Israel makes effort to minimize civilian casualties. Palestinians strive for civilian casualties.
These people and their sympathizers are not understandable to me. Please note, I'm not arguing here for or against the war happening there, I'm stating that I don't understand how clear minded people can confuse the nature of the combatants.
Technorati Tags: current events
3 comments:
Can you explain then Rick, how the Israeli's sought to "minimize civilian casualties" in their attacks on Lebanese villages, where the civillian death toll from Israeli attacks was approximately 4 times the number from Hezbollah attacks.
Palestinian terrorists are in the wrong. I firmly believe that. But if you kill civilians, it's hard to comprehend being indignant at being labelled a terrorist. It's becoming very difficult to read Israeli comments about "minimizing casualties" as anything less than lip service, when the sheer numbers of civilians dying as a result of Israeli attacks just don't add up.
Geoff - "if you kill civilians, it's hard to comprehend being indignant at being labelled a terrorist." My post wasn't to pick a side on the war but rather to point out that there is a difference between the sides.
First, war is about killing people and breaking things. I'm not promoting it. Whenever that is happening to any real degree, bystanders will be hurt. It's not good but it is the nature of the thing. I'm amazed that some people think that we could have a war without this.
Second, the tactics of war are arguable. Other examples would be the carpet bombing of Germany and the atomic bombings during WWII. Again, I'm not defending these choices.
I personally struggle to know to what extent one should go when engaged in a physical struggle such as war.
Additionally, within war, there always seem to be those that commit atrocities that are not the intent of the governments they represent.
But all of that aside, while I cannot explain every action, I see the governments of Israel, the US, etc. as doing much more than "lip service" and more importantly, I know which I would surrender to.
There is example after example of manipulated media on the side of Hezbollah. Examples of them killing their own people intentionally. They target innocents nearly always. They torture at a level very different than whatever is happening to the prisoners taken by the US. Etc...
This has been true throughout modern history. If that isn't obvious, then ask yourself who people prefer to surrender to.
We may agree that the US, Israel, whoever is wrong. That may be on specific acts during the war, to the overall motives, etc. but if you cannot distinguish between the nature of these combatants, then we do not agree.
I'm not picking sides (although I have one), I'm pointing out that only one side is exercising some sense of moral value - even if that is poorly done.
OK, I take your point that there is a difference between the two sides. I have to agree, there is little doubt that there is a massive difference. I guess my big concern is that the logic used to justify Israeli (and to a lesser extent US) action comes from a comparison with their opposition. A war on terror is by definition, a war against terrorist organisations. I expect terrorist organisations to act as terrorists. But I would expect sovereign states to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Post a Comment