israel doesn't commit war crimes.

[ebia]

According to Just War Theory, the calculus is not a simple examination of numbers of deaths caused by Hamas' rockets, but the totality of the threat, i.e., rockets/tunnels/suicide bombers, etc, and the military advantage gained through selected application of fires as compared to the negative effects collateral damage. The Geneva Conventions nor LOAC require an even number of casualties, thus Israel's actions are legal and in some sense moral and just. If you want to argue against their actions effectively, you have to address it within that construct, unfortunately.

A simple comparison highlights the the gross distortion in a way that would still be true but less glaring with a more comprehensive analysis.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Hamas needs to renounce violence.

When the Israelis figured that Arafat's people had quit making rocket attacks on school buses, eventually they negotiated with them.

Hamas needs to figure how to coexist with Israelis rather than seeking their destruction.

 

[ebia]

The part where we disagree is where you say "they cause." It's Hamas that orders the civilians to stay and die.

And it's Israel that drops the bombs.

Neither is without culpability.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

And it's Israel that drops the bombs.

Neither is without culpability.

If someone jumps in front of a train, and the train runs them over whose fault was it?

 

[ebia]

If someone jumps in front of a train, and the train runs them over whose fault was it?

Not a like analogy.

But if I feel like bombing your house I'll remember that it's your fault for not getting out if your family dies

 

[isshinwhat]

Let us face reality that there is NO such concept as a just war in theologically defensible terms. Luther for all he had wrong did recognise that it is Princes who wage war and that is a burden they carry, but God has to be left out of it. The pacifist position has been strongly promulgated from the papacy since Vatican II and before. Just War is not a dogmatic belief and we should question all who see violence as a solution.

Comment needs to be even handed and not pro or anti one side or the other. To do otherwise merely gives succour to the extremes of both sides.

Interestingly, the 13th Canon of St. Basil recognizes pretty much that fact when the Saint wrote:

“Our Fathers did not consider murders committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defence of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that they are not clean handed.”

I agree with the Moscow Patriarchate who issued the following statement (bolding found in the original):

VIII. War and peace

VIII. 1. War is a physical manifestation of the latent illness of humanity, which is fratricidal hatred (Gen. 4:3-12). Wars have accompanied human history since the fall and, according to the Gospel, will continue to accompany it: «And when ye hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be» (Mk. 13:7). This is also testified by the Apocalypse in its story of the last battle between good and evil at Mount Armageddon (Rev. 16:16). Generated by pride and resistance to the will of God, earthly wars reflect in fact the heavenly battle. Corrupted by sin, man found himself involved in the turmoil of this battle. War is evil. Just as the evil in man in general, war is caused by the sinful abuse of the God-given freedom; «for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murder, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies» (Mt. 15:19).

Killing, without which wars cannot happen, was regarded as a grave crime before God as far back as the dawn of the holy history. «Thou shalt not kill», the Mosaic law reads (Ex. 20:13). In the Old Testament, just as in all ancient religions, blood is sacred, since blood is life (Lev. 17:11-14). «Blood defiles the land», says Holy Scriptures. But the same biblical text warns those who resort to violence: «The land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it» (Num. 35:33).

VIII. 2. Bringing to people the good news of reconciliation (Rom, 10:15), but being in «this world» lying in evil (1 Jn. 5:19) and filled with violence, Christians involuntarily come to face the vital need to take part in various battles. While recognising war as evil, the Church does not prohibit her children from participating in hostilities if at stake is the security of their neighbours and the restoration of trampled justice. Then war is considered to be necessary though undesirable but means. In all times, Orthodoxy has had profound respect for soldiers who gave their lives to protect the life and security of their neighbours. The Holy Church has canonised many soldiers, taking into account their Christian virtues and applying to them Christ's world: «Greater love hath no man but this, that a man lay down his life for his friends» (Jn. 15:13).

Interestingly, in Orthodoxy the taking of human life, even in time of war, is seen as an impediment to Ordination.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Not a like analogy.

But if I feel like bombing your house I'll remember that it's your fault for not getting out if your family dies

...and if the house is being used for rocket attacks on Israelis, and you are a pilot under orders to return fire, this is a sad but real military situation.

 

[seekingfreedom]

I bet if you took God out of the equation, you would have a better understanding of what this is all about.

 

[ebia]

...and if the house is being used for rocket attacks on Israelis, and you are a pilot under orders to return fire, this is a sad but real military situation.

Being used BY SOMEONE ELSE for EXTREMELY INEFFECTIVE....

 

[LivingWordUnity]

 

[ebia]

And?...

 

[LivingWordUnity]

And?...

This.

 

[ebia]

This.

do I take it that you don't have a coherent point?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

do I take it that you don't have a coherent point?

The picture speaks for itself.

 

[ebia]

The picture speaks for itself.

It's okay to slaughter children because otherwise they might grow up to be suicide bombers?

 

[catholichomeschooler]

It's okay to slaughter children because otherwise they might grow up to be suicide bombers?

Hamas hides their weapons behind children. Israel does all they can to warn the citizens of Gaza when an attack is coming and where.

When Israel kills citizens, it is an accident.

When Hamas kills children, it is a successful attack.

 

[ebia]

Hamas hides their weapons behind children. Israel does all they can to warn the citizens of Gaza when an attack is coming and where. When Israel kills citizens, it is an accident. When Hamas kills children, it is a successful attack.

The people of Gaza really have no where to safely go.

Hamas might want to kill children, but in practice they directly kill few if any.
Israel may not want to kill children, but in practice they are killing hundreds.

I don't see the latter as being very much better than the former.

The choice is not between:
Hamas's actions evil, Israel's good.
And
Hamas's good, Israel's evil

But

Hamas's, evil, Israel's good
And both evil.


Showing Hamas is evil does not - can not - justify Israel's actions in response.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Hamas hides their weapons behind children. Israel does all they can to warn the citizens of Gaza when an attack is coming and where.

When Israel kills citizens, it is an accident.

When Hamas kills children, it is a successful attack.

Precisely.

 

[classicalhero]

The people of Gaza really have no where to safely go.

Hamas might want to kill children, but in practice they directly kill few if any.
Israel may not want to kill children, but in practice they are killing hundreds.

I don't see the latter as being very much better than the former.

The choice is not between:
Hamas's actions evil, Israel's good.
And
Hamas's good, Israel's evil

But

Hamas's, evil, Israel's good
And both evil.


Showing Hamas is evil does not - can not - justify Israel's actions in response.

Moral equivalence is the worst thing anyone can do. It's about why people are dead. In war the first thing to consider is the protection of civilians. Hamas refuses to do that and as the power in control in Gaza they are primarily the ones how are charged with making sure civilians are not in harms way and if the are put in harms way then they are responsible for the civilians and not Israel.

 

[ebia]

Moral equivalence is the worst thing anyone can do. It's about why people are dead. In war the first thing to consider is the protection of civilians. Hamas refuses to do that and as the power in control in Gaza they are primarily the ones how are charged with making sure civilians are not in harms way and if the are put in harms way then they are responsible for the civilians and not Israel.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the line "those lives are someone else's responsibility therefore I can bomb the ... out of them".

"He is morally culpable therefore I am not" is a logical fallacy.