There's a distinction in law between crimes, wrongdoing or evil acts that are either malum in se (i.e. bad/wrong/evil always because of their very nature, intrinsic to them) or malum prohibitum (i.e. bad/wrong/evil because some authority says so - the "wrongness" is not intrinsic to them as such). Examples of malum in se would include murder, rape, theft, etc. Examples of malum prohibitum would include speeding, tax evasion, and the like.
The trouble is, authorities love to define something as malum (evil, a crime, forbidden) and then punish people for committing it, even when there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the act concerned. A good example is the furore over the January 6, 2020 protests in Washington D.C. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with demonstrating; in fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution specifically lists "peaceful assembly" as a right of the people. However, by defining the mere presence of the demonstrators as an act of violent insurgency in itself, whether or not those present engaged in violence, the authorities have charged and convicted many of them of a crime or crimes. Another common example is speeding. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with traveling fast (although it may be foolish, and possibly dangerous to those doing it and/or other road users). Nevertheless, if they're caught, they'll be punished because they've "done wrong" according to the letter of the law.
We see another very common use of malum prohibitum in wartime. An occupier may declare it a crime for citizens of an occupied territory to be armed in any way. That may have been legal prior to the occupation, but now it's not. The citizens may need to hunt, or defend themselves or their livestock against predators, but nobody cares about that now. They are to hand in their weapons and obey, or face the consequences, which may extend even to execution as "rebels" or "traitors" - despite the fact that they never swore allegiance to the occupying power and never owed it any loyalty.
Sadly, we're seeing it yet again in Gaza. Israel has ordered everyone in the northern part of the territory to evacuate southwards, and has arbitrarily declared that anyone remaining "could be identified as sympathisers with a 'terrorist organisation' if they stayed put." This ignores several critical facts:
- There may be nowhere for them to go - southern Gaza is already full to overflowing with refugees, and has no space to take in any more.
- There may be no transport for them to move south - the roads are often clogged by rubble as a result of Israeli bombardment, and many vehicles have already left.
- Hamas, which rules Gaza, has forbidden people to leave, so trying to obey Israel's order to evacuate risks death at the hands of a ruthless organization that won't hesitate to execute disobedient citizens as a public warning to others to obey - or else.
I'm in no way a Hamas sympathizer, and agree that Israel must neutralize Palestinian terrorism in Gaza as a matter of national security. However, for Israel to do it by essentially putting Gazans in a no-win hard place, where no matter what they do they risk death for themselves and their families, is not a solution at all. It merely puts an official stamp on their deaths. "They didn't obey us, therefore they were killed - but we couldn't help it. It's their fault, because they could have obeyed." Either Israel or Hamas could use precisely those words when they kill people, and according to the logic both sides employ, they'd both be right. That's cold comfort to those killed in the process...
I know I'm pointing out the obvious here. Nevertheless, it's important to keep this in mind, because when we read official propaganda from either or both sides, they're going to justify their actions on this basis as often as they can. It's worth remembering that both sides in the coming Gaza battle will effectively be killing innocent people - those who have never themselves perpetrated violence or terrorism, but are trapped in the company of those that have. It's not restricted to one side only. I saw precisely the same in Africa, and experienced it personally. I've seen entire villages burned down, and the residents made homeless, and their cattle killed and crops burnt, because they didn't warn about an ambush set up by terrorists near the village - despite the fact that the terrorists would have done the same to them, and worse, if they had warned the authorities about the ambush. The villagers faced an impossible conundrum, and suffered for it.
Let's pray for all those caught up in such no-win situations. There are going to be a lot of them in the near future, I fear.
Peter
32 comments:
When placed in a no win situation you have a choice. Israel must either eradicate Hamas or accept a never ending guerilla war with people who want them all dead. No win or not, the choice for Israel is simple. Not pleasant perhaps but utterly simple. And you don't let collateral damage stop you from doing the needful. Many of the "civilians" are openly supportive of Hamas. You don't risk your people in preference to those who support your enemies. Life doesn't always present you with pleasant alternatives. Hamas and it's allies wants Israel to cease to exist. The only rational choice Israel has is to eradicate everyone who feels that way. Anything less is foolhardy.
