The Gaza War, explained

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.

Number two... Hamas is dumb, stupid, evil and insane. Launching bombs to terrorize, retaliate, or "teach them a lesson." Boo! The Israeli government. Ditto heads.

Number three... any religion take advocates "jihad" or "holy war" is satanic whether it takes Islamic, Jewish, Christian or whatever form.

Number four... Brood of vipers. Snakes. Blind guides. ANYONE who advocates violence as a solution is an idolatrous fraud. Why do so many of us believe in and practice "bin Laden theology"?

May those who follow the Rabbi from Nazareth learn to embody His Way of resisting evil. Amen.

Kyrie eleison,

Duh-sciple

20% of casualties were civilian deaths. Oops. Sorry about that Chief. C'cmon, give me a freaking break.

Query: how does that 20% compare with similar past campaigns (by Israel and others)? [That question isn't rhetorical, BTW; I don't know whether it's higher or lower.]

If it's higher, then criticism is reasonable. If it's lower, then probably not, unless one believes that even accidental infliction of _any_ civilian casualties in war is unacceptable.

This is a war and in a war, people die. The good guys do their very best to limit the number of civilians who will die. The Israelis reportedly called hundreds or even THOUSANDS of people to warn them to get out of their buildings before an imminent strike. The Palestinians launched a rocket yesterday that hit a school which was empty thanks only to providence. The town had called off classes hours before. Imagine the number of bloodied Israeli children being carried out in bodybags or on stretchers who could have been on the news this morning. No Palestinians called people in that neighboring city to warn them that rocket was on its way.

I'm very sorry for the Palestinians who are caught up in this, particularly for all the innocent kids, and I hope that there will be a cease fire and peace agreement worked out immediately, but I think the outline is more right than wrong. Is Israel supposed to just put up with these rockets being lobbed at it and a Hamas government that refuses to acknowledge its existence? No other country would put up with that sort of thing when its citizens are threatened.

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.

Assume, arguendo, that most of those killed or injured in the firebombings of Japan either explicitly (via work in war industries, or explicit support of governmental policy) or implicitly (via failure to even attempt an overthrow of their government) supported their government's policy. Given this assumption, your logic would appear to legitimize said firebombings.

Given this assumption, your logic would appear to legitimize said firebombings.

That is how WWII, the greatest threat this country has faced since the Civil War, was won.

That is still the military philosophy of the United States, Russia and the UK when it comes to total war. That is how total wars are won. If the United States were in mortal peril, how many people do you think would lobby the government to engage in “humane” bombing while the other side bombs our cities (if that were occuring)? Do you think our 10,000 + nuclear weapons are meant for precision bombing? How about Russia’s

If push came to shove, the President would order the American military to firebomb a large city in a second if he/she thought it would win a war.

That’s reality. And it would be done in all of our names.

mmm, thanku perfesser, aggressive certainty makes cozy & warm, no more thinky needed.

"Wow, what an unbiased, neutral piece of reportage."
"thanku perfesser, aggressive certainty makes cozy & warm, no more thinky needed."

Hmm...So, an analysis that criticizes a Hamas (a terrorist organization, BTW) is dismissed, but any analysis that criticizes Israel is defended. Is that how this works? But, don't dare call you an anti-Semite, eh?

You people are moral id!ots.

David, count me among those disturbed by your formulation, which seems to be trying to do an end run around Just War Theory.

According to that theory, combat must be limited to combatants, and civilians may not be disproportionately targeted. Redefining civilians as combatants does not make them actively engaged in combat, any more than saying that the Japanese people to the last man, woman, and child would theoretically fight with pitchforks and other farming implements against our invading troops justified the dropping of the atomic bomb--it did not, and that was an unjust act on our part no matter how you look at it.

We can argue over whether a 20% civilian casualty rate is disproportionate or not, looking at the realities of the situation on the ground and comparing this casualty rate with the rates of civilian deaths in other wars; but we can't simply declare that every Palestinian or every Israeli citizen is now a combatant merely for remaining within their respective countries and continuing to pay taxes or otherwise do work which ultimately benefits the "war effort," which could be defined as all work quite easily. That's both linguistically and morally absurd, frankly.

"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."

AH, but let's get this accurate here. Let's say the UN came in and gave St. Francisville to the Martians. The Martians came in and kicked the citizens from their homes, took their lands without compensation, and a UN/US backed military force was set up to enforce their claim on the land.

