Not Anonymous

1. Regard to Human Life

Yes, with more regard to human life than :
a. Russia/USSR -> Chechnya, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, etc...
b. USA -> Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, etc...
c. England -> Ireland
d. France -> Algeria
e. Anywhere in Africa
f. Anywhere in the Arab world
g. Anywhere in the Moslem world

2. Proportional Response
Yes, see answer #1 ;)

What do you expect a responsible person to do when his country is attacked?

Lets use an analogy.
You're a rich business man (Israel) and you drive a poor business man to bankruptcy (Arabs in Gaza/Westbank).
They create a new company (Palestinians), but don't earn enough money.
Now they break into your house - remember, they're bankrupt because of you. While breaking into your house, they begin damaging your property and harming your family.

Are you supposed to come up to them (mid burglary) and say "I'm sorry, here's some money for your troubles"?

Your response is the one which is out of proportion.

:)

From:

eumelia.livejournal.com

So because everyone else is amoral, it's okay for Israel to be as well?
What would your Greeks have to say about that one?
Yes, that's the route of the moral high ground that will help us in the short or long run /sarcasm.

Your analogy is out of proportion, especially, if I'm going to continue it, if the rich business man saw the damage he's done and it's been affecting his own business and family for years and all he did was build a fence and buy a shot gun (and guns for his family) in order to keep the problem away, instead of trying to treat the problem and not just the symptoms.
Venture Capitalism just doesn't seem to be the way to go.

From:

I didn't say that it's OK for Israel to be amoral.
I pointed out that Israel is MORE moral than anyone else I know of.

You may be outraged with Israel's behaviour, but you should be aware and more importantly, point out to others, that Israel's behaviour is morally head-and-shoulders above any other similar behaviour documented in history.

There are limits to human nature and while you may wish Israel to behave in a rational, non-emotional way, but it's not going to happen, especially if there is no reason for this to happen.

My analogy holds.
The rich business man is just one of many business men. There are many others, many of whom claim kinship with the poor one (Oil rich arabs), so why should he be the only one to shoulder resonsibility for his poor neighbour.
Good fences make for good neighbours.

Socialism does not mean that you are responsible for solving other peoples problems.

The community is not composed of Israel and the arabs in Gaza/West Bank. There are many others, many of whom claim to hold the moral high ground, who are doing nothing to help.
Where is your moral outrage at them?

The Greeks, btw, would not have suffered such bothersome neigbours...

From:

c. England -> Ireland

The British army rarely killed civilians though? And when they did, there was a major inquiry, the political effects of which are still being felt today.

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

I'm including theose whom the Loyalists abused, tortured and killed as representing England.

Besides a (very few abominable exceptions) you don't hear of Israelis taking the law into their own hands.

I admit that England/UK is probably the second best country to be conquered by (see India), but Israel today is definetely the best country to be occupied by, looking at the situation of the conquered.

How many conqured people have access to top of the line dialysis machines?

Also, if a man is holding a boy in front of him as a shield, while he's firing, who is responsible for killing the boy when he's shot by a soldier who is defending a friend of his?

From:

The Loyalist paramilitaries were never really under English control, I think. Of course it probably depends which side of the line you stand on, to the English, the Paramilitaries were thorns in their sides who wouldn't do what they were told and kept destroying any chance at peace, and to the Catholics, the Paramilitaries were doing exactly what the English told them to do at all times.

Of course this tends to gloss over the real reason for the Troubles, which to my mind was always Religion - that terrible beast that infects peoples minds and makes them capable of inflicting the most horrifying atrocities on their fellow humans, in the name of god, with a sense of absolute moral correctness.

Do the Palestinians really receive that much from Israel? The impression we get is that Palestine is kept practically in the dark ages by the Israeli blockade. All t hose shots we saw on the news recently of Palestinians rushing into Egypt to buy food and water...

And yes, the problem of a guerrilla who operates from behind civilians is a horrific one. One thing is sure though, shooting the boy being held as a shield to get to the man with a gun behind him is a surefire way of guarenteeing that all of the boys friends and families will take up guns against you.

From:

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_universities

Tell me, how many universities were founded between before 1967 and how many were founded after 1967?
How come they were allowed universities under the evil occupation?

I'd rather have the boy's friends and family hate me than explain to my friend's parents why I let him be killed.

From:

Yet by killing the boys friends and families, you ensure the threat to your friends will exist forever?

It's just it strikes me that by attacking the Palestinian fighters where they are hiding, in amongst the civilian populations, the Israeli military are doing *exactly* what the Palestinian fighters want them to do.

In war, it's a very bad idea to do exactly what your enemy wants you to do.

From:

I agree.

Whats your idea?

From:

Continuing and increased investment in infrastructure and education? If more luxuries are provided to the Palestinian people, they might start to see the advantage of getting along peacefully and thus improving their lives?

I don't know, it just seems as if the Palestinians have very little, and more, they have absolutely no hope of ever improving their existances. And it seems to be under those conditions of hopelessness, that conflict and religious extremism flourish.

The promise of paradise in the afterlife generally tends to fade in the face of the lure of a 42 inch plasma tv?

From:

That's your election slogan?
"Vote for me, I'll solve your enemies problems!"

