Journalists Are Dodging Rockets and Online Attacks as Gaza Crumbles, by VICE

[DanG 1]

Quote

If we're going to try to continue to use our law to describe this, it's the equivalent to two guys getting in a fight years ago, one guy bringing back a gun and shooting it at the other, and trying to claim Stand Your Ground as a legal defense.

Sure, but add in that the neighborhood HOA declared that the shooter had to live in a shed in the other guy's backyard, and the other guy prevented him from leaving, rationed and controlled the food, clothing, and medical supplies he had access to, and kept taking little parts of the shed away because God said to.

I'm not defending Hamas, but it's not like Israel isn't intimately involved in everything that happens to the people of Gaza.

- Dan G

[Amazon 7]

DanG

Quote

If we're going to try to continue to use our law to describe this, it's the equivalent to two guys getting in a fight years ago, one guy bringing back a gun and shooting it at the other, and trying to claim Stand Your Ground as a legal defense.

Sure, but add in that the neighborhood HOA declared that the shooter had to live in a shed in the other guy's backyard, and the other guy prevented him from leaving, rationed and controlled the food, clothing, and medical supplies he had access to, and kept taking little parts of the shed away because God said to.

I'm not defending Hamas, but it's not like Israel isn't intimately involved in everything that happens to the people of Gaza.

Want to bet if Hamas actually made peace with Israel instead of declaring they will murder all jews and destroy Israel as they currently do, the measures the IDF uses to protect themselves would go away??

[rehmwa 2]

Andy9o8

A partial response is that historically, laws generally tend to codify society's moral standards.
I don't have a complete response that works for me.

I agree, as long as you put the word "generally" in there. And that would be appropriate and align with a system of laws relatively simple to understand and enforce.

But it seems that we have a lot of laws that are pretty random and not aligned with anything of the sort. Seems the more "nuanced" the law, the more capricious the actual result and intent - if not outright biased and wrong.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,391]

> as a matter of legality, the criminal would be legally guilty of Felony Murder, and
> you would probably not be legally guilty of any crime.

Agreed. But in actual fact (not with any legalities associated with it) I shot his kid.

[falxori 0]

Quote

Agreed. But in actual fact (not with any legalities associated with it) I shot his kid.

Yes, and you would feel aweful about it and you will be mad as hell that you were put in this no win situation.
but if the choice is between risking that kid or risking your own kid who will be shot if you don't remove the threat, you would have made the right choice

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[jtiflyer 0]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aa6_1407249013

anybody else seen this video? Rockets being set up right outside the reporters hotel window.

[billvon 2,391]

>but if the choice is between risking that kid or risking your own kid who will be
>shot if you don't remove the threat, you would have made the right choice

Right. Now let's say that guy's brother sees what's going on. He doesn't see the beginning of the shooting, but he sees me shooting at his brother. So he shoots and me and kills my kid. Now he's going to feel the same way - he might feel bad but he's not in the wrong, he's just defending his brother, he is completely justified.

Now should I think "oh, gee, that's OK, completely understandable, no hard feelings?" Probably not. I am going to start shooting at him as well. And if his family sees _that_ . . .

That's been going on between Israel and the Palestinians for over 50 years. Both sides firmly convinced that they are in the right, and both sides convinced that their sometimes-questionable methods are entirely justified in light of what the other side has done. Their justification? The long lists of the dead on both sides.

[falxori 0]

No, not really,
your analogy ignores one simple point. Israel sends it's troops to fight while the civilians stay in the back. Hamas put their civilians (often forcing them) in the front and is shooting from behind them.

So in your analogy, if the brother tries to hit you, then yes, you are a legitimate target for him, if he's trying to hit your kid who is behind (not in front of) you, then no, he's just another terrorist like his brother.

I even found a nice illustration to show the difference...

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[billvon 2,391]

>Israel sends it's troops to fight while the civilians stay in the back.

And they teach their kids to hate Palestinians. And they shoot unarmed teenagers. Neither side is unsullied in this conflict, and it will not end until both sides abandon decades of "they're bad so we are justified in what we do" and "the bad stuff about us is all untrue."

[falxori 0]

Quote

And they teach their kids to hate Palestinians

Absolutely false.
I grew up in Israel and I was not "taught to hate Palestinians", not even close to it.

While the Israeli education system focuses more on the Israeli narrative there is nothing like what you see in official Palestinian text books and children TV shows
case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21dIRCMfnHs

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[billvon 2,391]

>Absolutely false.