I'm sure those that lost family members to the terrorists could care less how many innocent people are killed, as long as those that contributed to the violence have their network destroyed, and those so willing to die are given the opportunity.
What is "Dan" exposing looks to me like a justification of genocide.
Or Mongol policies.
I agree with Dan, except there is no feasible way to identify Hamas; they do not wear uniforms and they have no 'country' that could be bombed out of existence. Dan's last sentence about a rational choice...how do you determine how one feels? Ask them? While there is no rational answer to this age-old battle, I do believe Israel is on the right side of history. Their land was once called Judea, from which the term Jew is derived, or as the Nazis called them, Juden. I believe Isaiah 17 will come to fruition soon. All the Biblical prophecies seem to be lining up as I never before could have imagined.
Mr. Grant is far too polite and kind to say it, so Dan, let me distill your point for you:
"... Genocide: "It's okay if *we* do it!"..."
Maybe you didn't realize it, but that's what you've said.
|
And no. No it's not. Genghis Kahn's tactics are not something to be indulged in by people who claim to love God, and his Word. Unless God himself says to slaughter a people group, it's evil. Killing anyone who attacks you? Sure. Slaughtering unarmed women, pregnant mothers, children, elderly, and the sick? Matthew 25:35.
(Note, that passage doesn't justify or mandate letting them stay permanently, or even letting them stay at all. It encourages believers to help the helpless, not surrender their homes and land to them. But it does indicate how slaughtering helpless noncombatants might be looked upon by the Lord.)
It sucks to be a civilian non-combatant in the middle of a war. Always has. Always will. Ask the population of Dresden, circa 1945. Or Tokyo, circa 1945.
The Israelis are giving warnings to get clear of the combat zone. Would you rather they didn't? It isn't the Israelis' fault that Hamas will kill those that try to get clear. Would you rather we had not dropped leaflets over Hiroshima before the bomb?
And it isn't as if the civilians who tolerated, nay, celebrated Hamas are innocent.
Don't bad mouth the Mongols. They would offer from a position of strength that defeated foes could become a taxpaying citizen of the Mongol Empire.
If you accepted and was honorable about it, all was well. Act dishonorable about it and the stories of your slaughter would remind others of the results of deal breaking the Mongols.
The Mongols HAD Freedom of Religion for their subjects BUT their LAW said Nobody could force their religion on others. If two religions fought BOTH were eliminated. Troublemaking was dishonorable see above what Mongols did to dishonorable peoples.
Apparently, the Gaza citizens have supported Hammas with votes running in the +90% range since they took over the area. Maybe they should have considered the potential results of that support. No Free Lunch.
Frankly, I have thought that the Israeli's were crazy to have put up with the continual problems that were generated from that area. Would you have allowed a neighbor to randomly fire rounds toward your home for decades? Hell No! I see no difference between that scenario and Gaza.
To me, even after all of this Peter, my heart is still hardened about the issue. I just do not feel anything about either side. There is an extremely long and extremely bloody history between these peoples that can never be resolved by outsiders. I simply do not waste a quantum of a thought about either side.
Keep me out of it. Not my flags, not my war.
And if either side starts anything more than a few words against their foe in my country - they can get out. Don't bring their problems here or they can get exported straight back to the middle east.
My personal observation - my work colleagues that support war seem to all be highly educated leftists. Surprisingly they actually DO have kids, and would be happy to see their kids get involved - but only as drone pilots based in another country far from the actual shooting - so they can "experience war" and have valuable and marketable skills afterwards. Not kidding. THEIR children are TOO SMART to be used as trigger pullers on the ground.
That is one interpretation. If you have an answer as to how to address the problem of a terrorist organization in a civilian population, I'd genuinely love to hear it. Better minds than mine have tried and failed to address it. Like it or not, there is a consensus that to defeat Hamas, it will have to be done on their territory, with the civilian population largely in place. Attempts to move the civilian population are an effort to avoid civilian casualties. War is an ugly thing, no rational soul rejoices in it, no-one other than Hamas chose the battlefield, and there really is no good option other than to eradicate Hamas. I see it as a war of necessity, not one of choice.
