Comments on: Slater: Gaza War in Light of Just War Theory

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:40:11 +0000

We have only the word of the IDF as to what happened, what they attacked & why. They unfortunately don’t have a very good record regarding such claims & in fact lie more often than not if it’s convenient, so I’d prefer not to believe them or Amir until either can present proof of the truth of their statements.

By: amir

amir — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:58:52 +0000

Nobody ever claimed the tunnel was built into Israel. It’s a getaway tunnel for smuggling the kidnapped soldier away before IDF forces can figure out what happened. That’s how they got Shalit. It was built as part of a plan for kidnapping a soldier. What’s a defensive tunnel which leads to the fence seperating Gaza from Israel? Use common sense folks. Hamas has already kidnapped an Israeli soldier and it only makes sense that what was effective once would work again. If the leftist readers of this blog want to bury their head in the sand about the true nature of Hamas and this conflict, it’s their right to do so. Thankfully the majority of Israeli citizens (as shown in the last election) haven’t done so.

By: Peter D

Peter D — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:49:38 +0000

All right, LD, I looked at the links you provided. They don’t really help resolve the issue of the Nov 4 tunnel a bit. I doubt Carter has any more information on this than you and I, and if he does he’ll do well to make it public. The defensive tunnels mentioned in another link are, from what I understood, well inside Gaza strip. The tunnel that Israel claimed to destroy on Nov 4 was 250m from the fence. Does it mean it was built for infiltration? Not necessarily. But we don’t really have info to the contrary either. So, stating unequivocally that it was not meant for infiltration has, with info that we possess, about the same credibility is stating that it was.
I think it is quite reasonable to assume that it was built for infiltration, even though not necessarily immediate, but rather to be used in unspecified point in the future. Israel used the American elections to destroy the tunnel in what looks to me as a provocation. I repeat, this is all speculation.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:00:42 +0000

If Hamas was building tunnels under the border of Israel, that would be a violation of the cease-fire.

You don’t know if that is not true with any certainty. I don’t know.

It is true that following the skirmishes in early November, the cease-fire norm was restored, which can ONLY be ascribed to mutual consent.

It is true that on the day prior to the formal cease-fire ending, Hamas allowed other militias to shell Israel. And, it is true that Hamas itself resumed shelling Sderot, Ashkelon, and later Ashdod and Beersheba (to prove that it could), prior to Israeli military response, and with incrementally serious verbal warning that resumption of shelling would be interpreted as INTENTION to return to a state of war.

And, that Israel would not initiate fire, if Hamas restrained from initiating fire.

Hamas made a decision, reported to be a heated one, with a great deal of dissension with the elder (thirties and fourties) social service and religious preferring restoring the cease-fire and testing what happens, and the younger and political preferring impatience and “heroic” shelling.

I personally cannot lie that I regard Israel as evil, or that I regard Hamas’ wing that undertakes unilateral shelling of Israeli civilians as right or accurate.

Their history of gruesome intentional murders of civilians is not forgettable.

That you could, without any teshuvah on their part, is extremely upsetting.

Its why I contest that your use of the term “tikkun olam” is a good standard, a good goal, that you’ve abandoned to anger at a side.

Have you ever seen the film “The Mission”? A group of Jesuits set up a mission for indigenous tribes in an environ of Spanish and Portuguese slave capture of Indians and territorial fight between colonial Spain, Portugal and the church. The missionaries rationally sympathized with the Indians. The junior missionaries took up arms to protect the Indians. The lead missionary did not.

The appeal of the junior missionaries’ sentiment (including Robert de Niro’s and Liam Neeson’s) was compelling, but was obviously a capitulation to resentment compared to the witness of Jeremy Irons’ real martyrdom (not the murdering flavor).

The Indians did not engage in shelling of European settlements.

Neither the militant, nor the martyring approach succeeded in keeping the land-greedy Spanish and Portuguese from their objective.

Are you sticking to tikkun, or are you using the term as a brand?

Reconciliation is delayed by war.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:30:16 +0000

its intention to remove Israel as Israel from the map.

Would you care to prove this claim from any current senior Hamas leader? You can’t. And advocating a one-state solution is NOT “removing Israel as Israel from the map.” You’re claiming Hamas wishes to physically destroy the state of Israel. Now prove it. And don’t bring up a 30 yr old Charter that no one in Hamas even knows exists except via the shreying of MEMRI & other anti-Palestinian propagandists.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:27:26 +0000

You’re confusing the distinction between closing a border crossing so that your citizens may not enter a neighboring country and that country’s citizens may not enter yours; and a siege. No nation is allowed to lay siege to another unless there are active hostilities and a state of war. And even then they may not punish civilians. The siege is a violation of international law. Witty, you are pathetic. But like a masochist I secretly think you enjoy the battering you take here.

By: Miles Stuart

Miles Stuart — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:05:50 +0000

Enough!
From what little I have read of Slater’s paper it deserves a more elevated debate than we have given it here.

By: Miles Stuart

Miles Stuart — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:26:40 +0000

Whether or not lifting the blockade was part of the cease fire it is indisputably ILLEGAL. In fact it is a specific breach of Article 33 of Geneva IV, WHICH YOU SHOULD READ at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600038?OpenDocument. If you read it you will see it is a startlingly accurate description of Israel’s modus operandi. While you are there have a look at Arts 146 and 147. These are incorporated into the DOMESTIC law of every country you can name including the United States. When you’ve looked at 147 remember that those committing or commissioning these acts bear PERSONAL responsibility. I strongly recommend those Israelis involved in any of these to do any travelling soon, because at some time, I hope sooner rather than later, they’re not going to be able to travel anywhere except the US, Marshall Islands and Pilau.
Hamas or any other Palestinian should have had to do NOTHING to get the blockade lifted. It is the responsibility of everyone, including you, to see that it is lifted. I think you have no idea whatsoever of the degree of anger and disgust it causes. That was before the last round of Israeli barbarism. Millions and millions of people died to end tyranny and build a civilised world. What have we done with all the conventions, treaties and laws we put in place to accomplish this? We comprehensively ignore them to accommodate Israel. The whole Western world has acted and continues to act with the most craven hypocrisy. Western hypocrisy is not Israel’s fault, but you should have no illusions about how angry people are at the moral cost of acquiescing to Israel’s barbarity.
What astounds me is that Hamas were clearly intent on not only scrupulously observing the cease fire, but imposing it on all the other groups in Gaza, even when it was blindingly obvious that Israel had no intention whatsoever of meeting the ceasefire conditions, let alone the more stringent requirements of the law. Please someone tell me how the **** we ended up supporting sanctions on the victims and rewarding their oppressors?
“Hamas undertook gruesome murderous assaults on entirely innocent civilians over a 15 year period, with absolutely no pretension even that they were valid military targets”. Well, they’ve got another several decades to go to match Israel then! However, you are correct in implying that Israel does attempt to maintain a pretension that it attacks valid military targets.