Monday, October 16, 2023

The moral dilemma exposed yet again by Israel's war against Hamas

 

We're witnessing preparations in Israel for a massive counterstrike against Hamas after the latter's recent terrorist onslaught.  Tragically, many innocent people are very likely to be caught up in that counterstrike.  Many will probably be injured or killed.  Morally speaking, that's repugnant at the very least, if not actually forbidden, under the moral and ethical code of most (but not all) mainstream religious faiths - but it's going to happen, regardless.  Can it be justified?

This is a conundrum that's been faced many, many times before in human history.  Considerations of what's "right" have far too often been supplanted by what's "necessary", at least in the eyes of those taking the actions concerned.  They've looked for justification for their actions in many ways, and many of them claim to have found it, no matter how spurious it may be.  Some of the earliest examples can be found in the holy books of many religions, where you'll find claims that "God told us to kill the people at this place" or "God gave us this land to be our own, and told us to kill or enslave those already living there".  It's fairly likely that those statements wound up in those "holy books" several generations after the events in question, when justification was needed for actions that were anything but "holy".  That way, those questioning them could be accused of profaning God's revelation (as the tribe or clan or nation concerned saw it), and conveniently silenced instead of the "establishment" having to confront their doubts.

So-called "just war theory" is all about this dilemma.  Is it right/moral/ethical to go to war?  If so, what is the right/moral/ethical way to conduct that war?  What about treatment of the survivors after that war?  It's a vast subject, far too large to treat adequately in a brief blog article like this.  Go read the linked article, and follow the links it provides.  It was applied in various ways at different times, with results that often seem incongruous at best.  For example, at the sack of Béziers in 1209 AD:


Caesarius of Heisterbach relates this story about the massacre:

When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to [the Papal Legate in command, the Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric] "Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics." The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius – Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His" (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.

While there remains doubt that the abbot said these words – also paraphrased as "Kill them all; God will know His own", "Kill them all; God will sort his own", or "Kill them all and let God sort them out" – there is little if any doubt that these words captured the spirit of the assault, and that the Crusaders intended to slaughter the inhabitants. The Crusaders allowed the routiers to rampage and kill without restraint, sparing neither women nor children, but swiftly put a stop to looting.


Kill civilians without restraint, because you can't identify the guilty, but don't loot their belongings?  That's a rather warped application of allegedly Divine moral law, isn't it?

A more modern example may be found concerning the bombing campaign against Germany during World War II.  Bishop George Bell was outspoken in his opposition to the bombing of non-military targets.


In November 1939 he published an article stating that the Church in wartime should not hesitate

to condemn the infliction of reprisals, or the bombing of civilian populations, by the military forces of its own nation. It should set itself against the propaganda of lies and hatred. It should be ready to encourage the resumption of friendly relations with the enemy nation. It should set its face against any war of extermination or enslavement, and any measures directly aimed to destroy the morale of a population.

In 1941 in a letter to The Times, he called the bombing of unarmed women and children "barbarian" which would destroy the just cause for the war, thus openly criticising the Prime Minister's advocacy of such a bombing strategy. On 14 February 1943 – two years ahead of the Dresden raids – he urged the House of Lords to resist the War Cabinet's decision for area bombing, stating that it called into question all the humane and democratic values for which Britain had gone to war. In 1944, during debate, he again demanded the House of Lords to stop British area bombing of German cities such as Hamburg and Berlin as a disproportionate and illegal "policy of annihilation" and a crime against humanity, asking:

How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civilization?

He did not have the support of senior bishops. The Archbishop of York replied to him in the House of Lords: "it is a lesser evil to bomb the war-loving Germans than to sacrifice the lives of our fellow countrymen..., or to delay the delivery of many now held in slavery".


In strictly Christian terms, Bishop Bell was, of course, entirely correct.  Tragically, by then the events of the war had overtaken morality.  Britain got around the moral dilemma of bombing "innocent civilians" by an official policy of denying that there was any such thing.  Civilians worked in armaments factories or supported war production in other ways;  and if civilian housing was destroyed, it would require diversion of a large part of the German economy to repairing or replacing it, thereby affecting war production and weakening Germany's armed forces.  Therefore, bombing the civilian population was, in fact, an attack on Germany's ability to make war.  (The same rationale was applied to killing prisoners of war and slave laborers during attacks on German infrastructure.  Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of them were killed during such air raids, but their loss was regarded as "collateral damage" - unintended, yet unavoidable, and justified under the circumstances.)

