Israel and Gaza

[yovargas]

js - I can maybe be convinced of that point of view in certain instances of war, but when one side is saying that they are acting in "self-defense", you're damn right it should matter who dies. If you start killing people indiscriminately whether or not they are actually a threat to you then you no longer get to claim the moral high ground of self-defense.

[Teremia]

Let me just say that I don't think Anybody should be killing Anybody. I used "children" in my complaint above, because I know that my radical pacifism is probably a little extreme for some tastes. So I was toning myself down.

Mortality is enough of a tragedy on its own. Earthquakes and tsunamis are enough tragedy on their own. Illness, misery, birth defects--enough tragedy. I can't stand the way people add to the already considerable tragedies of life by hurting and killing each other. It makes me want to start ranting like a character out of THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV.

[JewelSong]

"However, there are certainly realities of civilian casualties that are part of warfare, and have to be swallowed. But the last thing we should do is loosen up on our outrage over war crimes."

(Sorry, I don't know how to make the quote function work in Tapatalk.)

You misunderstand me. I don't think we should "loosen up our outrage." I think we should be MORE outraged over war in general. The fact that you can say "certain realities have to swallowed" is exactly what I am talking about.

I do not believe there can be any "moral high ground" in war. I believe war itself IS immoral. The fact that we ACCEPT that "certain things have to be swallowed" as...I don't know...collateral damage or something is disgusting. We have decided, as a species, that war is inevitable. That at some point, when we disagree about land, or religion, or laws, or whatever, it will become NECESSARY to go to war. To protect ourselves. Against whatever the thing is.

And maybe it IS necessary. Maybe we simply have not evolved enough to do otherwise. And maybe creating "rules of war" shows that we have become less barbaric. Maybe we ARE less barbaric.

But not much less.

[yovargas]

I do think there is a very legitimate difference between war for the hell of it vs war in self-defense.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The problem is that most people who go to war feel like they are doing so in self-defense. Certainly that is very true about both sides in this conflict. It is very easy to say "I abhor all violence" or "I hate all war". I do too. But it doesn't help to get to the root of the problem.

[yovargas]

It is my understanding, very possibly incorrect, that Hamas explicitly wants the total eradication of Israel. Is that so? If so, I don't see in what way that goal could ever legitimately be called "self-defense".

[JewelSong]

I suppose it could be considered self-defense if Hamas believes that the continuation of Israel threatens their own survival. Is it "legitimate?" Who knows.

I am not even pretending that saying "I abhor war" is getting to the "root of the problem." I am sorry if it came across as presenting some kind of solution.

The problem is...IMVHO...that we - we humans - accept war as a necessary evil. We accept it to the point where we have created rules for it. The possibility of war is always on the table, no matter how seemingly peaceful the situation may be. And when the situation is volatile, we return to war as soon as talks don't go the right way for us. The threat of war is always just around the corner.

Until the possibility of war is taken off the table completely; until it is an unthinkable idea...well...we will continue to be the barbarians we obviously are.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It is my understanding, very possibly incorrect, that Hamas explicitly wants the total eradication of Israel. Is that so? If so, I don't see in what way that goal could ever legitimately be called "self-defense".

From Hamas's point of view, as I understand it, Israel's existence has led to the displacement, depravation, and death of its people. So yes, from its point of view, its goal of the eradication of Israel (and you are quite right, they have never repudiated that position) is based on self-defense.

Of course, in reality (at least from my point of view), the best thing that Hamas can do to defend the Palestinian people is to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and do everything possible to ensure that a two state solution is negotiated as quickly as possible. But it is easy for me to see that from my cozy little vantage point. Not so easy amidst the death, depravation and despair in Gaza.

[Alatar]

Again, I'd like to remind people of the parallels with Ireland in the 70s. The IRA didn't accept any British rights in Northern Ireland and vice versa, yet peace was somehow attained.

[Passdagas the Brown]

JewelSong,

The problem is...IMVHO...that we - we humans - accept war as a necessary evil. We accept it to the point where we have created rules for it.

We don't create rules for war because we accept is as a necessary evil. We create rules for war because of the possibility of war happening, and for the protection of civilians should war happen. It's about probability, not acceptance. War can and is likely to happen, so let's make sure when it does, we have rules and consequences for those who violate the rules of war. Otherwise civilians will have little to no recourse.