The St. Francisville people were then confined to a land roughly 1/10 of that they once had. No other states around them wanted them (think Katrina victims and how the welcome wore out for them).

A militia rose up among these displaced St. Francisville people. Would they be right to target Martian settlements and civilians in order to reclaim their land?

I'd just like to point out that the logic David White uses is the exact same moral logic Al- Quaeda used to justify the 9-11 attack, and other terrorist atrocities.

Americans (though mostly ignorant and out of touch) sit by and elect government after government, both Republican and Democrat, that support oppressive regimes throughout the Muslim world.

We, through the actions of the CIA, are complicit in the overthrow of many democratically elected governments (Mosaddeq, Iran 1953; Arbenz, Guatemala 1954, and most famously Allende in Chile on September 11th, 1973, just a short list) .. We, again, through the actions of the CIA, have actively supported the murder of thousands of Chileans, Argentinians, Iranians, Kurds/Turks and East Timorese/Indonesians through our material aid to the regimes in all of those countries, who with our explicit encouragement conducted campaigns of murder and oppression.

We are by far the most aggressive military power on the planet, and our military has killed 100's of thousands (most particularly in Iraq) in the last few decades. Many many of the dead were "collateral" unintended civilian casualties.

I've been to Egypt, the West Bank (both Palestinian towns and Jewish settlements) and to Eastern Turkey (where the Turkish government is still engaged in a slow- burn conflict with the Kurds) and I can tell you that what you read in the papers does little to no justice to the reality of these places. Say what you want about Hamas, but until you live the life of the average Palestinian in the Camps, and see how they are treated by the IDF and settlers.. Well,

David, all I can say is your moral calculus seems to me to be rather skewed and screwed. As in Osama bin- Laden screwed.

See how it goes? Because we elected Bush, and Bush (like every other American President since at least Nixon) has given such radical support (to the tune of 3 billion dollars a year in military aid) to the Israelis, then every act of violence by Arabs and Muslims against American civilians is thereby justified.

According to your very own logic.

The Palestinians know where the F- 16's, Apaches and armored Caterpillar bulldozers that demolish their homes and kill their elderly and children come from. The fact that there is so little violence against us is what surprises me.

Forget the Book of Judges. It has been supplanted. "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

I would think this applies even to the Palestinians.

Charles, you bring a tear to my eye. The 'Do unto others' thing is SO overplayed. Yes, it is the USA and it's tool of tyranny, the CIA that is at fault for all the world's ills. Your sense of history is one-sided. I know Chileans, even lived there myself during Pinochet. Allende was not some heroic figure. How would you like it if Obama decided that your house was too big for your family and decided to take another family from Appalachia or Harlem, who he decided didn't have a nice enough house and plopped them down on your front porch and told you that you had new roommates and there was nothing you could do about it. Happened under Allende to people I knew in Santiago. So did lots of intimidation and violence under the Allende regime. That is somehow forgotten (or forgiven because he was a leftist).

Your litany of overthrown governments ignores what was happening within them prior to their overthrow. Back to Chile, Pinochet did not wake up one day and decide "hey, I think I'm going take over the country". No, there was plenty of murder and oppression going on with Allende (which again is usually ignored by Allende apologists). People like you seem to be making the connection that if the US is/was involved in something, then it is always wrong and that those who were overthrown are somehow noble or oppressed.

The Palestinians may know where the F16s are coming from, but they also know the reason they are flying overhead so let's not get all weepy. If they want to continue to poke at the tiger, they shouldn't be surprised they get bit on occassion.

" Israel's airstrikes have been precisely aimed at Hamas fighters. Reportedly 80 percent of those killed are Hamas members, not civilians."

Sorry, but I don't believe that airstrikes can be "precisely aimed." Especially in extremely densely populated areas.

I am no fan of Hamas, but Israel's casual attitude about blowing away civilians (including children) troubles me, especially when Israel tries to claim the moral high ground.

And yes, I am fully aware that the rockets fired by Hamas kill civilians as well. That's wrong.

I am sick of each side in the Middle East.

I humbly point out to all the participants here that the situation is very complex. Simplistic descriptions, brief analysis statements and pithy solutions are, despite Occam's Razor, invariably inaccurate, invalid and just plain wrong.

