Hate begets Hate: "Scholar" says Palestinian civilians are legimate targets because they voted in Hamas

[laughing dog]

Yes folks, hate begets hatred and stupidity. NYU professor writes in a WSJ op-ed piece:

On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.

(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/thane_rosenbaum_s_wall_street_journal_op_ed_this_new_york_university_professor.html).

Apparently, he thinks smart bombs can distinguish between Hamas and non-Hamas voters. As the Slate piece points out, it mirrors Bin Laden's "logic" on why US citizens are legitimate targets.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wasn't that 7 or more years ago? The whole Hamas election was an absolute cluster as all three players, Western nations, Israel refused to deal with Hamas and Hamas continued acting like dicks and didn't understand there are diplomatic issues that must be dealt with if you are going to run a territory. Of course, the western nations did their best to alienate Palestine too, refusing to really recognize the election results.

 

[Underseer]

Yes folks, hate begets hatred and stupidity. NYU professor writes in a WSJ op-ed piece:

On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.

(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/thane_rosenbaum_s_wall_street_journal_op_ed_this_new_york_university_professor.html).

Apparently, he thinks smart bombs can distinguish between Hamas and non-Hamas voters. As the Slate piece points out, it mirrors Bin Laden's "logic" on why US citizens are legitimate targets.

What is illegitimate about this?

Great Muslims scholars use very similar arguments to justify attacking Israeli civilians. It's obvious that both sides of this conflict consider the same logic to be valid, they just don't accept the logic when the arguments are applied to a different conclusion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality check time: Here's the actual editorial.

What he's referring to is the blurred lines between civilian and combatant in Gaza. A home with rockets stored in it is a valid military target. Putting human shields on something doesn't make it not a valid target.

At the very end of the column you can see that he is distinguishing the quasi-combatants from the true civilians:

Surely there are civilians who have been killed in this conflict who have taken every step to distance themselves from this fast-moving war zone, and children whose parents are not card-carrying Hamas loyalists. These are the true innocents of Gaza. It is they for whom our sympathy should be reserved. The impossibility of identifying them, and saving them, is Israel's deepest moral dilemma.

 

[laughing dog]

Reality check time: Here's the actual editorial.

What he's referring to is the blurred lines between civilian and combatant in Gaza. A home with rockets stored in it is a valid military target. Putting human shields on something doesn't make it not a valid target.

At the very end of the column you can see that he is distinguishing the quasi-combatants from the true civilians:

Surely there are civilians who have been killed in this conflict who have taken every step to distance themselves from this fast-moving war zone, and children whose parents are not card-carrying Hamas loyalists. These are the true innocents of Gaza. It is they for whom our sympathy should be reserved. The impossibility of identifying them, and saving them, is Israel's deepest moral dilemma.

Sorry, but he wrote
On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.
which has nothing to do with homes with rockets in them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality check time: Here's the actual editorial.

What he's referring to is the blurred lines between civilian and combatant in Gaza. A home with rockets stored in it is a valid military target. Putting human shields on something doesn't make it not a valid target.

At the very end of the column you can see that he is distinguishing the quasi-combatants from the true civilians:

Sorry, but he wrote
On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.
which has nothing to do with homes with rockets in them.

The main thing they are doing that causes the bombing is storing weapons. They're not putting military offices in people's living rooms. Thus I interpreted "set up shop" as storing rockets.

Fundamentally, though, it comes down to the fact that most that are dying from Israeli weapons are quasi-combatants, not pure civilians. (Short-falling Hamas rounds are another matter, they're generally killing pure civilians.)

 

[laughing dog]

Sorry, but he wrote
On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.
which has nothing to do with homes with rockets in them.

The main thing they are doing that causes the bombing is storing weapons. They're not putting military offices in people's living rooms. Thus I interpreted "set up shop" as storing rockets.

Fundamentally, though, it comes down to the fact that most that are dying from Israeli weapons are quasi-combatants, not pure civilians. (Short-falling Hamas rounds are another matter, they're generally killing pure civilians.)

The OP quote says that the Palestinians willingly made themselves targets because a majority of Palestinians who voted, voted for Hamas. Just so you can understand this, that means that Palestinians who did not vote for Hamas also made themselves targets. That includes everyone who was ineligible or unable to vote, along with those who voted against Hamas. Can you explain how any of your responses in this thread have even tangentially addressed the OP issue?

 

[bilby]

Sorry, but he wrote
On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.
which has nothing to do with homes with rockets in them.

The main thing they are doing that causes the bombing is storing weapons. They're not putting military offices in people's living rooms. Thus I interpreted "set up shop" as storing rockets.

Fundamentally, though, it comes down to the fact that most that are dying from Israeli weapons are quasi-combatants, not pure civilians. (Short-falling Hamas rounds are another matter, they're generally killing pure civilians.)

If storing weapons 'causes bombing', then I presume we can expect the membership of the NRA to be slaughtered by Israeli bombs in short order?

The cause of the bombing is the decision by the people with the bombs to drop them on their chosen targets. In any conflict, the basis for choice of targets is the responsibility of the attacker, not those being attacked.

Saying "We thought there might be a legitimate military target in the area", whether right or wrong, still never brings back to life a single civilian victim.

