So, who is really responsible...

[Resha Caner]

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

In answer to the question, it would mean the one pushing the button wasn't responsible. I thought we nixed that excuse for the Nazis.

So you agree with it? Do you know the king's reply?

 

[Received]

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?

Whoa, did Israel not have a national identity before 1967? Of course it did. A two state, contiguous solution simply restores things back to (with a few slight modifications mutually agreed on) the pre-1967 borders.

Actually, if Israel continues its expansion as it has, it will either have to completely kick out all Palestinians (which will cause international uproar and likely war), or through complete annexation give Palestinians a say in their government, which would lead to an Apartheid-like advantage for Palestine to overtake things by their population.

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 ...

Clinton probably came closest with the 2000 peace talks, but Israel foiled it at the last second, and Clinton was replaced by Bush. As for Netanyahu, he'd probably consider Obama pro-Palestine because Obama isn't anti-Palestinian in addition to being pro-Israel. Big difference.

 

[Received]

In answer to the question, it would mean the one pushing the button wasn't responsible. I thought we nixed that excuse for the Nazis.

So you agree with it? Do you know the king's reply?

Right, but who does this button pushing apply to here and in what way?

 

[Resha Caner]

Whoa, did Israel not have a national identity before 1967? Of course it did. A two state, contiguous solution simply restores things back to (with a few slight modifications mutually agreed on) the pre-1967 borders.

Sure. We seem to agree modern Israel is not Biblical Israel. Modern Israel is based on a secular Zionism. Many identities, one name. I don't know where we're at now. Maybe Israel 10.0. But don't kid yourself that the Israeli leadership accepted the original borders. It's not as if 1967 was an unexpected opportunity for them. Stuffing them back inside those borders would be more difficult than you seem to acknowledge here. And even inside those borders, the Palestinian identity wouldn't accept them.

Jerusalem is a good case study for that. Do you really think Israel is OK with a Muslim mosque sitting on the temple mount? Do you think Palestine will ever be OK with Israeli control of Jerusalem? Ain't gonna happen.

Right, but who does this button pushing apply to here and in what way?

Per the context of the line I quoted, it means the Palestinian soldier who fires the missle. He's been told by his "king" that he has ancestral rights to the land he's fighting for. Does that absolve him of responsibility for pushing the button? FYI, the Israelis would equate to the French in this story - the arrogant nation with the big weapons who wants to crush this irritating little gnat called England.

My point: it's an eternal story with no end.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

In your opinion, why do you think the US is and has been such a strong supporter of Israel?

 

[Received]

In your opinion, why do you think the US is and has been such a strong supporter of Israel?

The Israeli Lobby, AIPAC (see Mearsheimer's and Walt's book on the subject, and these dudes are both conservatives), the religious fundamentalism in this country that equates supporting Israel with not considering or chastising its behavior, and probably some degree of indirect resource (oil) management by having an ally in the middle east.

 

[bhsmte]

The Israeli Lobby, AIPAC (see Mearsheimer's and Walt's book on the subject, and these dudes are both conservatives), the religious fundamentalism in this country that equates supporting Israel with not considering or chastising its behavior, and probably some degree of indirect resource (oil) management by having an ally in the middle east.

Very influential lobby in fact, that has been working for over 100 years. Many military and state department people opposed such an aggressive support of Israel, many many decades ago, but they were overruled by the politicians, who were significantly influenced by the lobbyist efforts.

 

[Received]

Very influential lobby in fact, that has been working for over 100 years. Many military and state department people opposed such an aggressive support of Israel, many many decades ago, but they were overruled by the politicians, who were significantly influenced by the lobbyist efforts.

Totally. We should probably add cultural guilt for the Holocaust, and how tradition just perpetuates itself because it's tradition.

 

[bhsmte]

Totally. We should probably add cultural guilt for the Holocaust, and how tradition just perpetuates itself because it's tradition.

Yes, the holocaust helped the process along, but the lobbying efforts were deeply entrenched and already showing dividends even before the holocaust.

 

[Received]

Yes, the holocaust helped the process along, but the lobbying efforts were deeply entrenched and already showing dividends even before the holocaust.

Right. Finklestein has a totally hated book on how Jews, particularly the political elites, use Jewish suffering for political purposes. The Holocaust Industry.

 

[bhsmte]

Right. Finklestein has a totally hated book on how Jews, particularly the political elites, use Jewish suffering for political purposes. The Holocaust Industry.

Indeed, the history behind this, is not understood by most and quite revealing, when you learn about it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Hmm. Now you're starting to sound like conspiracy theorists. There may be individuals doing such things, and maybe they try to appropriate certain banners, but when you start talking of major ethnic groups doing this and that ... you're not too far from Jews controlling all the banks in the world.

 

[Received]

Hmm. Now you're starting to sound like conspiracy theorists. There may be individuals doing such things, and maybe they try to appropriate certain banners, but when you start talking of major ethnic groups doing this and that ... you're not too far from Jews controlling all the banks in the world.

Yeah, but all I have to say is: read the Mearsheimer/Walt book. There is clear data supporting their conclusions. The critique of the left is that it overemphasizes the power of the lobby in controlling things pro-Israel.

 

[bhsmte]

Hmm. Now you're starting to sound like conspiracy theorists. There may be individuals doing such things, and maybe they try to appropriate certain banners, but when you start talking of major ethnic groups doing this and that ... you're not too far from Jews controlling all the banks in the world.

The background in this is interesting, to say the least, when it is investigated.

Lobbying power is what gets things done in the United States, history has taught us that.

 

[Paradoxum]

So, who is really responsible...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?

It depend what you mean by responsible. If you determine that risking the lives of civilians is morally necessary, then you are fully responsible for that choice, regardless of how evil the enemy is. But the enemy could be fully responsible for creating the situation where that action was necessary. I'm not sure how you add that up overall... it depends what you mean by being responsible.

In the case of normal war (rather than genocide of civilians) I think the responsibility rests largely with the politicians.

In answer to the question, it would mean the one pushing the button wasn't responsible. I thought we nixed that excuse for the Nazis.

I'm not sure war is the same as genocide and war crimes. In my opinion, politicians are largely responsible for war, but soldiers can be held responsible for war crimes and genocide (ie: soldiers don't have to be experts in political theory and current events).

Maybe I'm wrong... it's a hard issue to think about.

 

[Ana the Ist]

...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.

The notion that "non-combatant civilians" should be unharmed during wartime is a relatively new notion and a fairly poor one at that. It's not war, it's playing at war....and the illusion that this is the way war should be conducted will probably be shattered at some point in the not too distant future.

At that time, people will remember engagements like the one that Israel and Palestine are currently in with fondness.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The so-called 'State of Israel' (really the end-time tribe of Judah) is simply fulfilling the prophecies concerning it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The so-called 'State of Israel' (really the end-time tribe of Judah) is simply fulfilling the prophecies concerning it.

 

[Received]

The so-called 'State of Israel' (really the end-time tribe of Judah) is simply fulfilling the prophecies concerning it.

And you know what? There's not a dadgum thing saying that the real Israel would use such criminal actions to achieve this end.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And you know what? There's not a dadgum thing saying that the real Israel would use such criminal actions to achieve this end.

I don't think any of the nations involved are paragons of virtue.