It is common practice in Gaza, and in countries like Afghanistan or Iraq, that insurgents dress and act as civilians because they knew that the ROEs of the occupying troops would slow down their reactions considerably.
Israel seems to make sure that such tactics can not be used as efficient.
They want to make sure that Hamas terrorists cannot hide by posing as civilians that haven't evacuated because now the Israeli ROEs give them room to apprehend and arrest civilians.
I'm not in disagreement; to argue this point in any manner would be sophomoric.
I'm learning from my wife (it's only taken 50 years): I'm going to throw it back on you (Nostradamus).
Knowing (fully) the situation, what would you recommend/do? Israel has been asking this question since 1948 (and before).
Yes, I'm prepared to read (and discuss) at least three very weighty volumes of your answer (from a non-Jewish, non-Muslim viewpoint).
I have to agree with Jess on this one.
@Will: "Apparently, the Gaza citizens have supported Hammas with votes running in the +90% range since they took over the area."
Yeah . . . just like the American electorate voted for Joe Biden in 2020.
I wouldn't trust either outcome.
The whole thing is lime watching 2 Rabid dogs attack each other.
Gettin popcorn a d beer…
At this point I doubt you'll find an Israeli who would disagree with "Hamas delenda est."
" ... entire villages burned down, and the residents made homeless, and their cattle killed and crops burnt, because they didn't warn about an ambush set up by terrorists near the village."
Sounds just like U.S. vs the Viet Cong
Islam doesn't just support wholesale genocide and slaughter. It's a fundamental tenet of their "religion". It's REQUIRED in order to be a devout muslim. Anyone refusing to accept this reality is a moron who doesn't deserve to live. The ONLY viable response to such evil is to exterminate it. Nothing else will suffice. And these are islams rules....not ours. I merely advocate we follow THEIR rules as scrupulously as they would if they could.
This like the abortion debate. There are no good solutions now because people missed doing the right thing (which was harder) earlier. Now the only question is which solution is less bad.
IMHO the longer term less bad solution is to kill a very large number of Gazans now. Gazans (and the world at large) need to understand that actions (and inactions) have consequences and you can't keep poking a tiger with a twig and expect the tiger to ignore the pokes. And if your neighbor/relative... pokes the tiger while he's right next to you then your failure to stop him makes the reaction at least as much your fault as his. Particularly if you egg him on with "so brave...!" comments.
Looked at in another way, this is like school kids. Hamass is the meangirl bully provoking Israel and then running away when Israel responds saying "Look what the nasty Israel did to me!" and the rest of the world are like the parents or teachers who tell Israel that Israel shouldn't stoop to the level of the bullies. Indeed at both the strategic and tactical levels, Israel tried the ignore the pinpricks they don't really mean it approach and it hasn't worked. In part because it turns out that when the bully said she wanted to kill Israel she actually meant it. It wasn't exaggerated rhetoric. Israel has now realized this and needs to stop the bully permanently
It is hard to believe 100% the words of a Muslim when Islam contains the concepts of Taqiyya, (deceit for the purposes of spreading Islam), Tawriya, (deceit by ambiguity), Kitman (deceit by omission), and Muruna (deceit by the temporary suspension of Sharia).
Our Judeo-Christian makes such actions unacceptable and incompatible with acting correctly according to our beliefs. To me, this is one of the fundamental problems and I do not see a way to resolve it.
I usually avoid making any comment, but this time I need to. The terrorists based in Gaza are vastly outnumbered by those who claim to want peace. If that claim was true they could achieve peace by rising against the terrorists - but they don't. 'Nuff said.
Keep in mind that the Catch was real and still the crews climbed into the bombers and flew off to attack targets selected in England for destruction and did so right up until the very last days of the war. I don't think that there is a way out of it. I certainly haven't thought of any. I look at the implacable hostility of hammas and decided that the world as a whole is better off if they all die. Mind you, at this point they have brought this all down on themselves. We will skip lightly over just which countries decided that holding an enormous mass of refugees hostage forever was a good idea. It would have been far better to have exterminated the PLO a long time ago.
The people of Gaza voted Hamas in and have the government they deserve. They are responsible for their current plight. Sounds familiar doesn't it.
