Georgetown professor Robert J. Lieber lays out out clearly and concisely. Executive summary:
1. Israel's airstrikes have been precisely aimed at Hamas fighters. Reportedly 80 percent of those killed are Hamas members, not civilians. Israel is trying to kill fighters; Hamas is trying to kill civilians. There's a vast difference.2. Cycle of violence? No. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 to give the Palestinians a chance to set up their own government. They chose Hamas to rule them. Then the rocket attacks from Gaza started. Israel is defending itself from rockets that could target 700,000 of its people.
3. Israel wants to reach a two-state solution so Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace side by side. Hamas wants to destroy Israel and any Palestinians who want to make peace with Israel.
4. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is impossible as long as Hamas is a player. this is why Arab states are not taking Hamas's side.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"1. Israel's airstrikes have been precisely aimed at Hamas fighters. Reportedly 80 percent of those killed are Hamas members, not civilians. Israel is trying to kill fighters; Hamas is trying to kill civilians. There's a vast difference. "
"Duh-sciple
January 1, 2009 11:32 AM
Number one... define "precisely."
20% of casualties were civilian deaths. Oops. Sorry about that Chief. C'cmon, give me a freaking break. This isn't baseball where a lifetime .300 average makes you a Hall-of-Famer. Pardon me while I vomit into my own mouth."
Them are actually pretty good stats, in the annals of warfare. Naturally, I'd prefer there be no war. But given that temporally, at least, Israel's concern is with eliminating rocket-launchers, 80% is relatively good. It means they are precision-targeting. I just don't trust, personally, that airstrikes can be that accurate. It's just the bias of a former ground operator, I guess.
As far as war in general, one has the suspicion that Christ was/is less concerned with the survival of national groups/governments than with his message of the least of the helpless overcoming evil with good, doesn't one?? The defeat of one group, even its oppression, might well lead to a new hope and belief in his gospel rising from the ashes, stronger and better. His message, perhaps, will best triumph, and best overcome evil, when it is finally lived out, and that when that day comes all these national banners will look rather shoddy in comparison to his great banner of peace. Will our Stars and Stripes, for which men have fought and died, be worthy even of being cast at his feet? I don't think we can know that. But it's something I reflect on from time to time.
" David J. White
January 1, 2009 12:17 PM
And suppose there were, come to think of it, there probably is, some anti-American militia group in St. Francisville. In the last week of his administration, Bush orders a pre-emptive strike, and only 20 per cent of deaths were St. Francisville civilians, women, and children. I suppose that would be OK with you.
If the people of St. Francisville had elected the anti-American militia to govern them, and had not only sat passively by while the militia lobbed rockets at American installations but had actively supported and encouraged the militia in its violence, then not only would a 20% casualty rate be OK with me, but I would fine with wiping St. Francisville off the map.
As I've remarked before, who exactly counts as a "civilian" in modern warfare, esp. unconventional warfare? If you actively support the military action of your government, particularly in any material way, then you are a combatant. Period."
David, your reasoning is against the Law of Land Warfare, custom, tradition, and morality. Yes, the military has morality. Not saying it always lives up to it, but it's there. Believe it or not, anytime there is a risk of loss of civilian life, we have to get permission from a military lawyer to proceed to target. And we abide by these rules even in the non-traditional battlefield we face in urban areas in fights against non-uniformed insurgents. ESPECIALLY under these conditions, because if you lose the support of the populace, you cannot succeed in your goals.
How to differentiate? Well there's high tech stuff, but mostly with the eyes of human beings. An unarmed person, merely standing there, is a non-combatant. If he appears to be digging a hole next to a convoy route, well, he's a possible, and it's up to the highest ranking or closest soldier to make the call. If he's standing there aiming an RPG launcher at you, then he IS a combatant, even if he's ten years old. What's tough about the wars we are discussing is that there are a hundred of the first category, a half dozen of the second category, and one of the third category in any given scenario. It's not easy. And you can't always be right. Being wrong can cost your own life, or the lives of innocent civilians, or worst of all, the lives of your comrades.
Wellsy, Christians can and do come to quite different conclusions on the matter of war and violence. Some end up complete pacifists. The argument is supportable. It takes a great deal of courage to live that interpretation, however. It requires non-resistance to all evil. There is a certain logic to it, so many things are fueled by reaction to other things. Where there is no reaction, perhaps evil shall simply exhaust itself. And where such incidents gain great reknown, such as resistance of the followers of Mahatma Ghandi, and to a lesser extent, the followers of Martin Luther King, JR, great advances can be made as the whole world sees followers of a noble cause who refuse to react with violence in order to achieve their goals. Commendable.
Most Christians have come to the conclusion that is permissible to defend one's own children, or indeed any innocent people one is responsible for, if they cannot defend themselves. It's not just a matter of personal belief or biblical reference: there is a long tradition here, from Judaic reasoning to St Augustine all the way up to people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who practiced what he preached and was hanged for it. Many Christians extend from this premise the right of a nation to defend its non-combatants, or to intervene in other situations where non-combatants are being targeted (ie., Germany's treatment of Europe's Jews in WWII.)
Believe it or not, there are similar trains of thought in the history of Islamic thought, and many of the same conclusions have been reached. It's just that terrorist organizations have not only departed from long tradition, but have rejected it entirely. And they are driving a lot of popular movements now.
Franklin Evans
Israel currently spends about 9% of its GDP on defense/military spending, $8.9 billion in 2001 (the year for which all following numbers applied). The $3 billion figure is combined foreign aid, which has been edging away from 50-50 (military-civilian) towards 2/3-1/3. We give them alot of military aid, but "[the US] funding the entirety of the Israeli military" is just flat false. It is around 20-25% of their budget, a very large proportion nonetheless, but I couldn't let your hyperbole stand.
It's higher than that if you consider the fact that we do all their R&D for them. I.e, we're not handing them cash, we're handing them aircraft and bombs and whatnot, stuff that takes tens of billions of dollars to develop and build. They might only get a few billion dollars of 'stuff' from us, but I'm willing to bet the cost to develop all that stuff actually outstrips their entire military budget. Possibly their entire budget, period.
Before anyone asserts that we'd develop that stuff anyway, so it's not costing us that much, that's not actually my point. My point is that Israel's military wins wars because of our support, period.
In war, technology is everything, and Israel has been using ours to win every single war they've been in. And has felt free to constantly poke all surrounding countries with sticks.
Forget Palestine, they invaded Lebabon recently for no useful reason, remember that?
Where are you getting your facts from? 45% of the dead are reportedly women and children. Two Norweigen Doctors doctors in Gaza report that over half of their patients have been civilians so far (see video mid way through article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7823361.stm). Furthermore, Israel "withdrew" from Gaza is a farce and anyone that knows anything about the facts of whats going on over there can attest to that. Gaza is still controlled by Israel. Also, Israel broke the ceasefire in November by killing Palestinians, not Hamas. This whole posting is a joke and its all the false perceptions and info that prevents peace.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.