My parents lived through the Second World War, my mother enduring bombing as a civilian on the ground, my father as an officer in the Royal Air Force.  I was able to ask both of them for their opinion of Bishop Bell's position.  My mother put it something like this:  "The Golden Rule says to do unto others as you want them to do unto you.  The Nazis 'did unto us' when they bombed Warsaw, and Rotterdam, and Coventry, and London;  so I always reckoned that the Golden Rule gave us the right to 'do unto them' what they first 'did unto us'."  My father's response was somewhat more pungent and profane, but basically agreed with hers.  "They started it:  we finished it."

I imagine that a similar justification - classifying "innocent civilians" as no longer innocent, but instead as part of the problem - is driving Israel's preparations to deal with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  From that perspective, if the local population supports Hamas, and - willingly or not - provides cover for its operations, then that local population is itself part of the terrorist problem, and must be dealt with as severely as the terrorists in order to eliminate the threat.  I don't think Bishop Bell would agree, and from a Christian moral perspective I don't either, but nobody's asking us for our opinions.

Tragically, in applying that perspective, Israel will be storing up yet more hatred against itself that future generations will express in one way or another.  When Israeli bombs or bullets kill Palestinian children, their siblings will remember, and hate those who did that.  They won't ask whether it was justified, or necessary, or moral . . . they'll just hate, and want revenge against those who did it.  It's been that way throughout recorded history.  I wrote about it after the Bataclan Massacre in 2015.  What I said then remains true today, and will remain true for all time, whether or not you agree with the ethical and moral issues involved.  That's just the way it is.  (The comments from readers after that post are also worth viewing, particularly those that disagree with me.  They have the right to their opinions, too.)

What it boils down to is what's possible rather than what's theoretically ideal.  It's absolutely not possible to deal with Hamas terrorists in isolation from the population in which they live and from which they derive their support.  Think of Mao Zedong's famous dictum that "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea".  In so many words, to get at the fish, you have to either remove it from the water, or remove the water from around the fish.  The same applies to dealing with the guerrilla/terrorist:  if he can't be distinguished from the people, you must remove all the people that are sheltering and supporting him.  We have to acknowledge that there are undoubtedly many individuals and families within that population who do not support violence and terrorism, and have never done anything to support it;  but their presence nevertheless offers protection to the terrorist, and provides him with cover and concealment.  To deal with him, it's unavoidable that we have to deal with "the sea in which he swims" - the people around him, innocent or not.

Tragically (and I mean that very sincerely), that means Israel has literally no choice but to deal with the entire population of Gaza as if they were all guilty.  I hope and pray it exercises as much restraint as possible;  but when you look at what the terrorists in Gaza did to Israel, the latter has no moral choice at all but to protect its citizens against further such atrocities.  That means the people of Gaza - all of them - are about to find themselves between a rock and a hard place, with no alternative but to be treated as guilty unless and until proven innocent.  Many of them will probably die before such a determination can be made, because in the middle of a war, you can't stop and put yourself at risk to find out.

That doesn't make it right.  That doesn't make it moral.  It does, however, make it inevitable.

Peter


41 comments:

  1. Israel should start eliminating the leaders of Hamas AND their clans wherever they are hiding. Root and branch, every generation. That is what they intend for Jews, let them suffer it themselves.

    The leaders have reaped the riches over the decades but the foot soldiers and civilians feel the pain.


    ReplyDelete
  2. I think John Keegan made a note of this dilemma the British had with bombing civilian population, in his history of WW2. He states that commanders of all the major commands got significant promotion and/or knighthood except those of Bomber Command. I guess they realized after the war that bombing civilian population was not an achievement that should be exemplified.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You’ve presented a lot of information. It’s a difficult decision. I believe Israel has a moral obligation to defend its citizens and borders.
    I side with Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Hamas Terrorists use the general population as human shields. If the general population doesn't cooperate with Hamas they will be just as dead as if the Israelis had killed them.