If you choose to go to war, you must accept that your side will kill innocents. If you can't grasp that simple and undeniable fact, then you have no business making the hard decisions.

Regardless of the questions of legitimacy or righteousness of the actions of the two sides, there is no truth in the idea that every casualty one side causes is a military target. Few adults on either side can claim to be a 'pure' civilian; trying to dehumanise your opponents by claiming that your side alone has 'pure civilians' as casualties is truly despicable.

Every ounce of outrage that you would feel at the death of an Israeli child hit by a Hamas rocket, you should, if you are to claim any moral fibre at all, also feel when you hear of a Gazan child killed by IDF bombs. If you seek to belittle such a death, on either side, then you are truly morally bankrupt.

 

[untermensche]

It's a simply formula.

You brutalize and steal from people and confine them to an apartheid hell-hole until they fight back.

Then you use the fact that they are fighting back to justify further atrocities, even the killing of children.

Works like a charm.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Surely there are civilians who have been killed in this conflict who have taken every step to distance themselves from this fast-moving war zone, and children whose parents are not card-carrying Hamas loyalists

The mention of "children whose parents are not card-carrying Hamas loyalists" reeks of the religious notion of children carrying the sins of their fathers. No matter what age , children of parents being Hamas loyalists are now justified targets. Only children of non Hamas loyalists are real innocent victims. The others, too bad too sad for being born of parents supporting Hamas. Let's not grieve the wounding or death of those children as they got what they deserved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Surely there are civilians who have been killed in this conflict who have taken every step to distance themselves from this fast-moving war zone, and children whose parents are not card-carrying Hamas loyalists

The mention of "children whose parents are not card-carrying Hamas loyalists" reeks of the religious notion of children carrying the sins of their fathers. No matter what age , children of parents being Hamas loyalists are now justified targets. Only children of non Hamas loyalists are real innocent victims. The others, too bad too sad for being born of parents supporting Hamas. Let's not grieve the wounding or death of those children as they got what they deserved.

It's not a matter of sins of the father, but rather the father putting the kids in danger.

 

[Togo]

It's a matter of the author arguing that because someone voted for Hamas, it's legitimate to murder their children.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a matter of the author arguing that because someone voted for Hamas, it's legitimate to murder their children.

Note that there are many other factors besides simply voting for Hamas.

 

[bilby]

It's a matter of the author arguing that because someone voted for Hamas, it's legitimate to murder their children.

Note that there are many other factors besides simply voting for Hamas.

So tell us; what 'factors' are needed for you to decide that it is OK to murder somebody's children, Loren?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note that there are many other factors besides simply voting for Hamas.

So tell us; what 'factors' are needed for you to decide that it is OK to murder somebody's children, Loren?

Conclusion assumed in argument.

The point is that it's their parents that are putting them in harm's way. When a hostage dies it's considered the fault of the hostage taker no matter who actually hit them. Thus, legally, it's Hamas murdering them, not Israel.

 

[laughing dog]

It's a matter of the author arguing that because someone voted for Hamas, it's legitimate to murder their children.

Note that there are many other factors besides simply voting for Hamas.

Not according to the OP quote. Why are you finding it impossible to actually address the OP issue?

- - - Updated - - -

The point is that it's their parents that are putting them in harm's way.

What if their parents did not vote for Hamas?

 

[Arctish]

So tell us; what 'factors' are needed for you to decide that it is OK to murder somebody's children, Loren?

Conclusion assumed in argument.

The point is that it's their parents that are putting them in harm's way. When a hostage dies it's considered the fault of the hostage taker no matter who actually hit them. Thus, legally, it's Hamas murdering them, not Israel.

If we use your reasoning then the parents of the three murdered yeshiva students are responsible for what happened to them. They chose to bring their sons into a war zone. They chose Netanyahu and the Likud Party to be their leaders. It's their fault their boys died because of the choices they made, right?

 

[untermensche]

It's not a matter of sins of the father, but rather the father putting the kids in danger.

Yes of course.

Palestinians are savage animals that don't care about their children.

An inferior race.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Conclusion assumed in argument.

The point is that it's their parents that are putting them in harm's way. When a hostage dies it's considered the fault of the hostage taker no matter who actually hit them. Thus, legally, it's Hamas murdering them, not Israel.

If we use your reasoning then the parents of the three murdered yeshiva students are responsible for what happened to them. They chose to bring their sons into a war zone. They chose Netanyahu and the Likud Party to be their leaders. It's their fault their boys died because of the choices they made, right?

And I suppose you think a mouse and an elephant are the same thing since they're both mammals.

 

[Arctish]

If we use your reasoning then the parents of the three murdered yeshiva students are responsible for what happened to them. They chose to bring their sons into a war zone. They chose Netanyahu and the Likud Party to be their leaders. It's their fault their boys died because of the choices they made, right?

And I suppose you think a mouse and an elephant are the same thing since they're both mammals.

You didn't answer the question. If we use your reasoning then the people responsible for the kidnapping and murder of the 3 yeshiva students are their parents. They chose to bring their sons into a war zone. They chose Netanyahu and the Likud Party to be their leaders. It's their fault their boys died because of the choices they made, right?

If not, then there's something wrong with your reasoning.