Israel needs to develop a strategic bomber command. By carpet bombing the Gaza Strip the Palestinian Problem can be finally solved. As Ariel Sharon noted, the true danger is from the young. By eliminating the breeding stock the Final Solution can be implemented.
Hail Bibi
@Dan
The problem is that Hamas - like any religious terrorist group- will never be truly eradicated. Sure, Israel can probably cut off the heads of the snake but there are sadly enough Islamic zealots willing to replace them.
The problem is Islam and IMO is likely unsolvable.
@Anonymous October 24, 2023 at 3:28 PM:
You write "There is an extremely long and extremely bloody history between these peoples."
Oddly enough, the bloodiness of the history began when Mohammed attracted enough followers to begin killing Jews. It persisted in this one sided manner until a few of the Zionist farmers who bought or leased land in the Ottoman sanjaks (districts) of Beirut, Akko, and Nablus (which after the Ottomans picked the wrong side in WWI became part of the British Mandate) got tired of being raided by Bedouins and by neighboring Arabs and started first hiring guards and then, around 1906, eventually started arming themselves and forming self-defense militias.
Robbers hate being stopped, and jihadis decree that refusing to become Muslim when offered the opportunity is aggression against Islam, as is defending yourself against he entirely justified resulting jihad.
Massive Arab jihad pogroms began in 1921; in 1929, the Jewish community in Hevron (where the cave Abraham bought to bury Sarah is) evacuated by the British Mandatory Authority after a pogrom that killed nearly 70 Jews in that town alone and injured many more.
That round of jihadi violence was the catalyst for the organization of more capable Jewish militias which in 1948 merged to form the IDF.
I guess some might describe that as a "long and extremely bloody history."
I hate to quote Hollywood but you get to keep what you kill, or more properly put, you can keep it if you can. We live lives of make-believe and magical thinking. The Indians would have kept their land if they could. In some cases, they did. In others, they accepted allotments from their conquerors and still do. History tells us that the fit survives. The unfit is replaced.
Diplomacy is saying "nice doggy" while you're looking for a rock to throw.
Re: >> Mr. Grant is far too polite and kind to say it, so Dan, let me distill your point for you:
"... Genocide: "It's okay if *we* do it!"..."
Maybe you didn't realize it, but that's what you've said. <<
That's certainly one way to look at it.
There are others.
Mine is that it's time to teach Hamas -- and Hamas supporters -- why war is a thing that sane people try to avoid. If that requires behavior that would normally be considered insane, well, sometimes the only sane response to an insane situation is insane behavior.
If that doesn't work for you, then I refer you to the standard method of dealing with rabid animals. What they've become is not their fault... but that doesn't change the fact that they're too dangerous to be allowed to live.
Thank you rabbi
I don't know what Israel should do...morally or otherwise... but consider...
The USA bombed and burned cities to rubble and ash during the Second World War, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Intentionally burning down neighborhoods was considered "dehousing" workers of war industries. That was the euphemism used.
Peter, I know you think the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. The USA dropped leaflets on these cities (and others) telling the people to evacuate because "bombs have no eyes" and destruction was coming.
It is unclear to me how Israel telling the inhabitants of the Gaza strip to leave, and then bombing it to rubble would be any different.
"they're too dangerous to be allowed to live"
•
Did you seriously just type those words without a hint of irony?
Funny. I seem to remember a time when there was another group of people that a government considered 'too dangerous to be allowed to live ' and as such decided to exterminate them... Their leader had a funny moustache...
•
My. How the turns have tabled, eh?
And before you say "the Palestinians aren't being rounded up!!1!" No. Because they were "rounded up" half a century and change ago.
•
You're pro genocide. Embrace it. Don't be shy. Dehumanize with pride!
•
This is no different than when the Indians were slaughtered because they were "too dangerous". Evil is evil, and only evil calls evil good.
"This is no different than when the Indians were slaughtered because they were "too dangerous"."
Yes, it is.
The Amerinds hadn't done anything to deserve it. Neither did the Jews of Europe. If you can't see the difference between the Kiowa circa 1860 and Hamas, then I genuinely feel sorry for you.
Post a Comment