    This article at Legal Insurrection delves into the International law. From it, I derived that the majority of the populace of Gaza are combatants is one way or another. Especially since most of the Hamas Terrorists are un-uniformed and therefore not distinguished from the general population.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, this is going to be a difficult one... The IDF is facing an enemy who knows well the "rules of war" and intentionally uses them to their advantage. Little things like no uniforms, using a hospital as their HQ, ambulances to deliver troops and supplies, etc... Fighting from within the captive civilian population will almost certainly result in collateral damage and casualties, but that is by design on that side. Have to say I am REALLY glad to be long out and did not face such choices on any of my deployments. Stuck WAY out in the desert meant that things were a lot simpler...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Some people (usually without real skin in the game) are so sure that their side is going to be victorious that they think their side should intentionally handicap itself in war, putting the real fighters at greater risk. Hand-wringing by noncombatants.

    I'd say that the original real Christians thought more like the Abbot of Citeaux. Their struggles were existential, and they knew their enemies would do the same to them, given the opportunity. The just war theory came about much later, as a modern version of your "allegedly Divine moral law."

    I have little use for people who want to judge the past by today's standards or supposed standards. These decisions should be made by the people with boots on the ground. Centuries ago, or now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The original real Christians died as martyrs, as a general rule, though it is worth noting that by the 4th century this had changed a bit--"in this sign thou shall conquer" and all that.

      Delete
  7. Find me an "innocent" amidst a population that gave out candy after every terror attack, from 9/11 onwards.

    Minor children?
    The ones who'll grow up to be suicide bombers and jihadis?

    No sale.

    Hamas has succeeded at making the only good Gaza resident a dead (or permanently removed) Gaza resident.

    ZFG.
    They all bought the tickets for this ride, now they get to follow it right into a smoking hole on the ground.

    If Israel relents now, they'll only be doing this again, at greater cost, next time.

    This is one of those times, like the Third Punic War, where the Carthaginian Solution is exactly what's required.

    Tragic? No.
    The tragedy was that those in Gaza had another option, called peaceful coexistence, and repeatedly chose not to do it.

    Europeans spent $150M to put water systems in place in Gaza.

    The residents dug up the pipes, and repurposed them into rockets to launch into Israel.
    For twenty years.

    Israel built Iron Dome, to shoot down those rockets.

    So Hamas plotted and planned until they could bulldoze their way through the walls, and built enough rockets to overwhelm Iron Dome.
    Knowing full well what the likely response would be, they did it anyways, just to kill more Jews.
    FFS, even the Germans realized at some point they'd headed down the wrong road by following the Nazis.

    Hamas made this bed for all of Gaza.
    Now they can all lie down in it.

    Anyone becrying their fate, after decades of Hamas' deliberate and unrestrained terror, and being the chosen leadership of that whole people, frankly, can go suck it.

    The only tragedy would be Israel doing anything less than removing the entire population of Gaza, razing everything to the ground, annexing it for themselves permanently, and making Egypt directly responsible for the future behavior of their long-lost and now forcibly re-united retarded cousins. In a way that entails nuclear fallout for defaulters.

    Syrian idiots and their Lebanese toadies have already paid in blood for a brief foray into rocketry in support of Hamas; Syria is now missing a significant portion of their remaining air farce as a direct result.

    Notably, the Jordanian Arabs living in the West Bank are sitting this whole kerfluffle out, and making not a peep about anything going on in Gaza.
    Some people understand when it's a bad time to poke the bear.

    Do watch and see whether and how long until a "rogue, stray" rocket from somewhere takes out the Dome Of The Rock, whereupon Israel shrugs, and says, "It's a shame your Muslim zealots blew up your third-most holy site, but now that it's gone, I guess that clears the way for us to rebuild Solomon's Temple on the Temple Mount. Bummer, Islam."

    Spin by spin, the tumblers click into place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're unironically, unhesitatingly supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide. That's not just despicable, it's monstrous. God have mercy on your soul.

      Delete
    2. And yet Aesop is willing to put his name (seriously, he's had a blog for years, it's not like he's hiding) out there on his convictions, while you drag him down and call him monstrous while hiding behind anonymity. Quite the virtue display if you can't even bring yourself to put your own pseudonym on the comment.


      And for the record, I'll pray for their souls, but what happens to their mortal coil is on their own heads at this point.