It starts with the explicit, political and diplomatic recognition of Israel by the Arab nations of the Middle East. It continues with the political and diplomatic decision to punish support of insurgencies within and around Israel, regardless of the source of the support. It ends with a full and transparent examination of Israeli official and de facto policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and the same political and diplomatic decision to punish their oppression of Palestinians under their jurisdiction.

The first is arguably hardly begun. Efforts in the rest will continue to fail just because of that.

There is, in my never humble opinion, exactly one valid comparison to 9/11.

Afghanistan was invaded and conquered for its political, material and moral support of al-Qaeda within its boundaries. The proven similar support that Iran gives to Hezbollah and Hamas is more than ample justification for Israel treating Iran just like the US treated Afghanistan.

Spare me the obvious logistical differences between the IDF and US armed forces. The provocations are the same. The moral justification for punitive response is the same.

As for the rest of the comparison, just as the US can be rightly criticized for many things, so too are those things exaggerated for propaganda purposes by our enemies. I strongly suggest that such a filter be applied to the truth of Israel's treatment of Palestinians. One thing that can come regardless of other outcomes, is a sane view of what is actually happening where and to whom.

This is Beliefnet, so I'll ask a question concerning belief: when can a man of Christian faith ever support any sort violence? This may sound laughable, but what would Jesus do? Seriously. Many of the people here debating this controversial topic consider themselves Christian yet support lashing out in self defense.

This is a serious question, not at all facetious: is self defense allowable under Christian ethics? Is it something Jesus would allow? Granted, Hamas is largely Muslim and Israel is largely Jewish, but like I said, many people here are Christian. Where's Jesus factor into this? Where's God? Is it not applicable?

@Robin Thomas: Did Jesus make any Roman disappear? Or any of the people who persecuted any of his followers throughout history?

I'm not asking about the people under siege. I'm asking about any person who advocates the use of violence as self-defense. If I'm naive in believing that Christianity and complete non-violence cannot go entirely hand-in-hand, I'd like to know what the reality of Christian belief is. Again, not being facetious.

Re: Charles Curtis' Pinochet figures:

3.000 dead is about right. 100.000 tortured is an insanely overblown number. It is widely acknowledged that many names on the "missing political prisoner" lists were included with no investigation at all, taking relative's (or the Communist Party's) declarations at face value. Amusingly enough, just a couple of weeks ago one of these missing individuals turned up alive and well in Argentina, while his family (in the know) cashed in tens of thousands of dollars in 'political indemnizations'.

This issue is, unsurprisingly, taboo in polite or sober conversation.

@Charles Curtis: Is there a Biblical reference that leads you to that opinion or just personal spiritual belief?

Franklin Evans
Afghanistan was invaded and conquered for its political, material and moral support of al-Qaeda within its boundaries. The proven similar support that Iran gives to Hezbollah and Hamas is more than ample justification for Israel treating Iran just like the US treated Afghanistan.

Yeah, heaven forbid the US suffer another devastating Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist attack, like we did in...um...well, possibly the 'Islamic Jihad Organization' was Hezbollah's precursor, so maybe the 1983 embassy bombing. (The 1983 barracks bombing, like it or not, were an legitimate military attack during a war. Against a supposedly neutral country, sure, but they are not, in any way, 'terrorist'. If we'd chosen to enter that war, at that point, it would have been allowed under international law, but that war is long over and the peace treaties are signed.)

And invading a country for funding an organization that, 25 years ago, might have bombed a US embassy, or rather, might have previously been an organization that bombed a US embassy, seems a bit irrational as a 'response'.

You know, when I say things like 'The right wing can't tell our national interests from Israel', I'm not actually exaggerating in the least. Neither Hamas or Hezbollah are the slightest threat to America, and they'd be even less of a threat if we'd stop funding the entire Israeli military to fight them.

No, they are threats to Israel, and they are threats to Israel because Israel doesn't bother try to play nice with neighboring countries because it thinks we will always be there to support it. Real, adult countries actually have to deal with neighbors that dislike them, by making concession and treaties and actually following through, not constantly come running back to daddy for ammo.

Incidentally, Iran's support of Hamas is near non-existent. It is a nominal amount. Hamas is Sunni, Iran is Shia. This is also why Hamas and Hezbollah have almost no interaction, despite having basically the same enemy. (They had a sit-down a few years ago which was newsworthy because it existed at all, and was an attempt to signify they weren't enemies.)