In 2006 a photographer captured Israeli schoolchildren writing messages to Palestinian children - on shells yet to be fired at Lebanon. Their parents were with them; they had written the first messages.

It is now 2014 and those children are now adults. How do you think they will see the Palestinians after an experience like that? Teaching that kind of hate guarantees the conflict will continue. Hopefully they will be wiser than that and not do the same to their children.

[falxori 0]

I knew you would bring up this single picture again (as you always do when this topic is raised)

While I agree that that was a poor activity for a school field trip, your interpretation of it is completely off.

If this is the best you can find Vs. a well documented array of hateful official school textbooks and TV shows, it kind of makes my point.

Again, I grew up in Israel and I can name many flaws of the Israeli education system. teaching children to hate and kill was definitely not one of them.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

billvon

>Absolutely false.

In 2006 a photographer captured Israeli schoolchildren writing messages to Palestinian children - on shells yet to be fired at Lebanon. Their parents were with them; they had written the first messages.

It is now 2014 and those children are now adults. How do you think they will see the Palestinians after an experience like that? Teaching that kind of hate guarantees the conflict will continue. Hopefully they will be wiser than that and not do the same to their children.

While I don't doubt the truth of that, I do question that it is widespread.

I can find many pictures of parents in the (US) south "teaching their kids that blacks are inferior."
But the majority of parents don't teach their kids that.

I'd guess it's the same in Israel.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,391]

>I can find many pictures of parents in the (US) south "teaching their kids that
>blacks are inferior. But the majority of parents don't teach their kids that.

Definitely agreed. But again, the majority of Palestinians aren't hiding behind children, either - but we hear a lot about that. The extremists are the problems here, and they are on both sides.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

billvon

>I can find many pictures of parents in the (US) south "teaching their kids that
>blacks are inferior. But the majority of parents don't teach their kids that.

Definitely agreed. But again, the majority of Palestinians aren't hiding behind children, either - but we hear a lot about that. The extremists are the problems here, and they are on both sides.

Again, true to a certain extent.

The "extremist Palestinians hiding behind children" are the ones starting the fight by shooting rockets into Israel.

The "extremist Israelis teaching their children to hate Palestinians" aren't the ones starting the fight.
The Israelis shooting at Palestinians are a lot closer to the "shooting back at someone hiding behind a child" analogy that you and Kelp were arguing about earlier.
As Andy noted, accidentally shooting the kid under those circumstances falls (legally) on the person who started it, not the one shooting back.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,391]

>The "extremist Israelis teaching their children to hate Palestinians" aren't the ones
>starting the fight.

Agreed - but their children will be a lot more likely to continue it.

[normiss 622]

Just like the discussion, it will never end.

[billvon 2,391]

>Just like the discussion, it will never end.

I keep hoping it will, but I don't see how. We have to get to the point where Israel would not fire on Palestine any more than the US government would fire on Chicago, and where the Palestinians would not fire on Israel any more than disgruntled US citizens would fire rockets at the White House. But I don't see how to get there practically. Both sides have gotten too good at coming up with justifications to continue the cycle.

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>Just like the discussion, it will never end.

I keep hoping it will, but I don't see how. We have to get to the point where Israel would not fire on Palestine any more than the US government would fire on Chicago, and where the Palestinians would not fire on Israel any more than disgruntled US citizens would fire rockets at the White House. But I don't see how to get there practically. Both sides have gotten too good at coming up with justifications to continue the cycle.

Here's the difference I see. When Hamas attacks they do so for religious reasons in the name of their religion with the intent to kill Jews.

Israel's attacks/counter attacks,are to stop the attackers/terrorists who just happen to be Muslim.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

>Just like the discussion, it will never end.

I keep hoping it will, but I don't see how. We have to get to the point where Israel would not fire on Palestine any more than the US government would fire on Chicago, and where the Palestinians would not fire on Israel any more than disgruntled US citizens would fire rockets at the White House.

It certainly won't end if you insist on listing the US firing on Chicago first, rather than the gang bangers of Chicago that won't stop shooting. (Though struggling to see how Chicago resembles Gaza in any way)

It will end when Hamas agrees to coexist, or when they are finally deposed from power. No one in their right mind can expect Israel to unilaterally stop defending itself - we've seen on numerous occasions what happens when they do, or when they loosen the restrictions on Gaza.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

It will end when Hamas agrees to coexist, or when they are finally deposed from power. No one in their right mind can expect Israel to unilaterally stop defending itself - we've seen on numerous occasions what happens when they do, or when they loosen the restrictions on Gaza.

