Israeli forces have withdrawn from Gaza after air and ground operations which left at least eight Palestinians dead.
Tanks entered central Gaza on Friday and exchanged fire with militants in the fiercest day's fighting for weeks.
The incursion came after Palestinian militants killed two Israelis at the Nahal Oz fuel terminal on Wednesday.
The head of Gaza's main power plant has warned it will have to halt electricity supplies to some 500,000 people unless Israel resumes fuel shipments there.
Rafiq Maliha said he only had two to three days worth of fuel left to run the plant, which generates about a third of the coastal territory's electricity.
The European Union, which provides fuel to the plant, said it was waiting for approval from the Israeli authorities, who cut supplies after Wednesday's attack.
Civilian casualties
Palestinian witnesses reported seeing several Israeli tanks rolling out of central Gaza, near the Bureij refugee camp, before dawn on Saturday.
The Israeli military later confirmed the operation, which some believed signalled the start of a major offensive, had ended at about 0400 (0100 GMT).
The day's violence started in the early hours of Friday morning when Israeli aircraft killed two militants near the southern town of Khan Younis, Hamas said.
Later, Israel tanks and bulldozers advanced about one kilometre (0.6 miles) over the Israel-Gaza border near Bureij, drawing heavy fire from local militants armed with anti-tank missiles, mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades.
Two Palestinian boys aged 12 and 13, two 17-year-old teenagers, and a 19-year-old were killed by air strikes and tank fire in the area, Palestinian medics said.
More than a dozen other people were injured. There were no Israeli casualties.
An Israeli air strike overnight killed a Hamas militant in central Gaza.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has vowed to strike at the Islamist movement so that it will be "no longer able to act against Israeli citizens".
Mr Olmert said Israel would pursue a dual policy of hitting Hamas and "serious and responsible negotiations that can lead us to agreements" with the rival Fatah movement, led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Hamas seized control of Gaza last June after routing Fatah. Mr Abbas now heads a Western-backed administration in the West Bank.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7344385.stm
We have covered this before; really nothing has changed in the past few months. I just wish to point out that while Hamas' terrorist activities are certainly repugnant, Israel's response only makes the situation worse. How many Israelis were killed in recent weeks? How many Palestinians? Israeli should defend itself, but when its defense results in a death count of 5:1, it seems unjust. Condemn Hamas all you like. When Israel is seen as just as guilty as Hamas there will be some balance. Sadly, Israel is seen as legit in its attacks and Hamas is a terrorist group even though the attacks are pretty similar in terms of civilian casualties (though Israel is efficient enough to cause on average more deaths). I am not advocating Hamas' cause; I would just appreciate equal blame for Israel.
24 comments:
Well, the whole point of any anti-terrorist or counter-insurgency operation is to make the cost for committing an act of aggression so high, that you'll think twice before doing it again.
The problem is, I don't think there's any cost too high for Hamas. They just don't care. As far as they are concerned, any Palestinian killed as a result of Israeli retaliation becomes a martyr in paradise... So really, what is lost?
Israel doesn't take as much blame as Hamas because for the most part, Hamas purposely attacks civilian targets who cannot defend themselves. Israel counter-attacks with the intent of attacking Hamas gunmen and the organization's infrastructure (and quite often, innocent people die as a consequence, because Hamas is camouflaged amongst a civilian population).
So who committed the greater evil: The guy who randomly shoots two people at the grocery store, or the security guard who fires back, but accidentily kills two innocent people as a result?
So as far as evils go by most any measure, Hamas' are still the greater.
I think your analogy is proportionally inaccurate. To be fair, the security guard in your scenario would have taken an uzi and killed everyone in the produce section to get at the gunman.
I think Hamas' tactics and very existence is deplorable. They are monsters in any way you slice it. No excuses for them or their murders.
On the other hand, Israel levels homes and shoots missiles at people coming home from worship and are willing to kill all the people in a certain area to be sure to hit the militants. No excuses for them or their murders.
