Penny Arcade is, for me, one of the best web-comics out there. Yes it’s vulgar. Yes it’s crass.
Do you expect any less from me? Seriously?
But the following (which contains nothing worse than a “Goddamn”) expresses very well how I start to feel when talking to people who condemn Israel’s attacks because Hamas isn’t very good at fulfilling it’s dream of destroying Israel, and thus Israel is being, like, totally unfair.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Profile
Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
Contributor:
Oh,
That
Liberal Media
CaliforniaRepublic.org
Linked by:
Best of the Web
The Corner
How Appealing
Hugh Hewitt
InstaPundit
Kausfiles
Power Line
The Volokh Conspiracy
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Dec | Feb » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Powered by WordPress.
I haven’t found one Liberal who condems Israel to be honest about their hatred for Israelis, if not all Jews. To them what ever Hamas does is fine. Israel is just supposed to take it.
I’d like to see these Liberals’ homes rocketed and mortared. Then I’d get to tell them they are just supposed to take it.
Comment by PCD — 1/7/2009 @ 4:56 am
A friend of mine who is Jewish posted on his LiveJournal a “joke” that really offended one of his friends who found it very unfunny…
He too didn’t find the joke funny at first, but for vastly different reasons.
The comment by a friend? “This ‘joke’ utterly disgusts me. I thought beter of you than this, and I’m sorry I’m wrong”.
Some people refuse to accept the basic truth – Hamas holds the key to ending this violence. If they stop trying to eradicate Israel, Israel will stop needing to defend itself.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/7/2009 @ 5:17 am
Scott,
Tell your Jewish friend that this other entity was not a friend in the first place.
Comment by PCD — 1/7/2009 @ 5:48 am
I condemn the slaughter of innocents – on both sides. That the scale at which this occurs at present is heavily skewed against the Palestinians is not irrelevant, it is outrageous. Moreover, equivocation on this point based on “who started it” does not seem useful, given that this conflict has been going on for 2800 years and counting.
2800 years – will someone please explain to me why extra violence is expected to work this time around?
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 6:30 am
And here I was just going to condemn the CAUSE, which would be Hamas…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/7/2009 @ 6:38 am
Scott – Even if it is your position that Hamas leaves the Israelis with no choice but to kill innocent Palestinians, the answer to the question of whether it is morally ‘okay’ to slaughter innocent civilians, I believe, is always “no.” Don’t you agree?
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 6:50 am
They pile EXTRA civilians ontop of the ones already there, and then WAIT with a CAMERA…
I suggest you go take another look at the comic.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/7/2009 @ 6:54 am
Tom, would you also like to imprison the homeowner that kills a burglar in his house? “Who started it” is what defines who is on the defensive.
Comment by Justin — 1/7/2009 @ 6:59 am
You are skirting the question, Scott. Let’s be clear: is the killing of innocent people morally justifiable or not?
Next, do you believe that in terms this conflict, Hamas is forcing Israel to kill innocent people, thereby abdicating Israel from this moral responsibility? Does Israel’s existence force Hamas to kill innocent Israelis?
I believe that the killing of innocent people is always morally inexcusable. In this case, I do not believe that Hamas nor Israel force the other to kill innocent people; therefore, each bears the moral guilt for such actions and should be condemned as they do so.
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 7:02 am
Justin, that is a side question. And it is not a valid comparison, as a criminal is not the same as an innocent civilian.
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 7:03 am
I thought your comment applied to the conflict as a whole, not just the Israeli collateral damage and Hamas targets. Does that distinction hold any relevance to you?
Comment by Justin — 1/7/2009 @ 7:06 am
It is to be avoided if possible.
Hamas, however, makes such avoidance impossible. The guilt is not on the Israelis.
Yes.
You are officially stupid. Israel’s existance forces Hamas?
You have GOT to be kidding me. Please dear god TELL me that you’re not being serious. You did NOT just say that because Israel is THERE, Hamas is justified to intentionally put women and children on top of their weapon piles so there is a lot of dead bodies when the IDF takes out the weapons.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/7/2009 @ 7:11 am
Scott, no, that is not at all what I meant.
Better stated would have been: “If Hamas believes that Israel has no right to exist (i.e. should be exterminated), does Israel’s mere existence force them to kill innocent Israelis? To which the answer is clearly, no. Sorry for the confusion.
Hamas, however, makes such avoidance impossible. The guilt is not on the Israelis.
I dispute this. This would be true if at least two conditions are met: (1) Israel must respond to this conflict with violence, and (2) It is impossible to avoid killing innocent people in Gaza. I don’t believe either of these are demonstrably true.
