So, who is really responsible...

[Strivax]

...in war, for the death of a civilian?

The soldier who pulls the trigger? The officer who deployed him? The politician who committed them? The enemy who provoked them?

The question is prompted by the deaths of some 1200 people in Gaza, mostly civilians, many of whom were non-combatant women and children.

And, I am getting tired of Israel blaming their disproportionate violence on Hamas. I am not a Hamas supporter; firing off rockets in the hope of killing Jews is not an activity I would encourage or endorse. But I think the morality of the situation to be more complex and nuanced than Israeli apologists would have us believe. I wonder if anyone else here is looking for a principle that assigns appropriately moral responsibility where such responsibility is due, in a situation such as we have in the middle-east?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Received]

Well, the short of it is that Israel has been systematically feeding us lies since 1967 that would impress Goebbels. That terrible self-hating (i.e., critiquing Israel out of concern for Israel's security by not wanting it to eventually get blown to pieces by people who are angry at it) Jew Norman Finklestein has a wealth of knowledge on this subject. The long of it is found in the details by using firsthand sources that unveil their evil, like the Goldstone report, or even its own media (e.g., Haaretz). The simple fact is they're still fundamentally more responsible given their complete disregard for the UN, particularly resolution 242, but also the collection of other resolutions following it which are even more explicit.

But the philosophical answer to your responsibility question is that it isn't all-or-nothing, but each person shares a bit of responsibility depending on how much they contributed to things. A soldier who is brainwashed into a war and fires a bullet thinking he's doing the right thing has like a 2% level of responsibility. The elites in Israel would have like 20%.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, the short of it is that Israel has been systematically feeding us lies since 1967 that would impress Goebbels. That terrible self-hating (i.e., critiquing Israel out of concern for Israel's security by not wanting it to eventually get blown to pieces by people who are angry at it) Jew Norman Finklestein has a wealth of knowledge on this subject. The long of it is found in the details by using firsthand sources that unveil their evil, like the Goldstone report, or even its own media (e.g., Haaretz). The simple fact is they're still fundamentally more responsible given their complete disregard for the UN, particularly resolution 242, but also the collection of other resolutions following it which are even more explicit.

But the philosophical answer to your responsibility question is that it isn't all-or-nothing, but each person shares a bit of responsibility depending on how much they contributed to things. A soldier who is brainwashed into a war and fires a bullet thinking he's doing the right thing has like a 2% level of responsibility. The elites in Israel would have like 20%.

I don't trust a thing coming from either camp on this situation, as I agree, their is propaganda galore in this whole situation.

The issues causing this ongoing battle, is driven by a deep seated hatred and the more conflict that occurs, the more the hatred will be fed, for future generations.

 

[Received]

I don't trust a thing coming from either camp on this situation, as I agree, their is propaganda galore in this whole situation.

The issues causing this ongoing battle, is driven by a deep seated hatred and the more conflict that occurs, the more the hatred will be fed, for future generations.

Agree, but that doesn't mean that underneath the mutual hatred one group is more responsible for their hatred than another. That would be Israel with their complete disregard for international (UN) law by annexing Gaza and the West Bank.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hamas is carefully calculating their offensive effort, to make sure they receive many more casualties than they inflict. When 1200 Palestinians are killed and only a handful of Israeli civilians are killed something is certainly wrong. Hamas can certainly target their weapons more effectively than they are doing. I think the strategy is to gain the sympathy of the global community, and, try to bring the other Islamic enemies of Israel into a larger conflict that might actually succeed in destroying Israel or gaining large concessions from them.

 

[Received]

Keep in mind that if you didn't have preexisting monstrous Israel, you wouldn't have a need for a monstrous Hamas.

 

[Resha Caner]

Henry V
Act IV, Scene 1

It's all about who bears the responsibility for war.

 

[Resha Caner]

Keep in mind that if you didn't have preexisting monstrous Israel, you wouldn't have a need for a monstrous Hamas.

It's not hard to figure out which side you're on.

 

[Received]

It's not hard to figure out which side you're on.

Israel and Palestine.

 

[Resha Caner]

Israel and Palestine.

Hmm. Maybe we need to take a vote then. That's not the impression you give.

 

[Received]

Hmm. Maybe we need to take a vote then. That's not the impression you give.

I know. Let me explain: I'm for Israel's security, which mean I'm critical of it and hope it doesn't get itself into war or (even worse) eventually get dropped by the US for its bad stuff against the Palestinians. Much like God was "for" Israel in the Old Testament by constantly chastising it in a million different ways (we shouldn't make the terrible error, as some do, of thinking that just because Israel is Israel that we should blindly accept them without considering their behavior, for such would miss how God dealt with Israel in the OT). The Palestenian situation is a bit like Vietnam: at the very beginning, you would get crucified if you spoke against Vietnam, but eventually it got more and more comfortable, leading to bad backlash for the US government. Likewise with support for Palestine.

 

[Resha Caner]

I know. Let me explain: I'm for Israel's security, which mean I'm critical of it and hope it doesn't get itself into war or (even worse) eventually get dropped by the US for its bad stuff against the Palestinians. Much like God was "for" Israel in the Old Testament by constantly chastising it in a million different ways (we shouldn't make the terrible error, as some do, of thinking that just because Israel is Israel that we should blindly accept them without considering their behavior, for such would miss how God dealt with Israel in the OT). The Palestenian situation is a bit like Vietnam: at the very beginning, you would get crucified if you spoke against Vietnam, but eventually it got more and more comfortable, leading to bad backlash for the US government. Likewise with support for Palestine.

I see. As an observation, then, I would expect constructive criticism. You appear dogmatic - polemic - in your statements. I've no attachment to Israel for theological reasons. It's more a sentimental attachment to the history of it all, and somewhat of a political attachment due to their strategic importance to the U.S.