It seems to me that what is different this time is that Israel has "Iron Dome", which has been remarkably effective at preventing Hamas missiles from reaching populated areas. Of all the thousands of missiles Hamas has fired in this conflict, how many did any damage or caused casualties? They could be counted on one hand.

In responding with overwhelming force, as they have always done, Israel can argue justification but they play into Hamas' goals. Who thinks that a Palestinian who sees his family killed by an Israeli bomb will tell himself "It isn't Israel I should hate, I should hate Hamas". If I was put in that situation I doubt that I could bring myself to overlook the fact that it was an Israeli bomb that killed my children, at best I'd end up hating both Israel and Hamas equally. That is not a recipe for peace.

The only way to defeat Hamas is by undermining their public support within the Palistinian population. The only way to do that is to show Palestinians that Hamas is the source of their problems regarding the embargo, lack of economic possibilities, freedom to travel, etc.

Instead of responding the same way they always do, given the effectiveness of Iron Dome maybe the Israelis could consider not responding to provocation from Hamas. When they respond, they legitimize Hamas (by treating them as an adversary that needs a response), and inevitably (given the population density of Gaza) they cause civilian casualties that foster anti-Israeli and pro-Hamas sentiment. Imagine instead Hamas firing off thousands of missiles, and Israel just ignoring them (well, other than shooting down the missiles of course). Hamas would waste their stockpile of missiles, and be seen to be no more significant than an annoying little fly to be shooed away. Then Israel could say to the Palestinians "See, this is why we have to block shipments into Gaza. This is why you don't have enough food or medicine, because Hamas uses the opportunity to import missiles not food. Hamas uses concrete to build tunnels, not schools. Get rid of Hamas, stop importing missiles, and we will be able to lift the blockade."

There is no good reason for Israel to believe that tactics that have failed for decades, meeting force with massive, overwhelming force, is not moving the situation towards any hope for lasting peace. As long as Hamas is unable to reach populated areas with their missiles, it is an option for Israel to try another tactic. Military tactics will always win the battle for Israel, but lose the battle for the Palestinian people.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[falxori 0]

A few notes...

Quote

It seems to me that what is different this time is that Israel has "Iron Dome", which has been remarkably effective at preventing Hamas missiles from reaching populated areas. Of all the thousands of missiles Hamas has fired in this conflict, how many did any damage or caused casualties? They could be counted on one hand.

Iron dome is indeed impressive but it's far from perfect so when the sirens go off, you still have 10-15 seconds to run for cover. If anything, it allows Israel to react with less force. Can you imagine the response if hundreds of missiles actually landed on Israeli cities (as they target cities and civilians) causing hundreds of deaths? Saying Israel shouldn't respond and let Hamas fire freely because it has invested in shelters, sirens and Iron Dome doesn't make sense.

Quote

The only way to defeat Hamas is by undermining their public support within the Palistinian population. The only way to do that is to show Palestinians that Hamas is the source of their problems regarding the embargo, lack of economic possibilities, freedom to travel, etc.

Ok, I agree. how exactly do you do that?

Quote

Imagine instead Hamas firing off thousands of missiles, and Israel just ignoring them (well, other than shooting down the missiles of course). Hamas would waste their stockpile of missiles

Good idea in theory but:
a) Hamas will not run out of missiles that quickly as it's being supplied by Iran and others (and they also manufacture the basic ones themselves)
b) an Iron Dome intercepter missile is way more expensive than the Hamas rockets.
c) not responding sends the wrong message. they will keep trying (e.g. the array of terror tunnels crossing into Israel)

Quote

Then Israel could say to the Palestinians "See, this is why we have to block shipments into Gaza. This is why you don't have enough food or medicine, because Hamas uses the opportunity to import missiles not food. Hamas uses concrete to build tunnels, not schools. Get rid of Hamas, stop importing missiles, and we will be able to lift the blockade

But this is exactly what Israel is saying.
Gaza is not a democracy. While Hamas won the elections to Parliment, they overthrew the PA by force. If you try to resist them, you'll get executed.

Not argueing that military action is not the best option. No one in Israel wanted to go into Gaza. People keep saying what Israel shouldn't do. I'll be happy to hear suggestions on what Israel SHOULD do.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[billvon 2,391]

>It certainly won't end if you insist on listing the US firing on Chicago first, rather
>than the gang bangers of Chicago that won't stop shooting.

THAT'S THE POINT. It doesn't matter who "lists" who firing first. What matters is two groups are shooting at each other. I guarantee both will think they are in the right and have dozens of stories of atrocities to back up their claims.

