Quoting matthawk: ...At what point does Israel's "strategic interest" cross the line and become "state terror" against a civilian population?...

Quoting gwlaw99: video of hamas using UN ambulences as troop transports
http://www.videosift.com/video/Hamas...troop-carriers

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I guess the acid test is whether the Israeli army would behave in such a way, if Israelis were amongst the civilian population?

Quoting JonIrenicus: A moral dilemma was brought up earlier in the log. Essentially is it OK to attack a civilian location to get at terrorists?

Both commentators, and likely many here would say emphatically, no.

My question to you all is one of degree and extent. Is there ever a time when the cost of allowing certain "militants" [...] to escape is worse then striking them? Even if there are civilians in harms way?

Quoting grits-n-gravy: I don’t think we should assume that the State, though it claims to have a monopoly on violence, is the only actor making these kinds of moral calculations. Liberation movement fighters engage in the same kind of calculus. I’m sure Hamas didn’t come to the decision to use questionable asymmetrical tactics lightly. Having said that, the question should be broadened beyond “militants” to include more conventional types of warfare. For example, was it justified to drop an atomic bomb on Japan? I guess my answer to that would depend on whether there was a solid basis to believe substantially more civilian lives would be saved than if an alternate course of action were pursued. While I’d apply the same reasoning to answer your question of militants, I’m not at all comfortable with such utilitarian approaches to sanctioning violence against innocents.

On the morrow of the return of the last Israeli soldier from Gaza, we can determine with certainty that they had all gone out there in vain. This war ended in utter failure for Israel.

This goes beyond the profound moral failure, which is a grave matter in itself, but pertains to its inability to reach its stated goals. In other words, the grief is not complemented by failure. We have gained nothing in this war save hundreds of graves, some of them very small, thousands of maimed people, much destruction and the besmirching of Israel's image.

What seemed like a predestined loss to only a handful of people at the onset of the war will gradually emerge as such to many others, once the victorious trumpeting subsides.

The initial objective of the war was to put an end to the firing of Qassam rockets. This did not cease until the war's last day. It was only achieved after a cease-fire had already been arranged. Defense officials estimate that Hamas still has 1,000 rockets.

The war's second objective, the

Quoting JonIrenicus: I have heard both takes on the atomic bomb droppings on Japan. Some contend that the act was one of absolute malevolence, an illustration of the derangement of the US, then and now. (typical US = evil take)

The other side I have heard is that It saved lives, their contention is that without that tactic, there would have had to be a large ground invasion, involving many more military personnel as well as Japanese civilians fighting, farmers, women, everything.

I am not sure if that is completely true, but for the sake of argument, if it was true that A land invasion would have needed to occur to dethrone the emperor, divinity, then there is a very good chance that many more lives would have been lost.

Here my utilitarian roots come through. I would lean towards the path where the ends justify the means, unless things are too lopsided. In the case of saving more lives, it makes it easy for me to decide. For those uncomfortable making such decisions, then perhaps the more "honorable" tactic could have been followed, killing many, many more people.

That sentiment and sense of right certainly can be expensive. Are tens of thousands of lives worth less

I'd say that the pacifist movement, on the whole, hasn't really grokked the history of Gandhi's successes to quite the same level as virtuosos like King. I'd say that it's not a completely unreasonable point of view, but that the application of the idea is often less than perfect.

I have heard both takes on the atomic bomb droppings on Japan. Some contend that the act was one of absolute malevolence, an illustration of the derangement of the US, then and now. (typical US = evil take)

The other side I have heard is that It saved lives, their contention is that without that tactic, there would have had to be a large ground invasion, involving many more military personnel as well as Japanese civilians fighting, farmers, women, everything.

Quoting JonIrenicus: I am probably failing to convey the sense of disgust some of us find at this type of pacifistic world view, but there it is.

Quoting Francoamerican: You convey your disgust vividly, but it is misplaced. Besides, belligerent midgets are even rarer than midgets.

There may be critics of Israel who are motivated by pacifism (a consistent pacifist would have to condemn Hamas as well), but the vast majority of critics are motivated by (1) disgust at the disproportion of the Israeli response and (2) indignation at the concerted policy of neglect of the underlying problem. In other words, they are not disputing the right of the state of Israel to protect its citizens by force; they are disputing its right to conduct itself outside the norms of international law regarding the treatment of a population in an occupied territory as well as its persistent refusal to come to terms with the Palestinian problem.

The "UN types" you find so contemptible are merely doing their job---acting to bring humanitarian help to a population that is in dire straits. They have no official peacekeeping role.

Quoting Wonderment: This is a warist way of framing the issue: The only choices were nukes or a huge bloody invasion that would have killed more people. The pacifist would argue that the correct course was to resolve the conflict nonviolently.

Was is that automatically off the table?

Quoting Wonderment: How would you say warists and warism has done?

