Originally posted by Maverick
Thrawn,
I have a simple question for you. Are you saying the total impetus for your arguement is to protect civilians at all costs?
No.
Originally posted by Neubob
You're dealing in absolutes and theory, Thrawn.
Yes, this is because I'm trying to refute an absolutist position. Many a time I've seen posted on this board and others the proposition that not targeting civilians is de facto evidence of a group's moral superiority regardless of context. If I can show, without context, that this doesn't necessarily hold true, then perhaps such absolutist positions can be taken out of the dialog. Of course because this is the O'Club, even if I can demostrate my arguement to be valid I would have to keep bumping the thread every two weeks as memories here tend to be incredibly short.
In reality, there is no such thing as 100% inevitablity. There are increased chances of a certain outcome, given a certain action--and in this sense I may even partially agree with you.
You're right, but in most conflict it approches close enough 100% certainty that it might as well be. Someone starts lobbing bombs, missles, shoots enough bullets etc.
And there's another side to that coin. A group says, "We don't target civilians.", but there is no 100% certainty that that statement is true. The group may have that policy. But there is no garuantee that sub-groups or individuals will follow that policy.
However, the element of intent cannot be ignored.
No it can't, but some people do in favour of relying solely on the "targeting" argument.
Nor can be ignored the tendency of certain participants in this conflict to intentionally place their active combatants in dangerous proximity to said civilian enclaves.
This is such a grey area I find it hard to say anything meaningful about it. It's a matter of perspective.
Country A's civil population is attacked by suicide bombers.
Country A deploys infantry amongst it's civil population in order to defend against them.
One could say, they are using the civil population as a human shield. That One would be an *******, but again it's perspective.
Country A is being attacked by Country B that has stated that civilian infrastructure is valid as a military target.
Country A deploys AA weaponry to defend that infrastructre.
Again, are they human shields? It's chicken and the egg time, and depends on who is doing the spinning.
That being said, I believe that placing a valid military target (predicated by the Fourth Protocol of the Geneva Convention) amongst a civil population solely for the purposes of increasing negative public reaction to any valid reprisals is immoral. But good luck proving that it was sole motivator for the placement.
Now, given intent and the habit of using civilians as cover, I think there is a great difference between one side and the other. The mere fact that the Israelis doing the same thing (using civilian concentrations as points of deployment) would be considered laughable given the enemy's intention of harming those very same civilians, speaks volumes about who occupies the moral high-ground.
Using your specific parameters, I would be forced to argee with you.
However, I don't believe the moral highground to be a zero sum concept and I don't subscribe the false dilema that is implicit in some conflicts of having to support one or the other. Certainly not in the Israel versus Hezbollah, Palistinian conflict. Both sides have acted such that they both in my moral ****house.
The fact that one side attacks targets of strategic importance, while the other makes strikes simply to make the news and rally the people into an even more frenzied fervor, soldifies this point. Forget aggressor/defender, it still holds true.
And here I thought you weren't an absolutist.
It isn't inherently moral to attack targets of strategic importance. You have to know what qualifies as strategic importance to the nation or group. In the case you sited, it was of strategic importance to attack the civil population. Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone it but it was still of strategic importance to them. Israel thought it is was of strategic importance to destroy civil infrastucture (in this case homes) of the relatives of suicide bombers. Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone it but it was of strategic importance to them.
As said before, in order to adhere to your theoretical model, the Israelis would be forced to give up. Sadly, in war, when it comes down to us or them, I have yet to see a group of people unanimously say 'us'.
Within my model yes, but I hope I have clarified my intention of it. As you and others have pointed out though it's incredibly narrow. As far as the actual Palistinian/Israeli conflict is concerned, the cycle of violence has turned so many times that it becomes impossible (for me at least) to point at one party or the other and say, "You are the aggressor.". It all depends on where you pick your starting point.
As far as a solution the current problem is concerned...cripes I don't know, but I know where I would start. The border between Lebanon and Israel isn't as controversial as between Israel, the West Bank and Gaza strip. We are definately dealing with two nation states with a recognised boundry. It's only 79Km long. Put a multinational peacekeeping force there. The nature of the issue is so prevalant in the international conscience I would bet that quite a few countries would be willing to pony up. Of course that can only be start, peacekeeping is only useful as long as the parties participate in peacemaking in good faith. This idea has been bandied about so often and seems like such a sideways approach to the problem I'm surprised it hasn't happened.
...see why I try to keep the hill I'm defending small.