The fact that we ACCEPT that "certain things have to be swallowed" as...I don't know...collateral damage or something is disgusting.

What I find more disgusting is when authoritarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and other entities wielding military power, threaten to and commit mass atrocities or genocide, and the international community (including the US) does nothing, with one of the reasons given being "we don't like war." The deliberate targeting of civilians is, IMO, a much more heinous crime than the accidental killing of civilians, no matter how tragic the latter is. And if there are no consequences for the former (and the latter), then there's really little but talk stopping perpetrators from committing war crimes again and again.

Do you think, for example, that the Yazidis who face possible extermination by ISIS in Iraq for not converting to their brand of Islam will be protected by our principled aversion to war? No. They will be slaughtered indiscriminately.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... says-video

I do not believe there can be any "moral high ground" in war. I believe war itself IS immoral.

There are few statements that I disagree more with than that, unfortunately. I have had colleagues in the past try to convince me of the moral equivalency of the Axis and Allied powers in WWII, for example, and I find it patently absurd. Moral relativism, from my perspective, is one of the greatest threats to human progress (particularly human rights) since reactionary monarchs responded to the early political results of the Enlightenment.

In this context, I believe that the practice of principled pacifism in international affairs can, if adopted by the world's major powers, lead to serious regression in human rights and human dignity across the world.

Behind the principles of liberalism and justice, there must be a sword. Because behind the principles of repression and injustice, there are many swords. I say this as an American liberal. Liberalism must have a defense.

In my view, this is truth, not acceptance. Hopefully we will get beyond this reality someday, but when the world contains regimes like Putin's Russia, with China supporting perpetrators of genocide like Sudan's al-Bashir, and with non-state entities like ISIS murdering their way to the establishment of a caliphate in Iraq and Syria, we are a long way from it.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Again, I'd like to remind people of the parallels with Ireland in the 70s. The IRA didn't accept any British rights in Northern Ireland and vice versa, yet peace was somehow attained.

Thanks, Al. It's a point worth repeating a million times. In the academic literature on conflict, there's a term called "conflict exhaustion," when two sides of a conflict reach a point of, well, exhaustion, and are therefore in a good place to compromise. During those moments when populations on both sides of a dispute have had enough, it's important for their leaders to step in and make a deal (as opposed to try to rally their populations back into conflict and rigidity).

Netanyahu had a Nixon-to-China opportunity to make peace here (or a Northern Ireland moment, if you will). He didn't seize it, and I doubt he will seize it (given his inability to ignore hawks like Lieberman nipping at his heels), but if he decided to be a peacemaker, he could end this conflict a lot sooner than people think. He would have to swallow a few bitter pills, but it's possible.

Though he may have squandered it with his response in Gaza.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What I find more disgusting is when authoritarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and other entities wielding military power, threaten to and commit mass atrocities or genocide, and the international community (including the US) does nothing, with one of the reasons given being "we don't like war." The deliberate targeting of civilians is, IMO, a much more heinous crime than the accidental killing of civilians, no matter how tragic the latter is. And if there are no consequences for the former (and the latter), then there's really little but talk stopping perpetrators from committing war crimes again and again.

Do you think, for example, that the Yazidis who face possible extermination by ISIS in Iraq for not converting to their brand of Islam will be protected by our principled aversion to war? No. They will be slaughtered indiscriminately.

Exactly. I'm sure that some people will protest the use of force by the U.S. in this circumstance, but if we don't do something, some of the most defenseless people in the world will be slaughtered, for no other reason but that they refuse to renounce their religion. The example of the so-called Islamic State (formerly ISIS) is a good contrast to the situation in Gaza. There is no argument that can be made that these militants are acting in self-defense, even perceived self-defense. They are simply trying (and largely succeeding) in enforcing their will on others who believe differently than they do.

[JewelSong]

The problem is...IMVHO...that we - we humans - accept war as a necessary evil. We accept it to the point where we have created rules for it.

We don't create rules for war because we accept is as a necessary evil. We create rules for war because of the possibility of war happening, and for the protection of civilians should war happen. It's about probability, not acceptance. War can and is likely to happen...

In other words, we accept it. We wish it wouldn't happen, but we accept that it is a distinct and very real possibility. And so, we create rules about how to make war. So it doesn't seem as immoral and horrific as it really is. So, that when we make war - for whatever reason - we can imagine that we are actually civilised. Not the barbarians we are.

The fact that we ACCEPT that "certain things have to be swallowed" as...I don't know...collateral damage or something is disgusting.

What I find more disgusting is when authoritarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and other entities wielding military power, threaten to and commit mass atrocities or genocide, and the international community (including the US) does nothing, with one of the reasons given being "we don't like war."

Nowhere do I advocate "doing nothing." We certainly have to "do something." Right now, what we do is use more violence and create more bloodshed. We use evil to stop a greater evil. Perhaps this is justified. But I do not believe it is "moral." Maybe it is LESS "immoral" that the alternative. But it is STILL immoral.

I do not believe there can be any "moral high ground" in war. I believe war itself IS immoral.

There are few statements that I disagree more with than that, unfortunately. I have had colleagues in the past try to convince me of the moral equivalency of the Axis and Allied powers in WWII, for example, and I find it patently absurd. Moral relativism, from my perspective, is one of the greatest threats to human progress (particularly human rights) since reactionary monarchs responded to the early political results of the Enlightenment.

But it is all relative, isn't it? I certainly believe that the Nazi regime was evil and immoral to the extreme and needed to be stopped. And it WAS stopped and I am glad. But I believe that the means used to stop it, while perhaps necessary, were also immoral. Were they as "immoral" as the Nazis? I do not believe so. We certainly held the "moral high ground." But we still caused plenty of death and destruction and bloodshed. Was ALL of it truly "justified?" Was ALL of it principled and moral and right?

In this context, I believe that the practice of principled pacifism in international affairs can, if adopted by the world's major powers, lead to serious regression in human rights and human dignity across the world.

Again, I think you have misunderstood me. I am not advocating standing idly by and doing nothing while thousands of people are being slaughtered. Of course, there must be a reaction. Of course, something must be done. And right now, what we (and others) do is act in kind. Because, right now, that is all we know how to do. Or maybe, all we THINK we know how to do.

We - the human race - have accepted war and violence as a viable (and maybe inevitable) way to address conflict and disagreement. We don't know any other way.

Hopefully we will get beyond this reality someday, but ....we are a long way from it.

Yes, we are. And therein lies my despair for the human race.

[yovargas]

We don't know any other way.

Would it make a difference if in some cases it really isn't that "We don't know any other way" but that violence truly is the only way? I do think that the violence rarely is the only or best way to respond to a situation but sometimes it really, really is.

[Teremia]

Pacifism for me is the opposite of "moral relativism." I tend to think that things are "relative": in other words, that the context is always important. A crime in one context may not look like a crime in another context.

I decided (long ago) to make an exception to this principled relativism in the case of war/pacifism, however. I'm not a relative pacifist, but an absolute one. It is just about my only faith-based principle, I guess you might say. Human beings come up with confident arguments and justifications supporting the necessity of killing this person or those people all the time. Maybe some of those arguments are very clever, possibly even "correct." Still, I think that killing, whatever the justification, is bad in itself, and I've just decided to be against it absolutely.

This does not mean doing nothing about evil. This means doing many better things, earlier.

[JewelSong]

...I'm not a relative pacifist, but an absolute one. It is just about my only faith-based principle, I guess you might say. Human beings come up with confident arguments and justifications supporting the necessity of killing this person or those people all the time. Maybe some of those arguments are very clever, possibly even "correct." Still, I think that killing, whatever the justification, is bad in itself, and I've just decided to be against it absolutely.

This. ^^^ (Spoken like a Quaker. I was a member of a Quaker Meeting for many, many years and still consider myself part of the Society of Friends. It's my "go to" place for worship.)

Yov, FWIW, I don't believe that violence is EVER "the only way." Ever. It's just that...well...we don't seem to be intelligent or imaginative or evolved enough to think our way clear to another way. So we make ourselves believe that it IS the "only" choice. The "only" way.

I have more to say...but right now I am going for my daily walk/run/exercise thing.

[Frelga]

Well, you know me, I adore abstract moral arguments. Fortunately, I can enjoy them while being perfectly safe from bomb and missiles. I strongly suspect that when one is being shot missiles at, moral priorities become blindingly clear.

To wit and in this order:
Protect my family
Survive
Stop those other bastards from shooting at me
Make sure those other bastards are not in the position to shoot at me ever again

As for civilian casualties, Hamas has long and actively worked to maximize them on both sides. Until this last conflict, Israel for its part had done everything possible to minimize them, putting its own soldiers in mortal danger instead of carpet bombing the entire place, as I highly suspect the US would have done, based on past record. They still haven't gone for the effective but completely reprehensible measures, but nor are they being as careful as in the past, and Hamas appears more ruthless than ever, and innocent people are dying.

Since I'm not the one being shot at, I am able to discuss the moral relativity and the unfortunately violent history of the mankind. But since it IS my family being shot at, I am more interested to hear what, in real and practical terms, can be done to stop those other bastards shooting at them.

Undoubtedly, that's the question Palestinians are asking, too. However, in their case, the answer is clear. Hamas needs to stop shooting at Israel, breaking every ceasefire, and piling up bodies of their own people for the cameras in order to extract money from their foreign masters. And while it may not be possible for them to see it that way, in reality, Israeli and Palestinians have a common goal - to achieve a Palestinian government that does what a government is supposed to do, which is take care of its own people instead of using them as pawns. But how to get there?

[nerdanel]

Well, you know me, I adore abstract moral arguments. Fortunately, I can enjoy them while being perfectly safe from bomb and missiles.

That second sentence is really the heart of it. I loathe and oppose all forms of killing and war, they are wrong under all circumstances: the moral purity and indisputable rightness of this worldview is oh so satisfying and enlightened. And I can expound upon it at great length from my home in the city of San Francisco, the place which I love unashamedly with all my heart and which is safe from external attack (we move right along without considering what the slumbering Hayward fault might have to say about that.)

Now let me imagine that I can't ride a MUNI bus or visit one of my favorite Japanese restaurants without fearing an explosion. Let me imagine that rather than harmless firecrackers occasionally within earshot from Golden Gate Park, I hear open fire on my street or the next. Let me imagine that the neighboring residents of ... Oakland, or Nevada, or Oregon, contest the very right of my home to exist and have stated their determination to eradicate it. Let me imagine a world in which it is my friends and colleagues and their children who have been hurt or killed, in which every one of us lives every day knowing that we might be killed by a hostile enemy.

Okay, good. Now that I can picture the people I love and the place I love under attack from people determined to kill us who dispute our right to exist, now ask me again whether I think that violent self-defense is "always" unnecessary and morally wrong. Because the answer just became as opaque as the cool gray fog swirling over my beloved home. And for the moral absolutists in this thread, I would really like to see how many injuries and deaths of loved ones and days living under the threat of personal injury or death it would take before you reconsidered your absolutism. I am certain that for everyone in this thread there would be a tipping point at which self-defense (including necessary force) would be embraced. But in the meantime, we can all savor our ideals and our safety - two things that pair together excellently.

[Teremia]

And for the moral absolutists in this thread, I would really like to see how many injuries and deaths of loved ones and days living under the threat of personal injury or death it would take before you reconsidered your absolutism.

I hope you would not REALLY 'like to see' such a thing, nel.

I'm not smug in any way about suffering--I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was. It is terrible how much how many people are suffering in this world. This pain is not "abstract" to me, actually. I almost can't bear to keep living sometimes, thinking about the things that people are REALLY doing to each other.

But if suffering is used to justify the causing of more suffering, then there is no end to it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And for the moral absolutists in this thread, I would really like to see how many injuries and deaths of loved ones and days living under the threat of personal injury or death it would take before you reconsidered your absolutism.

I hope you would not REALLY 'like to see' such a thing, nel.

I am more than a little surprised that you would even say that, or that you would consider even remotely the possibility that the meaning of nel's post was that she hoped to see harm or the threat of harm come to anyone.

As for the rest of your post, I would point to the fact that today literally thousands of innocent Yazidis were able to reach freedom from harm today because of the use of military force against the Islamic State militants. This is not the causing of more harm, it is the preventing of tremendous harm.

That does not mean that any use of force in the name of self-defense is justified. The actions of the state of Israel for many years, not just recently, in the name of self-defense, has cause so much misery for so many completely innocent Palestinian people that I can not support what has been done, even though it has been in the name of the defense of my own family. The complete economic blockade of Gaza, the building of settlements in areas that ultimately need to be part of a Palestinian state in any reasonable two-state solution, the repeated use of overwhelming force in response to provocation that inevitably kills, injures, and makes homeless many innocents, is not, to my way of thinking, a reasonable use of force, even in self-defense.