And Hezbollah, despite being painted as evil, and certainly unwanted internationally due to their influence on Lebanon, dowa not indiscriminately attack Israel. (Although both Israel military and Hezbollah like to kidnap each other...to trade for each other. Which is pretty dumb, but isn't harming civilians, at least not until Israel overreacted and invaded a while back.)

Also, logically, Iran is to Hezbollah as Saudi Arabia is to Al Qaeda. Afganistan's equivalent would be Lebabon.

David, I always read your posts with a welcome anticipation. In that light, I respectfully ask: can you explain to me why I shouldn't take your response to me as rather more than half emotional?

I set up a general-case logic. I described causal chains. I deliberately refrained from qualifying my logic with politics, which arguably is a flaw, and I'll own up to it. But in the end, I don't see this as oversimplifying: the sovereign government of Afghanistan aided and abetted an attack on US soil, an act of war by anyone's ideological stretch. To be blunt: I don't care which country you place at the end of the causal chain, my logic stands.

The one political qualification I will add at this point: Iran is explicitly calling for war against Israel. Saudi Arabia is not. You may dispense with the political comparisons between them (and the similarities) because you will find me in agreement with them and with you.

Franklin Evans
I set up a general-case logic. I described causal chains. I deliberately refrained from qualifying my logic with politics, which arguably is a flaw, and I'll own up to it. But in the end, I don't see this as oversimplifying: the sovereign government of Afghanistan aided and abetted an attack on US soil, an act of war by anyone's ideological stretch. To be blunt: I don't care which country you place at the end of the causal chain, my logic stands.

If that country is operating by itself, sure.

However, we are, in essence, funding the entirety of the Israeli military, specifically because they are our 'ally' and 'need' this funding because of their own unwillingness to stop pissing people off and work towards some sort of solution.(1)

So no.

1) And for people who assert that some sort of solution isn't possible because Israel's enemies 'want to destroy it'...bullcrap. Israel's enemies 'want to destroy it' simply because they have absolutely no incentive to adopt any sort of less belligerent position, and because it's a popular cause to stand behind.

It's the same way that no one wants China to 'Be less fascist in Tibet!', instead wanting to 'Free Tibet'. You adopt the most hardline position so you can bargain from that point. (Hell, the fact the Hamas has hinted the 1968 borders would be okay is amazing.)

And all of Israel's other enemies will just dry up once it 'the cause' of Palestine vanishes. (Except Hezbollah, which has an entire different problem with Israel.)

Wellsy,

The Biblical references to support my thinking on use of violence and killing by Christians are the Beatitudes (Love your enemies, bless those who curse you) and incidents like Christ admonishing Peter for striking off the ear of the Temple guard at Gethsemane - balanced by incidents like Christ clearing the Temple, and Hebrew Testament texts such as the two Maccabees.

From the authority of these texts, I agree with St. Augustine's just war theory, which is in essence states that societies can act in self defense.

It is licit and admirable for an individual, particularly a celibate one without a family to defend, to be pacifistic. But like evangelical poverty, celibacy, or the monastic rule of prayer, pacificism is an individual choice, and ought not be imposed on entire societies. (It is heretical to do so, and always ends in failure - see the Communists, the Shakers, or I would argue, the Muslims, who each take one aspect of monastic life and try to impose it on all society - It is a mass violation of conscience and natural law..)

As for Allende's "crimes against humanity" - I'm sorry, Mr. Atlas, but I'm truly ignorant as to what you might mean.. Can you provide any sources to enlighten me? Other than the possibility that he could have gone the same route as Castro (which I think overblown - Allende was a Democratic Socialist, not a Communist) and created a "great Socialist sandwich" enveloping Latin America.. Which was the line from Langley at the time - but much like the distortions surrounding those Iraqi WMD, I think the threat posed by Allende was exaggerated. That is to say nearly nil.

And again, I'm really interested.. What were Allende's crimes, that merited his democratically elected regime being violently overthrown?

Wait, wait, this is waaay too funny - I just googled "Allende's crimes" and this very post here on Crunchy Con was the very first hit..

Check it out:

http://www.google.ch/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=de&q=Allende%27s+crimes&meta=&btnG=Google-Suche

Mr. Atlas, I think you may be full of hot air, my friend.

Thanks, David. A point of information from http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=55

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.

" 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.

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?