Someone has to eventually be the governmental/organizational equivalent of an "adult" in this and talk. Or else everyone continues to suffer.
I disagree with you concept of counterinsurgency. The intent should be to identify and eliminate the insurgents. If the intent is to raise the cost above what the insurgents can bear and the strategy is to penalize the civilian population in which they hide, the result is mass human misery that is not justified by the desire to eliminate the insurgency.
Again, I have stated that Israel has a right to defend itself. But to construct another silly analogy to counter Beck's, let's imagine that my house is broken into and my roommate is killed. Assume for a moment the police aren't doing anything or that they have no leads. Now, I know that it is was one of my neighbors of whatever identifiable ethnic group that did it. I ask a few of my neighbors, and all they say they don't know, either because they are protecting the assailant(s) that broke into my house and killed my roommate or because they are under duress and scared for their lives. Let's even say this has happened before, to lots other residents of my neighborhood. Now, would I be justified in burning down nine houses that I think might be inhabited by the assailant(s)? Let's say that by burning them down I do kill the guy(s) I wanted. Is it justified that I killed 3 sleeping children, a pregnant woman, and two other innocent people in the process? Fuck no! Who is then the more evil in this situation? The thug that has robbed and killed people? Or me, the one who responded with a successful, albeit brutal tactic? At the very least I have lowered my morals to that of the assailant and we both deserve scorn and punishment. Both are morally deplorable.
I am not asking anyone to forgive Hamas. I am saying that when Israel responds (repeatedly, consistently) with excessive force that kills scores of innocent people, they deserve to be held accountable. It doesn't matter what Hamas does. That isn't the point. Hamas is evil, fine! That doesn't give Israel license to do whatever it wants in retribution. Wrong is wrong regardless of who does it.
Oh right, and the security guard, thing, yes, he would be as guilty as the assailant. At least in this country, that would likely be considered excessive force and probably negligence on the part of the guard. This is exactly why police officers can't open fire on a crowded street in order to shoot one suspect. When they do, they are lowered to the same level as the criminal.
Right, but as I said, there are degrees of wrong. I'm not saying that killing innocent people while trying to tackle "the bad guys" is right, or even justified.
But on the 0 to 1 Beck Scale of Evil, where 0 is a puppy, and 1 is Hitler and Stalin in Mecha-Shiva formation, Hamas's attacks on civilians ranks around 0.89. (Can't give them the much vaunted 0.9+ because they haven't actually engaged in whole-sale genocide yet)
An Israeli counter attack that kills 3 militants and 8 innocent bystanders ranks at about 0.69. While killing evil people is generally acceptable, doing so knowing that you're probably going to blow up the 11 year old boy across the street is extremly callous. But I can't give it high evil marks because the boy wasn't the target, and would never have actually BEEN an intentional target... but it doesn't bode well for one's humanity when that boy was an acceptable loss for a questionable gain.
Still Evil, but does not outshine Hamas' Evil.
I am uncomfortable quantifying human life in those terms.
"Defense of your people" vs "Terror and Fear": Question is, are you hard-lined Israel or militant Palestinian? Because that would determine which label you put on th other side.
Two points for Beck. Technically, the civilian is not the target of a terrorist attack. The target is the government or its policies. The civilian is the victim (and the instrument). But that is just snobbish definitional splicing.
I understand you point, but I am confused how intentions out weigh results in your puppies to hitler-stalin mechashiva scale. If I get drunk and drive home from the bar and accidentally kill a car full of people is that more or less evil than if I intentionally shoot and kill a person because they took my parking space?
All in all though, if Israel received a proportion of the blame that equaled its score on your scale I would be more than happy.
Reed: From an epistemological point of view, intent is the most important component used to measure the moral and ethical weight of any given action. Not the only one, to be sure, but the most important.
Let's take an extreme action as a case in point: shooting a baby in the head. Is that an evil act? Under most circumstance, I dare say that would be a most dispicable act, most certainly, seething with evil.