My honest assessment is that there is no solution. The battle will continue until the 2nd coming. So, I'm not really interested in a digression into the specifics of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I'd rather discuss the broader philosophical issue of the OP - hence my mention of Henry V.

 

[Received]

I see. As an observation, then, I would expect constructive criticism. You appear dogmatic - polemic - in your statements. I've no attachment to Israel for theological reasons. It's more a sentimental attachment to the history of it all, and somewhat of a political attachment due to their strategic importance to the U.S.

My honest assessment is that there is no solution. The battle will continue until the 2nd coming. So, I'm not really interested in a digression into the specifics of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I'd rather discuss the broader philosophical issue of the OP - hence my mention of Henry V.

Well, in all respect, it might be a lens (emotional or ideological, I don't know or care) that's causing you to see me as dogmatic or polemic. I'm just tired of being constantly bombarded with complete fabrications from the media (including the so-called liberal media) about Israel, when I know the history of the problem decently enough. It's a bit like being surrounded by people on the Titanic who say the ship will be fine when you know for a fact it's going down. You go a little stubborn. But I promise you my commitment to truth is highest. Actually, probably the thing that bothers me most is the equation of Israel with the entire nation and Hamas with all the Palestinians. Far from all Israelis support its government, and far from all Palestinians support Hamas' decisions. But it's, AFAIK, always been the case that a so-called act of terror by Hamas (e.g., rockets) has been preceded by something Israel has done. Going all the way back to the false preemptive war in 1967 and the illegal occupation since.

I think there is hope for a two state solution, but it's only possible if people stop getting fed such blatant propaganda. And especially if they'd stop the utterly ridiculous idea that Israel, because it's in the Bible, should be supported unconditionally. Well, read the Old Testament; supporting Israel means chastising it at times, just as is the case with any other country or person.

 

[Received]

And let's remember that the US is the world's number one supporter of Israel, even to the point of constantly saving it from legitimate and often unanimous UN reprimands toward Israel. If we get into a third world war, it has a great chance of being because of the crimes of Israel. And I don't like to think about my countrymen dying for crimes, whether for oil or an imagined victimization which really hides predation.

 

[Received]

I can already sense the rising blood pressure of a few posters reading these posts.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think there is hope for a two state solution, but it's only possible if people stop getting fed such blatant propaganda.

Nah. You've got too much pluralist/nationalist idealism in you. It's like when people tell me all religions would get along if I would just shut up and keep to myself. Given my religion is not about shutting up and keeping to myself, they're telling me I have to surrender ... and I honestly believe they don't realize that's what they're saying.

Same thing with Israel & Palestine. One has to go away before peace comes.

And especially if they'd stop the utterly ridiculous idea that Israel, because it's in the Bible, should be supported unconditionally. Well, read the Old Testament; supporting Israel means chastising it at times, just as is the case with any other country or person.

I don't like the Obama administration at all, but they're not as stupid as some would claim ... and there are always career officials who ride from one administration to the next. The point is, don't think that the insiders trend with the propaganda. I'm sure Netanyahu gets an earful before everyone goes on stage to smile and shake hands.

I see the same type of thing in corporate America. Never disrespect your team in public. Do all the discipline behind closed doors. Those who believe that what they see in the media represents the real situation are just naive.

 

[Received]

Nah. You've got too much pluralist/nationalist idealism in you. It's like when people tell me all religions would get along if I would just shut up and keep to myself. Given my religion is not about shutting up and keeping to myself, they're telling me I have to surrender ... and I honestly believe they don't realize that's what they're saying.

Same thing with Israel & Palestine. One has to go away before peace comes.

I strongly disagree with that. I think there might be an overmonstration (?) process going on with Hamas or whatever. The solution is simple: Israel obeys international law by stopping illegal settlements, and more immediately agree to ceasefire -- as has happened recently in the past and Hamas didn't blow anything up until Israel killed the ceasefire.

I don't like the Obama administration at all, but they're not as stupid as some would claim ... and there are always career officials who ride from one administration to the next. The point is, don't think that the insiders trend with the propaganda. I'm sure Netanyahu gets an earful before everyone goes on stage to smile and shake hands.

I see the same type of thing in corporate America. Never disrespect your team in public. Do all the discipline behind closed doors. Those who believe that what they see in the media represents the real situation are just naive.

Obama is just another blindly pro-Israel politician. The closest we have to the opposite is Carter, and nobody even remembers that dude.

 

[Resha Caner]

So what about this line from Bates?

Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know
enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if
his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes
the crime of it out of us.

 

[Received]

So what about this line from Bates?

Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know
enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if
his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes
the crime of it out of us.

I think it's great. How do you mean to apply it?

 

[Resha Caner]

I strongly disagree with that. I think there might be an overmonstration (?) process going on with Hamas or whatever. The solution is simple: Israel obeys international law by stopping illegal settlements, and more immediately agree to ceasefire -- as has happened recently in the past and Hamas didn't blow anything up until Israel killed the ceasefire.

I can see already this is a discussion with no end. My point would be that for Israel to agree to such would mean they are no longer Israel. There would be some kind of political organization living in that geographic area, but it wouldn't embody the national identity now known as Israel.

So, what is it you want from the political organization living in that geographic area?

Obama is just another blindly pro-Israel politician. The closest we have to the opposite is Carter, and nobody even remembers that dude.

Hmm. Odd. I don't think Netanyahu would agree with you. I wouldn't consider Obama pro-Israel. He seems to work with them reluctantly. If you want pro-Israel you need to speak more of someone like Reagan.

Granted Carter had a good run at it. He was closer to success than anyone since. But if it's not sustainable ...