@11: I thought your comment applied to the conflict as a whole, not just the Israeli collateral damage and Hamas targets. Does that distinction hold any relevance to you?
If you are referring to the distinction between Israeli collateral damage and Hamas targets, I agree that this is a significant distinction, but not that the killing of innocent people through collateral damage somehow removes the moral culpability therein. Does that answer your question?
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 7:35 am
Ok. I’m going to chuck rocks at your head. I’m going to keep doing this even though I only barely even hit you once in a great while. When you decide to get me to stop, I will hold someone very dear to you in a death grip so that anything you do to me will first go through them. Punch at me, and you hit them instead.
That sound pretty fair to you? If you hit that person while trying to stop me, would it be your fault?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/7/2009 @ 7:42 am
Tom,
You are an idiot. You will die an idiot’s death because you are too stupid to separate evil from self-defense. You just can’t condemn Hamas for breaking the cease fire, can you?
Comment by PCD — 1/7/2009 @ 8:04 am
Worth paying attention to facts on the ground. Today, during the “humanitarian” cease fire — Israel let a lot of aid through — Hamas took the opportunity to set up the three rockets that hit Beersheva.
Now, I don’t particularly criticize Hamas for that; it’s just what they are. But it does suggest why the whole notion of the IDF easing up on Hamas out of “humanitarian” concerns is, at least, questionable. Should Israel put the residents of Beersheva at risk for the benefit of the Gazans who put and have kept Hamas in power?
If so, why?
Comment by Joel Rosenberg — 1/7/2009 @ 8:13 am
Here is the distinction for you, Tom. Soldiers go out and die and get maimed to protect their babies. Hamas animals use babies to protect themselves.
Comment by nk — 1/7/2009 @ 8:20 am
I’ll take it one step further, my friend. It is a good thing to exterminate those animals to protect their babies along with yours. And it is not a question of killing some of the animals’ babies in the process. It is a question of not being able to save all of them.
Comment by nk — 1/7/2009 @ 8:26 am
Tom, do you find it morally reprehensible or acceptable that Hamas freely chooses to shield themselves with women and children?
You do realize that Hamas doesn’t wish to allow Israel to live in peace, right, but rather they consider this a jihad? Their goal is to exterminate all Jews. Do you consider this an immoral goal?
Comment by Dana — 1/7/2009 @ 8:39 am
There’s got to be a name for this sickness. (“Stupidity” doesn’t cover it.) It’s like the few Americans who still accuse America of committing a war crime by dropping atomic bombs on Japan. “Look,” they argue, “innocent Japanese children were killed. America was morally obliged to find another way even if that other way would have put more Americans at risk of dying.” According to them, America acted immorally even though all evidence points to America’s actually saving lives by dropping the bombs. I know “self-hatred” is sometimes used in this situation, but it is not a broad enough term because some Canadian, English, French, German etc. feel the same way. So, anyone know a name for this sickness?
Comment by Ira — 1/7/2009 @ 9:05 am
Slave mentality.
Comment by nk — 1/7/2009 @ 9:59 am
I think the medical community calls it “Brain Death”…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/7/2009 @ 10:12 am
Collateral deaths are the moral responsibility of the provoker. When civilians are targets, then the moral responsibility belongs to the attacker, regardless of the provoker. So, if Israeli soldiers deliberated targeted Gaza civilians, then I would agree that is unacceptable. But, they don’t.
Hamas does deliberately target civilians, and that is unacceptable. As a response to that unacceptable action, Israel then targets Hamas, the provoker. Sadly, collateral deaths are unavoidable in effective military actions. But, as the provoker, Hamas bears the moral weight of those deaths, not Israel. Even when Hamas attacks military targets, as the aggressor, they still bear that weight for collateral deaths of Israelis.
Finally, if you consider Israel the aggressor, then you are simply on the side of Hamas, and you should acknowledge that fact. It’ll save everyone involved a lot of time to start the debate with that established.
Comment by Buzz Killington — 1/7/2009 @ 10:39 am
“is the killing of innocent people morally justifiable or not?”
When it is unavoidable and not intended, YES. And it is both in this instance.
Happy?
Comment by Sean P — 1/7/2009 @ 10:40 am
Just to elaborate on Buzz’s fine post a bit:
Here’s a criminal law hypo: Two burglars break into a house, the homeowner is armed and kills one of the criminals. Under the law in every jurisdiction in the US the homeowner is not liable for murder. Moreover, in most jurisdictions, the surviving burlglar IS liable for murder, even though he wasn’t the one who actually put the bullet in his co-conspirator. Same thing where a police officer bullet kills an innocent bystander in a shootout with a criminal. The officer is generally not criminally liable for the bystander’s death, the criminal IS. Same principle here.
Comment by Sean P — 1/7/2009 @ 10:48 am
Me thinks Tommy is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The Toms of the world have been “held captive” by these brutal thugs for so long that they now identify with them.
Comment by quasimodo — 1/7/2009 @ 1:12 pm
The “Tom”s of this world are something-challenged in many ways …
They are willing to believe that the Crusades were “just yesterday” for followers of Islam – while being remarkably clueless that, on that scae, the “day before yesterday”, there was NO Islam …
The Crusades in the 1200s were crude attempts to liberate the then-Holy Land from the invading Islam … 600 years before that, there was NO Islam …
The “Tom”s of this world don’t notice that there is a significant population of Muslim citizens in Israel, who can elect (and have elected) Muslim representatives to the Knesset – the Israeli legislature – while ignoring/denying the fact that in the surrounding Islamic countries, there are few if any Jews with the right to vote in said surrounding Islamic countries …
The “Tom”s of this world are content to believe what they are told, and then regurgitate the misinformation …
The LA Times is csimply continuing its recent history of what it considers to be fine unbiased expert journalism …
Comment by Alasdair — 1/7/2009 @ 3:31 pm
“The Israeli – sells the coffee to the Frenchman, sells the fly to the Chinese, drinks tea imported from the U.S. and uses the extra money to invent technology that prevents flies from falling into their coffee.”
Enterprising folks dem jews is eh?
It’s sorta like telling lawyer jokes, a few will laugh, as they actually have the ability to see through the absurdities of their chosen industry, others won’t, because they really do think all that of themselves.
The whole business of war is ugly from any angle you look at it. People are going to die, lots of them, gender and age make no difference. Sad as can be, but true. In the end, the side that gives up without condition usually is the side that gets to bury a whole lot more than the other.
This conflict seems to be heading for just such an end. I for one, am sick and tired of hearing about it and I’m a youngster at 55. Israel has halted every one of it’s operations against invaders since 1948, even though they could have pursued them into their homelands and taken claim to those lands as well. They held some parcels, some have been returned. But seems such was a mistake, just like the Israelis said it would be.
I do feel bad for all the innocents that are caught up in this war and hope they can get away to live a different life.
Comment by TC — 1/7/2009 @ 4:24 pm
From her lips to God’s ear: The fury of a bereaved Palestinian mother captures evil of Hamas in Gaza
There are sure to be lots of innocents lost but hopefully the *real* enemy will be accused. In this one case at least, they are.
Comment by Dana — 1/7/2009 @ 4:38 pm
argh.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/01/06/2009-01-06_from_her_lips_to_gods_ear_the_fury_of_a_.html
Comment by Dana — 1/7/2009 @ 4:40 pm
Scott (#14), you seem to hold an assumption that there is no way for Israel to deal with the problem of a violated cease-fire except through operations in Hamas which result in massive civilian casualties. It is on this point that I disagree. Israel has determined one particular course of action out of many possible responses to Hamas’ resumption of rocket attacks. While attacking civilians directly is clearly not the stated goal here, this particular response out of others they could have chosen happens to be killing scores of civilians. Israel is only absolved from this moral responsibility if it has no other alternative than operations which result in such casualties. You think this is so, while I disagree. Okay, we can leave it there.
Joel Rosenberg writes:
It’s despicable that this even needs to be a consideration, and you’re right – it will likely result in further aid being cut off from the Palestinians who need it most. It highlights the disregard that Hamas leadership has shown for the well-being of the Palestinians they ostensibly represent – which, by the way, I do not dispute.
nk writes:
I find this extremely troubling. I don’t know what else to say.
Dana writes:
Morally reprehensible.
That is absolutely an immoral goal.
But none of this causes me to reconsider my premise that killing innocent people is fundamentally wrong, always.
—
P.S. It would be great not to have to separate the sincere challenges (which are much appreciated) from childish insults of those who can’t bother to formulate an argument like a grown-up. Just sayin’.
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 5:15 pm
“But none of this causes me to reconsider my premise that killing innocent people is fundamentally wrong, always.”
With respect, Tom, that’s because you are an American, and the last time I checked Native Americans didn’t strap suicide belts on themselves and maim shoppers at the Mall of America en masse. As such, this issue is strictly academic for you, and you have the luxury of taking what you consider to be a principled position. Isrealis, however, live in the real world and don’t have that luxury.
Comment by Sean P — 1/7/2009 @ 5:38 pm
So I can kill as many members of your family as I want and you will do nothing, so long as I keep one alive and hold him or her in front of me so anything you do strikes them first?
This is, I suppose, useful information.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/7/2009 @ 5:46 pm
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 5:15 pm
“But none of this causes me to reconsider my premise that killing innocent people is fundamentally wrong, always.”
Comment by Dana — 1/7/2009 @ 5:47 pm
So I guess that Hamas was acting in a responsible manner when, informed by the residents of a building that IDF had given them 30 minutes warning, Hamas “found” a number of mothers with infants to assemble on the roof of the building.
Probably “coerced” is a better verb.
And “at gunpoint” an appropriate qualifying phrase.
Not that I have any proof of it, mind you.
But it would not surprise me in the least.
In my estimation (Barbarian that I am; I blame it on my partial Russian ancestory), the mothers were Hamas operatives and should have been blown to Hell and Gone. Along with the building.
Comment by Dr. K — 1/7/2009 @ 6:19 pm
Sean P (#32) and others are getting close to describing what ails the likes of Tom. I think there is a certain joy folks like Tom get in setting up impossible “moral” barriers for those who actually deal with real problems. By way of a broad analogy, recent studies have shown that school bullies don’t lack self esteem, they actually have a portion of their brains which responds positively to the suffering of another in their presence. I’m betting that Tom thinks that we, who support Israel’s righteous defense, would be uncomfortable justifying the death of any toddler.
Also, like many, if not most, of the rest of us, Tom probably has not ever had to face danger he had to handle by himself. If so, Tom lacks the experience to empathize. He probably also lacks the ability to sympathize, and compensates for it by trying to convince others that any collateral damage requires paralysis of the righteous.
Comment by Ira — 1/7/2009 @ 7:00 pm
Ira, #36, you have expressed yourself very well. I’ve been thinking about Tom’s comment since he posted and attempted to respond (#34) but was unable to collect my thoughts coherently. You did a much better job.
It seems to me there is a certain convenience to making such a statement in that one is kept from the inner tension and struggle of coming to grips with the realization that killing an innocent while reprehensible and yes, wrong, becomes in this life, necessary. It’s the necessity that causes the internal struggle. It has been necessary throughout history when an enemy has to be put down that innocents would get caught up in the battle and crossfire. And until we shed this mortal coil and are free of the brutal turmoils of this world, it will be an inevitability.
I believe this will remain an impossible moral barrier until it hits home personally. With that though, Tom, in your mind, does necessity ever supercede the moral wrongness?
Comment by Dana — 1/7/2009 @ 7:48 pm
Tom,
All war causes the death of innocents, so the only logical conclusion I can draw from what you’ve said is that you think Israel and the U.S. should disarm. Under your analysis, even self-defense is wrong since it could result in an innocent’s death.
Comment by DRJ — 1/7/2009 @ 7:54 pm
Sean P, you write:
…As such, this issue is strictly academic for you, and you have the luxury of taking what you consider to be a principled position. Isrealis, however, live in the real world and don’t have that luxury.
And what world do you suppose the Palestinians are living in, Sean P? I really do appreciate what you are getting at, and that’s why I am perplexed as to why so many here seem completely unfazed by the suffering of the innocent folks on the other side. Surely all Palestinians can’t be blamed punished because of the actions of their leadership – goodness knows, even here in America approximately 50% of the nation is in vehement disagreement with the actions of the government at any given moment as the last 8 and next 4).
So…why should I be more concerned about “the real world” as it pertains to innocent Israelis than to innocent Palestinians?
Ira @36:
Underneath your awesome display of self-righteousness, you actually seem like a decent guy. But your revered empathy has a hollow ring of hypocrisy when you only offer it to those who suffer on one side of the line.
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 9:00 pm
#38: DRJ, I guess that means war is wrong too. Imagine that…
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 9:04 pm
Thus, you think self-defense and war are both morally wrong. I admire your consistency from a philosophical perspective. I don’t admire your survival instincts.
Comment by DRJ — 1/7/2009 @ 9:42 pm
The problem with Tom is that his stated aversion to the deaths of innocents is, in reality, the approval of the continued slaughter of innocents. Israeli innocents.