What you're saying is that Israel should roll over and play dead while the Palestinians fire their rockets, coming out of the shelters every few hours to shower the Palestinians with gifts?

I'm purposely exaggerating to show you that the solution is not "The Israelis have to do X and Y". The Palestinian's condition used to be much better.
Much of the reason why it deteriorated can be blamed on the Palestinian leadership.

They have willfully ignored every opportunity to find a compromise and to find a peaceful solution.

Once they find a leader worth following, it will be possible to reach peace. Until then, the best we can hope for is damage control.

It's not nice, but it's life

From:

It's how the Romans did it, demonstrated the advantages of being part of the Empire, and all the social improvements it brought, whilst applying suitable bribes where necessary.

Integration is always preferable to segregation.

Just not convinced the strategy being followed by the Israelis for the last... 30 years, is working. The cycle of violence keeps being perpetrated in an endless circle of 'You started it!' 'No you did!', etc, etc.

Doesn't striking at Palestine militarily, just strengthen the position of those leaders who are responsible for the deterioriating security situation?

From:

assafr.livejournal.com

If I understand correctly , the economic status in the Palestinian territories has improved immensely in the post-Oslo years. This did not prevent them from launching a new rebelion which brought them to their worst depression ever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Palestinian_territories).

This might show you that economy is not enough. They will not abandon their ideology for prosperity, the way Ireland seems to be doing.

From:

Is there a severe education problem amongst the Palestinian people?

I mean, as you say, Ireland is flourishing now economically and socially. And this, as much as anything will do a lot to prevent any relapse into violence.

But yes, the religious mindset does seem to be more endemic in your part of the world, it doesn't matter so much if they have nothing, because they still have god.

From:

they don't study any history past 1948, for instance.

From:

Thus conveniantly forgetting those significant parts of the arab world who were quite cozy with Hitler?

From:

well, not to mention every war since... well. israel.

From:

assafr.livejournal.com

of how hatred seems to override rationale, you might want to read this story (http://pratie.blogspot.com/2006/03/schadenfreude-great-german-word-by-si.html).

From:

Geez.

And again I wonder about education.

From:

assafr.livejournal.com

Most people speaking about 'proportional response' have no idea what that actually means.

It does not necesserily mean a response which is similar in both size and form to the original action. If this were so, then the 'proportional' response to Pearl-Harbour would have to be attacking a similar base of the Japanese. No. That was a declaration of war and from that moment on any action justifiable by the laws of war is an appropriate response.

If you want to read about the ethical/judicial definitions of proportionality, you can read what is considered the textbook - Waltzer's book "Just and Unjust Wars" (http://www.amazon.com/Just-Unjust-Wars-Historical-Illustrations/dp/0465037054). It is also available in Hebrew (http://kfarvradim.simania.co.il/bookdetails.php/?item_id=21548).

Quote: "The principle of proportionality is similar to that of item five of the jus ad bellum standards. Proportionality means that the amount of force used must be appropriate (or proportional) to the military objectives sought. An example, given by Anthony Hartle, is that a B-52 air strike should not be called in to take out a sniper.[23] As Hartle is well aware, this example is fatuous. The concept of military economy of force would dictate that ordnance not be expended out of proportion to the tactical needs of soldiers on the battlefield."

And finally, those demanding proportionality must remember that a "proportional" response to firing on Sderot/Ashkelon would be firing indiscriminately on civillians living in Gaza.

From:

"a B-52 air strike should not be called in to take out a sniper."

Although ironically enough in parts of Afghanistan and Iraq this is more or less exactly what they're doing.

And in Afghanistan, it seems 9 times out of 10 they don't hit the sniper anyway. They just disappear down into the caves and holes in the ground.

From:

is this where i'm supposed to quote, "what's the virtue of a proportional response"?

the thing about what's going on here is that hamas and its similars are using hezbollah tactics, shooting missiles out of civilian homes. that's how they won in lebanon, because we did retreat quite often, and that's how hamas plans on running this show. but they're hamas, so they also send the children to pick up missile parts (just in case we didn't kill any kids), you know that as well as i do. i don't even know how you can tell in radar during fighting that it's a child. this is not a proportional or an equal war, they're going all out, sacrificing their young. how can anyone begin to imagine a good solution for that? so we start by sacrificing our young. this time, we do not retreat most of the time. at least we send our biggest, meanest, most-well trained boys and not school children.

the other issue, of course, is that no one ever taught that fool olmert how to express himself. they should give our entire government lessons about that, since the palestinians have very good spokespeople, as well as the trick with the children and the plain fact that everybody loves an underdog, to speak out for them. he sounds quite childish and could have said things that would have sounded a whole lot better than that.

by the way, are 50 missiles aimed at unrelated civilians considered a proportional response to a cartoon in european press these days? i know we should have the moral upper hand, but i've always said it's hard to fight an enemy that has nothing to lose.

From:

Y'see, that's exactly why i was wondering if it might be possible to give them something they value enough to worry about losing it.

From:

simon, i love you.

(which is unrelated to said topic but related to everything :))

From:

Why thank you Pip, that was unexpected and all the more welcome for being so.

I miss the you.

From:

i miss the you! i am on msn all the time!

From: