Switzerland thaws out, immediately criticises Israel.

It's nice to play on A2K again,

blatham wrote:

If Paz's statement is true ...

To begin, that's a substantial "if."

Can we back up his assertion?

Blatham-- I was aware of the overriding reason Hamas was chosen...

Dr. Reuven Paz was born in Israel, and received his Masters and Doctorate degrees from Haifa University, in the History of the Middle East. His fields of expertise include: Palestinian society and politics; the Arab minority in Israel; Islam and Islamic movements in the Arab and Muslim world; Islamic Fundamentalism; Islamist international terrorist networks; and Communist parties in the Arab world. Paz has worked for the Israel General Security Service as head of the research department, lectured at Haifa University, and been the Academic Director of The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), a part of the Interdisciplinary center (IDC) Herzliya in Israel. Currently he is Senior research fellow at ICT and Director of The Project for the Research of Islamist Movements at the GLORIA Center, IDC Herzliya.

Foxfyre wrote:

But the one thing that remains for the wise of the world to sort out: how do you respond to the terrorists? If they run to hide in the Mosques or among the women and children, do you allow them to do that with impunity? Especially when you know their reloading to attack again? We face the same kinds of decisions in Iraq.

If I have to make a simple rule, I would have the criteria of least suffering for the most people govern the decisions.

I personally don't hold Mosques in very high regard and don't personally care if they are "violated" but if enough people do, and if they are considered historic sites then it may make sense to avoid them.

I don't personally consider this to be the case, but it's a common idea in many of our cultures.

The early Jews had their 6 cities of refuge, in which it was forbidden to kill refugees in revenge that was legal in the land outside of the 6 cities. This didn't make sense (there were even rules for exactly how much area the no-kill zone covered measured out to the cubit: see Numbers 35).

Christians have had the concept of church "sanctuary".

I think this kind of thing is bogus, but it's not a surprise to me anymore.

Do the same rules that apply in our day to day lives apply also in times of war?

No, the rules of wartime apply then. And those are the rules that Israel is being accused of runnign afoul of.

Is piecemeal, surgical warfare that creates relatively small numbers of deaths but accumulates them over years somehow more humane than an overwhelming display of force that kills them all at once but stops the war in a short time?

It depends on the effect on the civillian population. But this isn't an applicable scenario to this case.

Israel isn't making a hard rush to kill the bad guys, they are openly using collective punishment to try to make the situation untenable for the whole Gaza populace. The actions are killing more Palestinian civillians than anything else and it's a disproportionate reaction.

I don't personally think this has as much tactical value as it does a feel-good revenge effect for Israel's population.

And if somebody is criticized constantly by just about everybody when he/she/it defends against an aggresor, it is pretty easy to at least understand that since nobody understands, cares, or sympathises with the victim, the victim might as well do whatever is necessary to end the assault.

What other people think about Israel shouldn't preclude her from acting reasonably.

The US, if anything, is the best friend Israel has got. The US is not in favor of what Israel is doing and has made its own diplomatic noise calling for Israel to use restraint.

This all started over a situation in which 2 Israeli soliders and 2 Palestinian millitants were killing in a Palestinian attack that captured an Israeli soldier.

Isreal's reaction was to take somewhere around 100 Palestinian's hostage and to react with measures that have resulted in 25 Palestinian's killed and 1 more Israeli.

I don't think Israel's angry reaction is wise, and I don't think it's wise for Israel, regardless of what it's doing to the Palestinian population

But do you honestly think Israel is being cautioned out of concern for Israel? I admit to some skepticism about that.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But I don't think it matters. The US, for example, is cautioning Israel for what I belive are moral beliefs against what the actions can spiral into as well as geopolitical strategic reasons.

But regardless of the motive, Israel should find a way to de-escalate this situation for her own good. I'm hoping that the soldier is returned and that Israel stands down.

After that, I have a slim hope that the power struggle against Hamas and other Palestinian hardliners has not now swung against the Palestinian moderates.

Each time Israel does this, the Palestinian moderates are set back yet again. This gives too much power to the individual lunatics to disrupt 2 peoples peace process.

The only way out is for the responsible parties to control the actions that can be controlled.

Palestine can't control it's individual lunatics just yet, neither can Israel control them. But they can control their responses and their history teaches them that some responses are more effective than others.

Their hard efforts to disengage (i.e. their wall that so many complained about) have shown better results.

Heck, their withdrawal from Gaza after over 30 years of occupation came with the lowest levels of violence in the region since we've been debating it on A2K. The less time they spend in Gaza the better IMO.

I think your take on this is both reasonable and unrealistic. A city of haven or sanctuary offered by the Church is grounded in tradition and principles of mercy however irrational the policies seem to the educated Western mind. But a second principle is also in play. What about the principle of sparing the innocents who are likely under a death sentence at the hands of those sheltered?

I think cultural sensibilities have to be weighed against dozens or hundreds or thousands of lives likely lost if such sensibilities are given primary consideration.

Acknowleged. And agreed if the conduct of standard warfare is the criteria for judgment. But I wonder if there should not be a third set of rules for dealing with murderous terrorists who kill without warning, indiscriminately, and who target innocent women and children?

This is the way it is being mostly presented on Television and in the newspapers. But do you know this to be a fact?

If the bad guys were not hiding among the women and children, do you truly believe Israel would be going after residential neighborhoods?

On what do you base your opinon/observation on that? (Admitting up front that I don't know.)

If one agrees that what others think should not prevent Israel from acting reasonably, one might think that what the United States or others think should not deter Israel from doing what Israel perceives to be reasonable under the circumstances.

I have not seen Israel accused of unprovoked action.