He fails entirely to address the firing of rockets by Palestinians into Israel, and treats the current conflagration as though both sides have been militarily active the entire time. As any rational person knows, Israel has only recently responded to the continued rocket attacks. That leaves a great deal of time where Israel did not respond with military force, yet, tellingly, Tom chooses to equate the events.
Interestingly, this contradicts Tom’s own ‘logic’, when he earlier attempts to draw a distinction between the ‘criminal’ actions of a burglar and the situation in Gaza. Unfortunately for him, his worldview makes his own distinction impossible. For example, it would necessarily equate a bank robber and the police in a shootout, since his time independent view negates causal action, and removes the capability to identify actors and reactors, and by extension, criminals and non-criminals. No wonder he’s confused. Or dishonest.
No better illustration of the lethal danger to ‘innocents’ posed by Tom’s worldview is the recent Mumbai attacks, where the responding Indian Sharpshooters were paralyzed by fear due to their inability to be absolutely sure that the targets they sighted were the terrorist killers. This paralysis allowed only 10 terrorists to kill and maim many more innocents than if their movements had been restricted due to aggressive and lethal interference.
Do not let Tom fool you. Whether he knows it or not, his ideas help in the destruction of innocent life.
Comment by Apogee — 1/7/2009 @ 10:50 pm
DRJ, I hold that killing innocent people is always wrong, never justified. However, it is true that we (collectively) sometimes make decisions with noble intent that result in the deaths of innocent people. Our noble intent doesn’t mitigate the moral culpability. Some of such decisions are forced upon us (such as, as you point out, a situation of self defense). In that case, I believe some of the moral responsibility may become abated. But often, there’s more than one option. Since killing innocent people is always wrong, I think that the decisions made should highly prioritize the preservation of innocent lives.
In this case, Israel has been forced into a situation of self-defense. But it has elected to engage in military actions which have resulted in “about 300 [civilians] of the more than 670 Palestinians killed so far,” according to the UN. It seems to me that only way Israel is morally justified in such actions is if it had literally no alternative but to act as it presently does. And I am unconvinced that here, there is no other way in which Israel could sufficiently defend itself.
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 10:55 pm
…As any rational person knows, Israel has only recently responded to the continued rocket attacks…No wonder he’s confused. Or dishonest…
This statement seems unqualified. It appears that the first conflict since the ceasefire occurred back in November. Both sides were involved. More recently, Hamas stepped up its rocket attacks around Christmas, and there was retaliation from IDF forces, documented here.
So should I take a page from your book and assume you are “irrational”? “Confused”? Or simply “dishonest”? I’m guessing, “mistaken”.
(What’s that saying about people who live in glass houses?)
Comment by Tom — 1/7/2009 @ 11:26 pm
Yeah, and they never get anything wrong.
Forget the fact that the UN pretty does whatever it can to screw Israel, or that they wouldn’t know integrity if it bit them on the ass.
And forget the idea that a huge portion of the civilian casualties are a direct result of HAMAS PUTTING THEM IN THE LINE OF FIRE ON PURPOSE!!!
You really can’t be this dense. You simply can’t be. So WWII wasn’t something we should have done, eh?
A shame. I’ll go tell the Jews to go get back in the ovens then. Won’t be but a moment… I’m sure they’ll understand.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/7/2009 @ 11:27 pm
Tom at #43 wrote, “And I am unconvinced that here, there is no other way in which Israel could sufficiently defend itself.”
OK, Tom, what do you mean by the term “sufficiently defend itself?
And, what “other way” would you guarantee would work? I say “guarantee” because YOU are the one suggesting that there is another way of dealing with a people who appear to condone the attacks on Israel and actually elected as its leaders the terrorist group whose oft-stated agenda is to make the country of Israel merely a thing of memory.
Comment by Ira — 1/7/2009 @ 11:40 pm
Tom – at the risk of reductio ad absurdum, by your logic, you believe that the governmental madating of the wearing of seatbelts is wrong, since it inevitably leads to the death of true innocents … our society considers that, since so many more lives are saved by the wearing of seatbelts than are taken as a result of forcing people to wear seatbelts, we can require seatbelts to be worn …
How else are we supposed to take your
? {my emphasis, Tom’s quote}
By simple arithmetic, if “about 300 [civilians] of the more than 670 Palestinians killed so far,” is accurate, more than half of those killed have been NON-civilians … with the Hamas (and sympathising terrorist) rocket and mortar and homicide bomber attacks, what percentage of those killed by those rockets and mortar and homicide bomber attacks have been civilian versus non-civilian ?