      Delete
  8. I've been scratching my head about what people think the point of war is since the start of America's War on Terror. If your army completely annihilates the other army, and the now undefended civilian population replies, "We still refuse to submit to your demands," did the civilian population just defeat a military force with nothing but words? Does the attacking army then pack up and head home and accept a loss? The point of offense in war is total annihilation of the other population. The historic books of the OT contain many accounts of losing sides being completely wiped from the earth, and ancient history of that era shows it quite common even beyond those wars involving ancient Israel. But this is definitely not something to celebrate, and is why I think war should be an absolute last resort. While the Geneva convention is a nice idea, it seems like more modern wars were decided in the breach of it than in obedience to it - mustard gas, carpet bombing, guerilla tactics, etc. It's like applying sparring rules to a real fight. If both sides are noble enough to observe the rules, then real harm can be avoided because the losing side admits defeat before the harm of innocents begin. But if at least one party ignores the rules... Well, Machievelli had advice for his ruler about this that has made that name the word that it is today. Whenever I hear people cheering for a side in war and then the horrors of war are revealed, or covered up by the winner, I want to ask "Where did y'all think it was going to end? But you cheered for it."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay, here's the medievalist's viewpoint of "Kill them all yada yada."

    The reason why that statement was made was because of the medieval rules of warfare (and also the reason why the Sack of Jerusalem occurred.)

    Medievally, populations weren't huge. And skilled labor was at a premium. So some attempts were made to keep the killings low.

    When an enemy force came to a location (town, city, castle) the rule was to offer the location to surrender, only the leaders of the problem would get captured or handed over, executions would be minimal, small donations paid, ownership of place turned over.

    If they resisted, then the outside army would attack. Once a breach in the defenses were made, a hold was called. The besieged would be given another chance to surrender, more people captured and executed, bigger bribe given, some minimal sacking (usually of the people who were pushing the defense) and life goes on.

    If the people who's defenses were breached and they didn't give up, well, lambs to the slaughter - that old Henry V thingy about basically killing anyone and everything, a complete sack. Kill them all and God will know His own. Why? Because it encourages other places to surrender before the final solution is implemented.

    (Ghenghis Khan also implemented these rules in the Mongol Empire, by the way.)

    Said siege during the Albigensian Crusade? The city didn't give up the heretics, got a hole busted in the wall, didn't give up, screw them.

    Siege of Jerusalem during the 1st Crusade? Busted a big old hole in the city walls, people inside didn't give up, Crusaders sacked the city. What is surprising is that people survived the sack.

    Put it in perspective in Gaza? 'Innocents' have been warned, told to stop, leave, get out of the way. Enough time for them to walk out if necessary. So when the IDF rolls in, well, God will know His own. That's the rule for any siege, Stalingrad, Jerusalem, Marburg, when dealing with a civilized army besieging a location.

    And... it's one of the things that I've discussed with others. A civilized nation has to be able to let down its hair and get ugly with its enemies, especially uncivilized barbarians, else the barbarians will see the civilized nation as weak and easy prey. Israel needs to be strong, firm, hard hearted and show the rest of the world why one should not fornicate with Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can't say it better than Aesop. The Palestinian population already wants all
    Jews dead, how much more hatred can any act by the Israelis engender. When it come to such people I tend to be a Charles Martel type of Christian

    ReplyDelete
  11. Never much cared for british opinion regarding humanity, ethics and "just war".

    The British were killing, bombing, shooting, stabbing and executing civilians for decades before the war started and they resumed their duties posthaste when the war ended.
    The French were not better in any way, shape or form and bombed demonstrations for independence in Damascus, Syria, two weeks after the Wehrmacht surrendered.

    The only reason they talked about freedom, democracy and humanity during the war was because now they were the ones getting pounded. If someone in the 1930s in India, Algeria or Indochina voiced such concerns he would not have survived.

    And before some wise guy tries too hard to take it the wrong way: This is in no shape, way or form a defense of the Nazis.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's not just the Jews that the Gazans want dead - for the moment.
    It's also the Christians, the Buddhists, et al.
    And when they're finished wiping them out, they'll turn on the Shia'a or Sunni or Sufi or anyone else who doesn't conform to their particular interpretation of how to worship Allah.
    Read the Qur'an: it's highly instructive.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is unfortunate that Hamas chose this course of action, but a meme from last week sums it up: If Hamas laid down their arms today, there would be peace tomorrow. If Israel laid down their arms today, there would be on Israel tomorrow. I also think back to the book "Ender's Game". If you don't strike hard, the bully is going to keep coming at you, time after time, without remorse. At some point you have to make the decision to put an end to it. How many beatings (deaths in Israel's case) do you want to endure before you do something to stop it?