You can make up counter stories all day long, claim the stories painting Chicago in a bad light are all wrong and the stories painting the US in a good light are all 100% correct. Won't stop the fighting.

>No one in their right mind can expect Israel to unilaterally stop defending itself

Nor can anyone in their right mind expect the Palestinians with dead families to just forgive and forget.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Saying Israel shouldn't respond and let Hamas fire freely because it has invested in shelters, sirens and Iron Dome doesn't make sense.

Perhaps. At the same time repeating exactly the same pattern over and over, and expecting that the outcome will somehow be different this time, also doesn't make sense.

Hamas cannot be defeated militarily, without killing off the entire Palestinian population, because they are masters at snatching some shred of victory from the ashes of what any reasonable people would call defeat. When they are beaten on the battlefield, they win support because they are "the little guy who is being picked on by the big Israeli military" (who are backed by the evil Americans of course). When Israel responds to a blatant attack, and civilians also die (which is inevitable considering the population density of Gaza), Israel is seen as the bad guy. One way or the other, whatever Israel does ends up increasing sympathy and Palestinian support for Hamas.

How people feel is not necessarily driven by logic. No matter how solid your justification, Palestinians will always hate you when their children are being killed. The fact that you fired in response to Hamas firing a rocket is one step too removed from the immediate emotional response to seeing your family dead and mutilated, for almost anybody.

Quote

Good idea in theory but:
a) Hamas will not run out of missiles that quickly as it's being supplied by Iran and others (and they also manufacture the basic ones themselves)
b) an Iron Dome intercepter missile is way more expensive than the Hamas rockets.
c) not responding sends the wrong message. they will keep trying (e.g. the array of terror tunnels crossing into Israel)

a) the basic ones they manufacture are notoriously inaccurate. This means that most land in unpopulated areas; only those that happen to head to populated areas need to be shot down. While the Hamas stockpiles are large, I would be surprised if Iran and others would continue to spend a lot of money to supply weapons that have been shown to be quite ineffective.
b) the message we get here is that the US bears most of the cost of supplying the Iron Dome system. Anyway there is no evidence that the Israeli response, firing back at launch sites, has had any effect at reducing the number of rockets Hamas fires. I think it's likely there would be little cost difference on the Iron Dome side of things no matter how Israel responds to the provocation from Hamas.
c) you say not responding sends the wrong message. I say, whatever message you think you are saying is not what Hamas or the Palestinians are hearing. You think you're saying "stop firing missiles at us". They are hearing "Israel wants to kill all Palestinians". When it comes to the Palestinian people you are losing.

Quote

But this is exactly what Israel is saying.

Yes, but the message is being drowned out by the louder message of dead civilians.

"Terror tunnels" designed to let terrorists sneak into Israel must have an opening in Gaza territory and an opening in Israeli territory. Why cannot the opening on the Israeli side be discovered and the tunnels destroyed? Why does Israel have to enter Gaza to find the openings on that side?

Clearly the tit-for-tat stimulus/response model is not working. Clearly keeping the population of Gaza locked up in a small territory with little food, little access to medical care, and an economy so destroyed that 2/3 of the population lives off international aid is not working. When people are desperate they will support anyone who promises them a way out, even if the promise is not credible. Hamas lives, draws its power, from the desperation and suffering of the Palestinian people. Even if there is some risk, Israel needs to cut off the source of Hamas' power. Israel should (in my opinion) stop allowing itself to be manipulated by Hamas. I know this is much easier for me to say from the comfort and safety of the US. I just wish the hatred in the Middle East would stop, because it is poisoning the world.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

>It certainly won't end if you insist on listing the US firing on Chicago first, rather
>than the gang bangers of Chicago that won't stop shooting.

THAT'S THE POINT. It doesn't matter who "lists" who firing first. What matters is two groups are shooting at each other. I guarantee both will think they are in the right and have dozens of stories of atrocities to back up their claims.

Around here, we often hear families protest and complain when their criminal sons are shot dead by cops. You're right - they all think they're in the right and the cops are wrong. The cops all think they're right. Does that mean we're stuck in a stalemate?

Of course not. Outsiders to both parties are perfectly able to objectively evaluate. I'm not Jewish (or religious at all) - I side with them because they've been under attack since their post WWII formation. It used to be extinction level threats, but since they got the bomb it now is just a constant thorn and threat to individual citizens. But it requires their eternal vigilance to keep it there.

I reject your fantasy and substitute in my reality.