Warism (or militarism) is often linguistically sanitized by its proponents and called "defense," as in the Defense Dept (formerly Dept of War).

Pacifism is often misunderstood as being something passive, but pacifists are much more typically activists who are committed to nonviolent conflict resolution.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Let me put it to you like this, had the population of the Palestinians not been so hostile and antagonistic to Israel, they would already have a state, barricades could easily be nonexistent today

Quoting JonIrenicus: In a similar way, antagonism towards Israel and its existence is certainly in part due to its policies, but that is not enough to explain away all the opposition to Israel, you cannot say that if Israel did X, Y, and Z that the Palestinian population would cheer and be contented, it is not just about a state for some of them, it is about not being able to square the existence of the state of Israel at all. .

Quoting Wonderment: This is a warist way of framing the issue: The only choices were nukes or a huge bloody invasion that would have killed more people. The pacifist would argue that the correct course was to resolve the conflict nonviolently.

Was is that automatically off the table?

Quoting Francoamerican: (1) disgust at the disproportion of the Israeli response and (2) indignation at the concerted policy of neglect of the underlying problem. In other words, they are not disputing the right of the state of Israel to protect its citizens by force; they are disputing its right to conduct itself outside the norms of international law regarding the treatment of a population in an occupied territory as well as its persistent refusal to come to terms with the Palestinian problem.

The "UN types" you find so contemptible are merely doing their job---acting to bring humanitarian help to a population that is in dire straits. They have no official peacekeeping role.

Quoting Francoamerican: I was responding to an entirely different point. I said nothing about my opinion, although I believe international lawyers and historians will judge the Israeli response disproportionate, once all the facts are known. For example, how it all started in the first place...

In any case, the more important question, which people like you always choose to ignore because you are blessed with a moral certainty that only an upbringing and education in the United States can bestow, is my second point: Israel has never given the slightest evidence that it wants to pursue a solution to the Palestinian problem.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Take the reactions to Gaza, I see it more as a guy standing still and a midget coming up to him and slapping him weakly, again, and again, and again, some slaps land in sensitive areas but most falling with far less harm, days, weeks, Years upon end. Then one day, the guy standing still gets fed up with the nonsense and punches the midget.

[...]

I am probably failing to convey the sense of disgust some of us find at this type of pacifistic world view, but there it is.

Quoting AemJeff: Have the Palestinians demonstrated any greater interest in a solution than have the Israelis?

Quoting grits-n-gravy: I'd say yes.

Foiling Another Palestinian "Peace Offensive": Behind the bloodbath in Gaza
By Norman G. Finkelstein

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I would love to find some material on the whole situation that isn't Anti-Semitic, or Zionist (depending which side opposes it.) Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that it's just impossible. Anything that criticizes Israel or US's support of Israel, get's an "anti-semitic" labelling, and vice versa. Sadly, I think this is the biggest problem with the whole situation. Not the admittedly, clusterfuckish difficulty of the real situation, but the complete failure by almost everyone to have any kind of reasoned discussion with resort to emotional.moralistic name-calling.

If anyone has some "unbiased" sources, I'd be interested to see them. Otherwise I try to read everything and use my own brain to strain out the kernels of truth from the hyperbolic labels.

It reminds me of an interview with Cindy Sheehan on Hardball awhile ago. She is the quintessential pacifist in my view. She stated plainly to Chris that she was against all war. And then Chris brings up the obligatory WWII as war worth fighting. And Cindy, true to form, remarkably similar to your sentiments deflects the issue by saying if she were in charge they would not get to that situation of war in the first place.....

I remember being stunned as I heard that woman then, I thought...
ok, sweetheart [in my MOST condescending tone!], but since things HAVE gotten into such a bad situation, what are we to do now? Let Hitler march through Europe ?!?!?

That was never asked.

Quoting Wonderment: Here's the problem: Warists always like to raise the question at the exact point in time when the murderer is holding the knife to your daughter's throat and only you can stop him with a bullet. "You idiot, pull the trigger!"

But warists neglect the myriad of other opportunities prior to the rapist getting into that dead-end. The right question to ask, as Cindy Sheehan pointed out, is how many millions of times did we have the opportunity to defuse, outvote, out-organize, outsmart Nazism long before Hitler ever got to power and every step of the way once he had power? There were at least 6 million ways to save Jews without violence, but they all failed, not because people weren't violent enough but because people's courage, commitment and imagination failed in nonviolent resistance.

The time for to stop the next war is now before someone puts a gun to your head.

Quoting AemJeff: Do you think you might ever read an objective source? Maybe one that doesn't promote anti-Semitism?

But citing people from either extreme as support for a factual claim is silly. Finkelstein, in particular, writes overwrought screeds in support of a point of view that seems to barely acknowledge the humanity of one side in this conflict. He's sort of a Holocaust-significance denier.