What if that baby is known to be the vector for an extraterrestial virus, and the only way to stop the virus from maturing and killing all life on the planet is to kill the host before it can happen?
A silly, extreme, and hypothetical case, of course. But it does illustrate the fact that intent makes all the difference in the world. Killing a baby to save the planet is not as evil as killing a baby just because you can.
In your example, if you drive home drunk and kill a car full of people, that's extreme negligence, absolutely. But did you intend to do harm to anyone? No, I doubt that very seriously. Did you do much harm? Of course. Is that what you wanted? No. That would not make you an evil person. Stupid, yes. Not evil. Well, maybe a LITTLE evil for not regarding the welfare of others... but that is certainly not in the same boat as going out and shooting 7 people at a university because you wanted to make it into the headlines.
While I do see you point, I am still not sure I agree, especially in this case. For one, I just don't know that you can say one thing is more or less evil than another when the result is the same, and both are the result of a fundamental lack of regard for the well being of other human beings. Maybe we just differ on the issue of moral responsibility. In my mind, depraved indifference is equally as bad as the intent to do harm. But that is not something we are likely to resolve. For another, if you want to frame the debate a one of intent, then one could argue, as many Palestinians do, that while they don't necessarily want Hamas to kill Israeli civilians, it is the only tactic they have with which to fight an occupying power that brutalizes their people. So, victimizing civilians isn't the "intent" of the attacks per se, it is a sad result of the evils of asymmetric conflict. If Israel would just stop killing Palestinians and cease the occupation, Hamas would not need to kill Israeli civilians. Does having an explanation for the intent, or the fact that that the intent is not killing civilians but targeting Israeli policies make the result any less evil? I would say no. Just as I would say Israel's depraved disregard for Palestinian civilians during counterinsurgency efforts is not lessened jsut because we explain the intention as primarily to kill terrorists. Intent is a sticky issue. And again, while I do kind of see your point, I don't think the argument stands on very sound footing. Intent is far to easy to construct, and we can never really know what the true intentions of an individual are.
But regardless of what whether or not we can emperically know the true intent behind an individuals action, it is still very much there. And yes, I do believe the results matter. But intent, in my mind, is more important.
Let's say a scientist is working on a method of curing cancer by using a virus as a means of re-programming cells. He is working in a lab using equipment and techniques that are standard in his field of work, using methods and safety procedures approved by his peers and the scientific community.
Unfortunately, one of the viruses this scientist was working on turns out to be extremely deadly, somehow escapes the facility, and kills a million people.
Is this guy evil for creating this virus that killed so many? What seperates this guy from someone who detonates a biological bomb in the middle of a city killing the same number of people?
Intent.
Secondly, I would argue that knowledge of the repurcussions of one's action are imperative for measuring any moral/ethical value.
Even then: Is Albert Einstein evil for the contributions he made to developing the atom bomb? He knew it was going to be a weapon. He knew what its destructive capability was. He knew we intended to use it to end the war.
The measure of moral culpability is an issue that has been argued and calculated and deconstructed and rehashed for as long as people have thought about it.
And much of it has to do with how one defines evil. And the definition continues to change as society evolves. If we're using different definitions, then we're not likely to converge on what constitutes a "more evil" or "less evil" act.
But that's a good topic for discussion:
What is your definition of evil? What constitutes an evil act?
Israel's intent was to kill though (with little care about innocent loss of life). I don't understand how your scientist example applies.
And btw guys, all these hypothetical analogies are getting ridiculous when we are talking about real world cost of innocent lives.
And on the problem of evil. I literally spent a year asking people what their definition of evil was. It is very problematic. Varied ideas and varied opinions sculpted by religion, ethics, philosophy. Of course, if that is the new topic, let's start fresh in a new entry.