Seems to me that honest folk can tell the difference, Tom …
You may be honestly concerned – but I cannot tell that from your writings … I would find it much easier to believe in your sincerity if you had managed to suggest, realistically, how better Israel can/could respond to the ongoing rocket and mortar attacks …
Comment by Alasdair — 1/7/2009 @ 11:52 pm
Tom – from your November NYT article:
The truce has largely held so far, despite some sporadic rocket and mortar fire by Gaza renegades and complaints from Hamas that Israel has not gone far enough in easing the economic embargo on the area.
Sporadic? How about this?
-The year 2008 saw a dramatic increase in the extent of HAMAS rocket fire and mortar attacks on Israel, with a total of 3,278 rockets and mortar shells landingin Israeli territory (1,750 rockets and 1,528 mortar shells). These numbers are double those of 2007 and 2006, years which marked a five-fold increase over prior years. There was also a significant increase in the number of Israeli residents exposed to rocket fire. Prior to 2008, the city of Sderot (about 20,000 residents) as well as villages around the Gaza Strip were the main targets of rocket fire and mortar shelling. In 2008, the cities of Ashkelon and Netivot came under attack by Grad artillery rockets with a range of about 20 kilometers.
And your December article:
JERUSALEM — Palestinian militants from Gaza increased the range and intensity of their rocket fire against Israel on Wednesday as the Israeli security cabinet considered options that included broader military action or efforts to renew a truce that recently expired.
One militant from Hamas, the Islamic group that controls Gaza, was killed in an Israeli airstrike in southern Gaza on Wednesday evening. The Israeli military said that it had attacked a squad that had earlier fired mortar shells at Israel.
More than 60 rockets and mortar shells were fired at southern Israel by the afternoon, the Israeli military said.
The article goes on to talk of preparing public opinion abroad for possible military retaliation.
In both of your examples, the NYT points out that Israel was reacting to acts of war from Hamas by targeting Hamas members. Your equation of the two events proves the point of my post, that you cannot differentiate between actors and reactors. If you do indeed value the lives of innocents, then you ‘must’ condemn Hamas, as they continue to instigate violent attacks aimed at civilians. Your own articles point out that Israel’s retaliations did not kill innocent civilians, but instead targeted aggressors.
It is you who are confused.
Comment by Apogee — 1/7/2009 @ 11:55 pm
Oh, and DRJ – #41 – I can bet you that Tom’s ‘consistency’ breaks down pretty fast when it’s his ass that’s threatened.
Comment by Apogee — 1/8/2009 @ 12:05 am
Scott, it’d be easier for me to understand your e-yelling if you’d throw out a source now and then. What’s the “huge portion” of Palestinian civilians who are dying at the hands of Hamas? are you referring to? Oh, and since the UN can’t be trusted at all, what numbers do you think are true?
(Oh, and fyi, I really don’t think you should tell any Jews to get back in the oven. They’d probably find that offensive.)
Ira, thank God, it’s not up to me. Believe it or not, I actually have no expertise in foreign policy (I know that comes as a major surprise to all of you). About all I can do is the same as most everybody else here, really: sit on my ass and call it as I see it. And what I see is a hell of a lot of innocent people being killed, overwhelmingly on one side of the border, at the hands of the other side. That’s what’s left when you strip away the non-justifications.
Comment by Tom — 1/8/2009 @ 12:11 am
Goodnight, all. Thank you for challenging my thinking, especially those who did so sans personal attacks. It is indeed helpful to have smarter folks than I point out the problems in my reasoning. Collectively, you have raised more than I can respond to at this time. But it’s very useful to go through the process of articulating what I think and why. I probably won’t be back to respond from this point, fwiw, but it won’t be for lack of interest. Peace.
Comment by Tom — 1/8/2009 @ 12:27 am
Tom, at #31…
You have decided that you will commit suicide rather than defend yourself.
I simply believe my right to live is worth more to me than that. While I will not start the war or deliberately kill in an action, I will defend myself, and if you die in that action, the fault lies in those who choose to attack me. And, if I warn you that I am coming, and you choose to stay, or are forced to stay, the fault in both of those actions lie in others, not in me.
Comment by reff — 1/8/2009 @ 8:56 am
Tom,
Did you ever stop to think that your poor reasoning and flawed premises are not worth any other answer than a personal verbal assault aimed at you?
Comment by PCD — 1/8/2009 @ 9:26 am
To be fair, I don’t think he personally attacked anyone, so regardless as to whether I or anyone else might agree or disagree with his stance, no one should personally attack him.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/8/2009 @ 9:41 am