    The Palestinian apologists can cry "colonialism" and "occupation" all they want, but the reality is that the Israelis were happy to co-exist in peace, if only the Palestinians would agree. The walls and restrictions were a direct result of the constant attacks - small attacks that Israel was willing to absorb in the name of civilized international relations. Hamas crossed the line, and Israel will not absorb that kind of attack. They have every right to ensure it doesn't happen again. May God have mercy on the souls of any innocents still in Gaza, however few they may be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Israel is in trouble long term due to demographics. The Muslims are outbreeding them. In 1948 there were approximately 220k people in the Gaza strip, now there's 2.2 million. Israel has 9.7 million people, 2 million are Muslim.

    With the population pressure and practice of polygamy, there's a whole bunch of 'excess' men available, ready to collect their 72 virgins. This doesn't affect their reproduction, unlike Israel, so a loss rate of 10 to 1 is more than acceptable to the Hamas leadership.

    If they want their nation to survive, Israel needs to do as much as possible right now. Otherwise, I expect Israel to go away within my children's lifetime, along with France and Germany (can you say Caliphate, version 2?).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Israel left Gaza in 2005, Hamas came to power a year later...

    At what point are the civilians no longer "innocent" bystanders? North Korea sends troops into the south on a regular basis, if South Korea retaliated militarily , don't forget there is a cease fire, not Peace, what would the limits on their response be?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This conflict is very simple to me; not my flag, not my country.

    I harbour no ill will towards either side, and I want absolutely NOTHING to do with this conflict.

    These are people that have been slaughtering each other since biblical times and not much has changed other than the effectiveness of their methods.

    If either side want to start fighting or protesting about it in another nation that has given them new lives, then I care a great deal. They get a one way ticket back to the middle east to sort out their enmities over there.

    I don't care about supposed beheaded babies in cribs, weapons of mass destruction, how many lovely young houri "tattoo-artists" get their knees bent the wrong way and turn up alive later. I do not care. Not one single damn.

    Play stupid games in my country, my opinion is you all have to go back, every single one of you.

    That is all. Both sides are wonderful people. Just leave your past in the past. Or go.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The only "innocent Arab Muslims" are under 8 years old. The entire culture, most particularly as exemplified by the so-called "Palestinians", is evil, wicked, and vile.

    I did not learn to hate them until I lived among them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It is a tricky question. Is the employee of a bomb making factory a civilian or not?

    What I find most interesting is that often in debating these questions, the moralists seem to take the opportunity to be uncharitable to their neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The trouble with "it's none of my concern" fail to realize that Islam isn't content with the Middle East, and they have stated "first, the Saturday people, then the Sunday people."

    They're coming for you or your descendants. And they say so.

    ReplyDelete
  20. FWIW a couple of things around this area -

    “The Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign Of World War II Holds Important Lessons For Today

    https://spencerfernando.com/2023/10/13/the-allied-strategic-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-ii-holds-important-lessons-for-today/

    Via SDA

    And

    “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ISLAMIC EXTREMIST”

    https://richardsonpost.com/paulzanetti/33336/no-such-thing-as-an-islamic-extremist/

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Mind Your Own Business - "They're coming for you or your descendants. And they say so."

    So what ? When or if they actually try to do more than talk, they will find out that it might not be as easy as they originally thought.

    Doesn't change my opinion one whit. Leave that asinine medieval conflict behind when you move to another country, or you have to go back. All of you. Lock, stock & barrel. Branch & root. The whole family. Jew, Palestinian or Martian. Don't care. Anyone involved in stirring up trouble must go back.

    It really is as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. i would suggest that in you get out your bible and read Joshua chapter 6 through 8. It will only take you a few minutes and show you who started this. ---ken

    ReplyDelete
  23. Most of the commentators are only seeing simplistic solutions and aren't understanding the second and third order consequences.

    The US has a population of Arab/Islamic/sympathizers that numbers in the millions. It also has a government that encourages the backers of Marxism/terrorism. (Iran, BLM, mass immigration...)

    At the same time it has a large percentage major elected officials that swear loyalty to Israel due to money, pressure or blackmail, who knows. And a large number of "Christians" that think Judeo-Christianity is a thing and don't understand the New Testament.

    And in the mix a number of folks that pay both sides and are encouraging more global instability at the cost of the US. (Soros, etc...)