Hypothetical analogies are a tool with which one constructs a rhetorical example that illustrates a point, particularly when it it isn't easy to clearly define the parameters of an argument within the confines of the subject matter. Sometimes, the objectivity of an external, hypothetical (if implausible) scenario is necessary to illustrate that point.
And measuring Albert Einstein's culpability in the deaths of millions of innocent Japanese people is most certainly a real-world issue, and is most certainly not silly.
The world is not black & white. Neither should our definitions of good and evil be. And given that consideration, I cannot hold the moral depravity of an Israeli strike against Hamas militants to the same level of that of a Hamas bombing of an Israeli bus.
I am not a complete idiot. I do understand the purpose of analogies. My point was that analogy after analogy not only proves nothing (because for each one you give, Reed could give one on the other side), it also loses track of the topic at hand. In my High School debate class, both of you would have lost like a full letter grade for the continued use of non-related information without factual standing or direct relevance to the topic. Just saying that in all the analogies it seems you guys had lost track of the actual discussion.
Perhaps rather than an "What is Evil" entry, we should do a "Dueling Analogies" entry? :-P
But, if you two want to duel on the analogy front... please do go right ahead, I won't say another word about it. Again... :-P
OMG Good!!1! Mind your own bees-wax!!
Or should I say: Let's hypothetically assume there's this blog soemwhere on Al Gore's interweb where these three awesome cats hold open discussions on various political topics. Now, one dood is like "OMG quit using analogies!"
"WTF? Why?"
"Because I am totally unable to formulate a plausible argument against them! I cannot withstand your crushing grip of reason!!"
"I know".
Your intent, Pope, to sink our enthusiasm with your analogophobic rhetoric has, sadly, earned you 0.1 points on the Hitler-Stalin MechaShiva Scale of Evil. Keep it up, buddy.
There should probably be an additional modifier given that that was his intent. Or were you including that already, Beck? Not that I agree with that argument. You are still wrong. But if we were to hypothetically assume that I underwent some type of Bruce Banner-esque mass exposure to radiation but instead of growing big and green and angry lost about 35 IQ points, built an alter to Ronald Reagan, and started feeling really scared a brown skinned people, then I might agree with your whole intention argument. And so if I had in fact absorbed an atomic blast and had, hypothetically, become a xenophobic Reaganaut, then I would suggest that you might want to push that score up little up since Pope obviously acted with the intent of quashing analogies and hypothetical.
But since none of those things have happened (yet), I guess I could hypothetically see Pope's point as well. ;>
Umm, I should probably say I was not intending to call Beck a xenophobic Reaganaut...just a Reaganaut. It was a hypothetical...about me. Becoming a hulk-like conservative. Like if Lou Dobbs ingested mutagen. "Dobbs smash! Dobbs deport illegals!"
Ok, those analogies I like a lot better :-D Though I am disappointed in my low score on the Hitler-Stalin MechaShiva Scale of Evil :-( What do I need to do... kill a rabbi? eat a baby? rape a goat? pull a few strands of Osama Bin Laden's pubic hair out from my teeth? I really wanna get to at least .8 !!!
Well, unfortunately, squishing analogies, even those as beautifully crafted as Reed's Xenophobic Reaganaut (Marvel Fighters 1985: "Reaganaut PUNCH!"), falls pretty low on the overall scale of evil. Somewhere under "hurting someone's feelings" and "placing boogers under someone else's car seat" (or, if you're a true blooded liberal, "killing babies with a coat hanger").
To score higher, you're likely going to have to do something a little more ruthless, like become a spam email hub for viagra solicitations.
Actually we would think killing babies with a coat hanger is pretty freaking evil because it places the life, mental state, and future reproductive well being of the mother at extreme risk. Abortions conducted in a suitable medical environment by a qualified profession and with access to appropriate post-surgery counseling is another story. But still, despite my ability to address the relative evils of abortion, I am uncomfortable with making such light of it that I would compare it to buggers under a car seat.
And I should mention I can't take full credit for the Reaganauts thing--I believe Gorefiend deserves some substantial credit for that.
