I think the question is a deeper one of moral relativity vs. some universal standard. At least in my simple mind, I don't see how one set of wrongs cancels another set of wrongs---I can't understand how somehow increasing human suffering is a good thing, or a necessary thing. At least I'm willing to admit as much.
I'm talking about patterns of behaviour common in occupied people. Do you know that Hamas is not holding trials? Maybe they have kangaroo courts like the Jews did in Warsaw or the French did in WWII or the Norwegians did under Nazi occupation or the "patriots" did under British rule
So then you have no problem with individuals under occupation who cooperate or collaborate with the occupier? If you can find evidence that they are holding trials, then by all means, post it
I'm not currently under occupation, but I assume that if the American people were all rounded up and locked in a large ghetto in Utah, they wouldn't be sitting around peace and love. And anyone within their ranks who cooperated with the outside in exacerbating their situation, like cutting off food water giving away the names of key leaders who need to be eliminated to keep the sheeple under strict control, would not last very long.
Oh, and what about all the Palestinians that Hamas has killed for working for Fatah? The fact is that they will kill anyone who challenges their hold on power, and justify it by calling the victims "collaborators," without any evidence whatsoever. Such a practice should not be accepted by anyone who claims to care about the Palestinians.
It was prefectly obvious and officially acknowledged at the time that the Japanese had not taken up arms against America and were not in rebellion. It was also perfectly obvious that America had not been occupied by Japanese military, nor were the Japanese-Americans the original residents of territory occupied by Americans. The entire situation was completely different. As you may recall, power grids and transportation infrastructure and private dwellings harboring enemy combatants are legitimate missile targets, according to official US and Israeli proclamations and actions. And every young Israeli adult is a combatant, unless they have received special dispensation from their commanders. So if Hamas could only aim their missiles a little better, and hit the town of Sderot on purpose, they would be in the same moral position as the US invading Iraq or Israel invading Gaza and Lebanon and the West Bank and Syria and Gaza and Lebanon and Gaza and so forth would be in, if the US and Israel were actually defending themselves against aggression. But in fact they cannot hit anything, even town sized targets, except by accident. Which is the problem, morally, and why they are condemned by all - their rockets are indiscriminate, not in fact targeting anything in particular, and that is not OK. No, it doesn't. It's mostly a reminder that the scale of the Israeli unacceptable behavior is hugely disproportionate compared with Hamas's. I do come here often, and read the threads, and my contention is that you are inventing a vocabulary and argument that does not exist here. Your confidence in what you cannot demonstrate, and others have denied, is misplaced. The only possibly relevant commonality I have found here is a quarrel with inconsistent definitions of "targeting" of civilians. The common argument here is not an attempt to deny terrorism, but an attempt to show equivalencies in approach and disparities in scale between, say, Israel and Hamas, or the US and the Taliban, regardless of label. By far the most common denial of the "targeting of civilians" around here is the denial by Americans that US tactics and strategies in Iraq do exactly that, on the same criteria as are applied to - say - Iraqi partisans or Hamas rockets. The second most common denial of civilian "targeting" is that of Israel. What you seem to have is a problem acknowledging the conclusions of consistent universal standards, when applied to matters such as the Israeli/Hamas situation.
Did you read the source? There was at least a few cases where Hamas gunmen burst into a house, drug someone into the street, and shot and/or killed them. Personally I can't see how this can be justified.
ice--- I won't address your all of your responses, as I feel my position on the matter should be clear from the previous posts. If it's not, then perhaps it is my fault for obfuscating the matter. Likewise every young Palestinian is a combatant, so what's the difference? How can one claim, honestly, that this argument can't be applied both ways? Again you're trying to justify one wrong on the basis of another---I have tried to make it clear (I think), since the OP, that this doesn't interest me. You and S.A.M. are trying to put the human rights violations of Hamas into context by saying "Well, Israel is even worse, and that's the REAL problem. By comparison, they aren't that bad." This is the position with which I disagree. The two of you do not seem to separate the two issues (i.e. oppression of Palestinians by Israelis, and the human rights violations by Hamas), where I see a pretty clear line. Have I? What part of this makes you think that I haven't tried to apply the same standard to both sides? Depending on how you answer the first part of the post, I'd say you have the same problem.
Interviews by Amnesty International? (I.e. the same people who interviewed the detainees at Guantanamo.)
The idea is that because Israel has universal military conscription, and so can theoretically mobilize (almost) every adult between the ages of 18 and 45, that all Israelis in that category are combatants. Neither Hamas nor Fatah employs ongoing, systematic conscription like that, so the idea is that the only "civilians" in the conflict are Palestinians, and Israeli children/elderly. This is complicated by the fact that the various laws of war that deal with this stuff don't offer any clear guide as to the definition of "combatant." Suffice it to say that I don't find the idea particularly convincing, and it is not difficult to find public statements by Hamas officials where they make explicit distinctions between active IDF forces and Israeli civilians (whom they equivocate with Palestinian civilians). The argument based on universal conscription is employed by Hamas (and its apologists) as a matter of convenience, not principle, when they are addressing audiences that do not buy into the retaliation/terror justification for targetting of Israeli civilians. There are also arguments that Palestinian civilians/civilian infrastructure are legitimate targets, but they are not based on the same idea of all able-bodied Palestinians being subject to conscription. Rather, they're based on the idea that the Palestinian combatants do not sufficiently differentiate themselves from the civilian population (and even do this intentionally). Both of the premises are similar, however, in that they are based in an armed entity unilaterally imposing itself onto the entire population that supports it. I.e., civilians on both sides are denied autonomy of association, and instead are forced to become parties to the conflict.
For that matter, AI is consistently highly critical of Israel, and in particular excoriated them for their conduct in the recent Gaza conflict.
That isn't true, for starters. And I have yet to here any acknowledgment from defenders of Israel that Israel targets civilians, to go with their accusations that Hamas targets civilians. (Israel operating on a much larger scale, of course - hundreds of civilians, not dozens). So if we are willing to agree that neither side "targets civilians", or both do, then we are agreed. No, I am justifying any disparity in attention paid to the much greater wrong. And I am denying that disparity in fact. The far greater scale of wrongdoing by Israel has not received proportionate attention in the US media or this thread and forum. Israel is the aggressor, has been for forty years.
For the first 40 years they tried conventional war and got their ass's handed to them. SAM yes rockets can be aimed, the systems have azmuth and elevation adjustments, and firing tables, and specific targets can be attacked.
So Hamas has a uniformed military? I would hope that any one reading my posts would have read (excuse me, as I post the exact same thing for the third time)
And Hamas could theoretically mobilise almost every Palestinian man, woman and child in their acts of insurgency. Does that make them all combatants? Israel can just shoot every Palestinian down to the last man because they 'might' pick up an AK 47 some time later on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant Note how a combatant must be taking a direct part in hostilities. You aren't a combatant if you might be drafted into armed services some time in the future.
ben: I suppose I distinguish between the man who breaks into the house and the home owner who defends himself when so invaded. In my mind only one of the above has a choice, the other has none