    Also dig into history of our "Greatest Ally". Ever heard of the USS Liberty? Do you realize where they got the nuclear material/information to build their first bombs? That their "Sampson Option" includes targeting the US as well as their neighbors? How much of our technology they stole and transferred to non-allies?

    And if you read both the Koran and Talmud, you will see how much either of these groups actually love non-members of their religion/tribe.

    Now ask yourself: If the Israelis go "Wounded Knee" on Gaza and the US backs them, what happens back in the US? Can you say Lebanon?

    My solution: Let's send all the "dual-citizens" back to Israel and let their oligarchs spend their lives and fortunes first before any more US tax money is spent. Also send anybody waving any other countries flag, back to that country, especially those backing Hamas, etc... We could also send the Marxists to Russia, who needs more people in Siberia and the gulags.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “At the same time [the US] has a large percentage [of] major elected officials that swear loyalty to Israel…”

      That’s certainly the interpretation favored by many Jew-haters, yes.

      “Do you realize […] that their ‘Sampson Option’ includes targeting the US as well as their neighbors?”

      This, of course, is completely baseless.

      “And if you read both the Koran and Talmud, you will see…”

      You’ve read the Talmud, have you? How many years did that heroic effort take you?

      To be entirely explicit to the audience: Mr Chris Nelson is lying to you, and his lies have clear motivation in Jew-hatred.

      Delete
    2. Having interacted with Mr. Nelson in another forum regarding a certain prominent author's beliefs, wherein he made the claim that a belief the author described was one that he actually held (it was not), he might not be lying, technically. He might possess the reading comprehension of a particularly dense 4th grader.

      Delete
  24. Sorry, tough. The Gazans elected Hamas to be in charge. They are collectively responsible for Hamas's actions.

    ReplyDelete
  25. In any war, what you do *after* victory is what matters. In WWII, Japan and Germany were decimated. But today, both are vital allies.
    Yes, Israel must severely trounce Hamas, Gaza, and anywhere else that's involved. But what they do *next* and for the years after is what will, or won't, engender peace.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There is no human solution to the human condition.
    There is no human solution to the Hebrew-Palestinian conflict.
    Who is at fault? Depends on where is your year zero.
    Not our circus, not our monkeys.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The evil left...and the evil islamists would absolutely love for the rest of us to climb on that high horse and refuse to bomb "innocents". While they happily wander about murdering, raping and destroying without regard to such moral niceties. And that is exactly what they are, niceties. There have been times in the past where war had rules. Savage ugly nasty rules but rules none the less. And armies would follow them. That has been the exception though for humanity. Generally armed conflict between groups has only one rule. Win.
    And any group that artificially constrained itself risked losing the conflict and ceasing to exist.

    Regarding the specific situation now....there are no "innocent civilians" regarding islam. ALL are called to war and either wage it directly or support it. And that war has no rules except to win. And winning requires that ALL non muslims be dead or enslaved. Against such an opponent the west dares not limit it's reaction with "rules". Because there are none.

    Translation. Either we kill ALL of them or they WILL kill ALL of us.
    That is THEIR choice. Their religion. Their wish.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Did South Africa Apartheid regime fell because they were not ruthless enough with the non-White population?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Israal has to kill at least 50,000 Gazans To wit the entire Hamass movement and the allied terror groups like PIJ. Since most of those hang around in densely populated areas and have wives, children, parents around them the death toll is going to be more than that.

    If they do not do that then the leaders of Hamass and other terror groups will decide that it is worth attacking Israel some time in the future.

    It is also worth noting that some of the raiders from Gaza appear to have been just "civilians" who showed up to kill and rape once they learned the fences were down. They weren't official Hamass fighters.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Anonymous at 1:44 AM: Clearly, you haven't read my article with any care or attention. I compared and contrasted a Christian moral approach with a pragmatic approach, and made it clear that I support the former. Sadly, the latter dominates right now, because people and nations are focused on solving the problem - whether or not it's the right or moral solution.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Peter if you have no real moral anchor in Christianity then there IS NO MORAL Quandary.

    The scriptures speak to this clearly:

    Luke 6:43-45
    New King James Version
    A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit
    43 “For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil [a]treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

    For the non-Christian (suggested actions and words here seems to point out abundant truth enough) I suggest this for the basically Moral Humans:

    Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Facts on the ground throughout history in the Middle East you can NEVER without wholesale genocide prevent the new crop of revenge seeking "terrorists" for the next Jahid.