But I'm very much in favor of not allowing terrorist to firebomb busloads of school kids if that can be prevented.

And I don't think kidnapping people should go unanswered.

But I also agree that too often violence begets violence--unless overwhelming force is in play to stop it cold.

I guess what I'm saying is that if Israel cannot respond as Israel responds without being unreasonable, then how indeed can Israel respond at all?

Who should get to set the rules that Israel plays by?

I would feel better about it all, I think, if there was a fraction of international condemnation of Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens as there is condemnation of Israel in how she retaliates. I think some international outrage at the attacks on Israel might help reassure Israel that she can afford to be more 'reasonable' in her response.

Reiterating its grave concern at the tragic and violent events that have taken place since September 2000 which have caused enormous suffering and many innocent victims throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel,

Condemning the suicide bombings and their recent intensification, and recalling in that regard that in the framework of the road map, S/2003/529, annex. the Palestinian Authority has to take all necessary measures to end violence and terror,

Deploring the extrajudicial killings and their recent escalation, and underlining that they are a violation of international law and international humanitarian law and compromise the efforts to relaunch the peace process and must be stopped,

Condemning all acts of violence, terrorism and destruction,

Condemning in particular the suicide bombings and their recent intensification with the attack in Haifa,

Reiterating the demand for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction,

So, Craven, reading through all the points you've expressed, what I get from it is that you are not necessarily opposed to Israel targeting the bad guys, though they have to show reasonable restraint even there. But you are opposed to them targeting generic civilian populations in retaliation for the actions of the bad guys.

I presume this is true even if the civilian populations are believed to be harboring or protecting the bad guys?

Or you may believe Israel has no such assumption about anybody harboring anybody and is retaliating against generic Palestinians just to make a point. But how do you (generic you) know that?

Again, I confess that I do not know which way it is.

I agree that civilians should not be punished INSTEAD of the bad guys just because the bad guys got away due to no fault of the civilians. I am inclined to take a more pragmatic view however when civilians harbor and protect the bad guys in their midst. In that case, I think the civilians have to be more at risk. There is even room to question whether civilians who intentionally protect the bad guys are even civilian.

What the policy should be? I don't know. But you have given me some different perspective to chew on, and I thank you.

UN warns of Gazans' struggle to survive

· Israeli forces destroy water tanks and mains
· Operation will continue indefinitely, says Olmert

Conal Urquhart in Gaza City
Monday July 10, 2006
The Guardian

The population of the Gaza Strip is "struggling to survive" as a result of Israel's two-week assault, according to the UN, with water and electricity shortages and the breakdown of the sewerage system leading to the pumping of raw sewage into the sea.
"Daily life is a misery. Ordinary people are struggling. We are running around trying to put plasters on everything," said John Ging, the head of operations of the UN agency which looks after Palestinian refugees. "It's a dangerous and desperate situation and it's a myth that there is no humanitarian crisis."

He said in the north of Gaza Israeli forces had shot and destroyed rooftop water tanks and mains, while in the south more than 1,000 people had been forced to leave their homes. Rafah had no electricity because the army would not allow the UN to fix a minor fault, while the rest of Gaza had electricity for six hours a day.

Israeli forces began attacking Gaza after Palestinians captured Corporal Gilad Shalit in a raid on June 25. They have bombed a power station and roads, and killed more than 40 people, including civilians, in an attempt to secure his release and suppress rocket fire at Israel.

Yesterday Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, rejected criticism and said the operation would continue indefinitely. "We're talking about a war that will continue for a long time and it is complicated," he was quoted as saying during a cabinet meeting. "This is a war for which we cannot set down a timetable and we can't say how long it will continue."

An Israeli aircraft fired a missile at militants in Rafah yesterday but missed, killing a bystander and injuring four others.

Meanwhile, Ayman Hajaj buried his mother, brother and sister after they were killed by an Israeli missile that hit their garden as they drank tea outside on Saturday. Mr Hajaj, 28, said he had walked into the garden to see a flash of light and hear a deafening bang. He looked down and saw his mother and sister lying dead, then caught sight of his brother, whose arms were almost hanging off his body. "I was in a daze and my ears were ringing. I walked through the bodies for 10 metres before I realised what had happened. Four of my brothers were lying injured. I lifted one and carried him outside and an ambulance was already there."

Mr Hajaj's family live close to Karni crossing, where goods enter and leave Gaza. Israeli forces entered the area on Saturday and there has been sporadic fighting. Mr Hajaj said the family had stayed inside when it seemed dangerous but went to the walled garden at around 7.30pm to roast corn and drink tea. Witnesses believe that an Israeli unmanned aircraft fired the missile.

A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said the air force had fired a missile at a group of gunmen and it had hit them.

Israel is fully within their rights to punish those responsible for terrorism and they are doing so quite effectively. The palestinian militants do not want peace and their countrymen suffer because of it.

Brandon9000 wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Lash wrote:

Switzerland enters the ME war.

Hmm, they said international law was broken and don't want the military operation by Israel to cause serious humanitarian consequences for people living in the region.

But, of course, international law is not broken when a suicide bomber blows himself up in an Israeli marketplace.

Why should innocent civilians be punished for the actions of a few extremists?

Because it's not a few extremists. It's been the official policy of groups like Hamas.

So, why should innocent civilians be punished for the actions of groups like Hamas who number perhaps a couple thousand or so, compared to millions of innocent civilians?

Because Hamas is the official govt of the Palestinians,and any action taken by Hamas guerillas against Israel is an act of war.
Hitting power stations is a legitimate tactic in wartime.

(Not making a moral judgment about whether it's right ot wrong, but wondering when we redefined war.)