I reckon I meant, "hopefully," or "ideally..."
Dan:"Hardly Bush-hating."
I don't like Bush. Nothing personal, it's his globalism. At one point I was convinced that the worst ill that had been foisted on human kind is socialism, but I'm now seriously viewing globalism as worse.
But Bush (or indirectly as his policies or US policies) comes up again and again and again here, especially in the comments. To someone who is not a Bush fan but does not see him as the root and source of our problems, it seems as if you (all) run over him, put the car in reverse, and run over him again just for the jollies of it.
Dan:" There are no US laws limiting consumption - perhaps there should be, but I don't think there are."
Do I not recall the arguemnt that by all rights we are under the Kyoto treaty because it was agreed at one point we would be? The treaty would GREATLY curtail, by law, our greenhouse gas production. THe ONLY way to do that is to curtail consumption thus making it illegal to over consume.
Now, unlike ordering a bombing raid or an attack on a village where there is a clear order from one or few sources, how can someone in charge be the one who decides that everyone is to overconsume? Can there be an executive order saying, buy bigger cars, water your lawn more, throw more stuff in the landfill?
So the person making the decision IS the individual over-consumer.
ahhh...I think you're stretching a bit too much on this'n, Eleut. Not buying most of your arguments.
1. We mostly criticize Bush policies here, not Bush, the man or even Bush, the president.
2. You've not heard me say that we're under Kyoto and I don't recall anyone else saying so (but then, I've a bad memory).
3. How can someone in charge be the one who decides that everyone is to overconsume? By our policies we can and do encourage overconsumption and I think it entirely possible that by our policies we could discourage the same.
Dan, I did not call him a liar, I said that what he said was a lie. And it was. A person who is a human shield may well be killed and he who kills him is unlikely to be in any real trouble and rightly not.
Ah, but I was talking about an officer who deliberately shot through the human shield, not someone who was trying to avoid hitting the shield, but couldn't. Actually, I think in most cases, the officer would be in trouble even in the latter case, but in the former, prosecutors would probably press charges--no lie.
Post a Comment