    The whole Irish Troubles should have made it clear that for everyone you kill a whole family of new "Irish Terrorists" AKA Freedom Fighters, AKA American Rebels will spring up.

    BTW folks... HOW Many of those folks have been INVITED by our Biden Administration as illegal (errr Undocumented) Immigrants and ISSUED Cell Phones and given EBT, Cash and transport all across out once Fine Republic?

    I ponder how long before AMERICA "Enjoys" the fruits of Jahid INSIDE our own country?



    ReplyDelete
  32. “I imagine that a similar justification – classifying ‘innocent civilians’ as no longer innocent, but instead as part of the problem – is driving Israel’s preparations to deal with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.”

    Oh, you can find that sentiment a-plenty within Israel. But if that were behind official policy, there would not be this delay in the invasion, there would not be the leaflets asking Gazans to evacuate the city Israel is bombing, and the 7,000–8,000 bombs Israel has dropped would have taken tens or hundreds of thousands of Gazan lives, not the 2,800 Hamas claims as of this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "You're unironically, unhesitatingly supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide. That's not just despicable, it's monstrous. God have mercy on your soul."

    Whoever that was addressed to, whether Peter or myself, it's codswallop.

    If Israel slaughtered every person in Gaza (which choice is realy up to the current residents, really), it would no more be genocide nor ethnic cleansing than would wiping out all of Ft. Lauderdale "genocide" Floridians.

    The residents of Gaza are not "Palestinians", they are Egyptian Arabs, and always have been. You could look it up.

    Anyone who uses a neighborhood (and at the end of the day, at 6 miles by 25 miles, that's all Gaza really is) as nothing but a base to export terror to their neighbor deserves the exact solution laid upon Carthage in the Third Punic War.

    Nota bene that as a direct result, there was never a Fourth Punic War.

    And anyone waving the Bible around to advocate piecemeal solutions is woefully ignorant of the specific charges and requirements laid on Israel by God concerning the peoples they warred with; charges which they violated in direct disobedience to God, and which resulted in exactly the current mess they're in, up to five seconds ago.

    You can Google chapter and verse if you're in any quandary there.

    According to the Bible, God's version of the just war was unmitigated annihilation.
    Every. Single. Time.
    To the level of dashing the enemy's babies' heads against rocks, with a song on your lips.
    You could look it up.

    Augustine's misbegotten alteration of the idea screwed that pooch rather nicely 16 centuries later.
    But then, Augustine was also an Arab.

    Skip the b.s. commentary, and go to the source.

    One can reject the God that issued that proclamation, but they can't make it to not have happened because it's currently inconvenient. Last I looked, that which is regarded as holy scripture isn't served buffet-style.
    It's all or nothing.

    So is making war.

    The person(s) who correctly observed "their circus, their monkeys" also illustrates beautifully the response of the rest of the planet to whatever happens, as long as it touches them not a whit.

    It also underlines the idiocy of misstating "the Samson Option" as planning for or countenancing striking the US in any way, shape, or form as part of that plan.

    Samson pushed the temple down on himself and his blood enemies; he did not rise up and go after people continents away afterwards.

    Suggesting that was any part of any Samson Option is recockulous and stupid, and arises out of either deliberate ignorance, or malign design in service of a narrative.
    One the horns of being either stupid or evil is no way to go through life, boys and girls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the instructions were very specific. "Wipe out the Canaanites."

      AFAIK, the Palestinians are not Canaanites. You said it yourself. They're Arabs.

      Delete
  34. Canaanites is but one bare example.
    The actual list for eradication is rather longer.

    Which, btw, includes Philistines.
    Hmm.
    Philistine.
    Palestine.
    To-MAY-toe.
    To-MAH-toe.

    Do some historical surfing, and tell us about the cities and region involved therein. Then apply your sophistry to that little linguistic echo, and get back to us.

    There's a rather convincing historical argument that Israel now is paying for the squeamishness and disobedience of their tribes going back to the time of Joshua and the Judges.

    Almost as if the author of the story knew whereof he spake.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The masters of this earth don't give a farthing for Palestinians or Israelis.
    Or anyone, its an ego thing. Old as time.

    ReplyDelete

ALL COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. THEY WILL APPEAR AFTER OWNER APPROVAL, WHICH MAY BE DELAYED.