Alrighty then, in all fairness, I revise my statement:
(or, if you're a true blooded liberal, "killing babies in a suitable medical environment by a qualified profession and with access to appropriate post-surgery counseling")
And don't lie. You and I both know that boogers under the car seat are a pretty serious affair. And anyone caught doing so is probably due some miniscule level of physical violence from the owner of said vehicle. Mostly likely applied the arm, or the shank of the leg.
An interesting thing just occurred to me. This debate about "intent", as well as the discussion Beck and I have been having off-blog reminds of a series of argument I had with my ex-girlfriend about the the evils of many Communist-socialist regimes. Bear with me (and BEck will not like this), but it occurs to me that she took the same line of argument as does Beck. That is, in these arguments I was arguing for why all countries should be held to same standard and you shouldn't let some off the hook because you might agree with their political philosophies. In her case, I argued that just because you are a self-styled communist doesn't mean you should be any less critical of Mao for killing 30,000,000 people or Castro for imprisoning dissidents. Her argument was 1) to point out how bad many capitalist regimes have been, namely the US (which was clearly beside the point), and 2) to argue that the intent of Mao and Castro (and other communist leaders) was to liberate the people but that the presence of internal resistance and military, economic, political pressure from the West (again namely the US) had forced communist regimes to be more brutal than they would have liked. That is, the US embargo against Cuba has caused dissent and made life hard for Cubans, so Castro has to suppress "US-instigated dissent" (otherwise it might be a socialist utopia). And Mao faced internal dissent as well as external pressure from a US embargo in the 1950s and from US-backed Nationalist China that forced him to use a heavy hand...to the tune of hundreds of thousands of deaths (of and there was something about drought as well...I forget).
To these arguments I say poppycock! But the point is, this is a similar argument to Beck's in the sense that we could argue that the intentions of these regimes (or the context in which they occurred) might excuse some of their behaviors. The problem with is line of argument as I see it is that we then allow our existing political preferences and ideologies to cloud or perceptions of intent and so let us excuse or explain away the bad behaviors of the guys we already like while still condemning outright the same behaviors of the groups we already disagree with. Either way, it is not then about the outcome or the intent but about finding ways to justify the actions of the those we already support.
Now, I would actually disagree with that line of reasoning. If for no other reason, than because you assert that I would agree.
:D
No, seriously: Intent *is* fundamentally important. And so is the outcome. And some immeasurable amount is going to involve a certain amount of personal bias over what means justify what ends.
Turned out Mao's intent, at least the collective intent of his followers, wasn't just liberation. It was (as it is with many communist revolutions) the seeking of vengeance against those they saw as Bourgeois; the businessmen, the academics, the artists, anyone of higher status seen to be a part of the social mechanisms oppressing the under class. This willful disregard, this zeal for new found power and influence, resulted in a lot of innocent people being killed, imprisoned, or tortured, for no other reason than their occupation.
And Mao encouraged it, because he believed it was necessary to cleanse society of these elements so they could be rebuilt anew. Well, the intent there is no more moral than killing your children so you can have new ones that will actually obey you and be well behaved.
(OMG an anology! Don't tell beastman!)
If you want to get into it, Mao's intent and the intent of most early 20th century Cold War regimes was to create a new society based on some set of Marxist-derived principles. The out come was, in many cases, genocide. And personal vengeance certainly played a role in some cases, as it always does in civil wars. But the reason intellectuals and the wealthy were targeted was because they represented resistance to the new order or symbols of the old order that the communists wanted to depose. That they were wholesale killed or persecuted is still despicable, but there was a clear intent. If you are interested, Benjamin Valentino (2004) discusses this in his recent book on genocide.
The argument has moved on to "political intent" now. The Mao point is just as much example as analogy. I got zero problem with that... see it is actually about the discussion, it has relevance. It sure is a hell of a lot better than viruses and security guards and pregnant women. See the difference?
Post a Comment