Comments on: Suicide-bomber apologist in fit of indignation

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:58:01 +0000

In the unabridged version of their report (articleid=439), the ICT staff document their data gathering and categorization methodology in more detail. A cursory look at their numbers for the March/April 2002 peak shows that they match the B’Tselem (leftish Israeli human rights org, roughly Amnesty without the Durban stigma) counts within one or two out of 200. I don’t think there’s a lot of wiggle room here, except that all the “unknown” fatalities are being counted as noncombatants by the ICT report. Fatalities are not only easier to tally accurately than socioeconomic suppression; they also have the useful property that (barring collaborator killings) we can assume that most victims are victims of the opposite side. All that can be unequivocally said about the economic and broad human rights aspects of the conflict is that Israelis and Palestinians are losing.

By: Ross Judson

Ross Judson — Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:30:10 +0000

After reading Robert Schwartz’ comment above I was somewhat perplexed. Rather than respond directly, perhaps you should read his opinions on Palestinians, who he collectively refers to as a “psychotic death cult called the Palestinians”, and what he believes an appropriate final solution might be. http://surroundedbyem.blogspot.com/2002_10_01_surroundedbyem_archive.html#83100065

By: Ross Judson

Ross Judson — Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:21:27 +0000

The ICT information is quite detailed; I wonder what its sources are? Who makes the judgement about the status of a given victim? Things like age and sex can be determined accurately, but combatant status is a little tougher, I would think. I also wonder what happens to the statistics if we pull away from a strict notion of victim == dead person. If we do that and include other forms of physical violence and socioeconomic suppression, what do the charts look like?

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Tue, 26 Aug 2003 06:46:32 +0000

I’m not sure about your logic: Israelis assert a controversial aim consistent with their observed statistical result, but it doesn’t follow that Palestinian Arabs couldn’t achieve an equivalent demographic result with entirely indefensible aims. But your conclusion seems reasonable to me. Ceteris paribus, it is more clearly immoral (for anyone) to kill without discrimination as to age or gender, than to target and mostly kill men of fighting age like me.

By: Josh Klugman

Josh Klugman — Tue, 26 Aug 2003 04:22:40 +0000

By this logic, if Palestinian murderers made sure that they mainly killed male Israeli civilians above the age of 18, the morality of their actions would become more “controversial”, whereas as it is now, when their victims are more representative along gender and age lines, their actions are certainly wrong. By the way, the ICT’s ongoing tally of deaths also shows the number of children’s deaths caused by both sides. I won’t say who’s “winning” in this category because it’s irrelevant. Clearly, the decision to highlight numbers vs. proportions, children deaths vs. female deaths vs. aggregated deaths is pretty much determined by which one will make one’s side look better than the other, and not by any universal, abstract principles.

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:11:50 +0000

Oops, that URL didn’t get posted for some reason. Let me try it again, as quoted text. “http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440”

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:10:16 +0000

Ross writes: > I wonder which side, Palestinian or Israeli, has killed more children. The best hard data of which I am aware is here: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440 > These age and gender numbers are consistent with a majority of Palestinian noncombatant fatalities being victims of profiling, and strikingly inconsistent with the “recklessness” hypothesis being stipulated by all sides in this thread. There are sound arguments to be made that (1) targeted assassination is wrong, even in war, and (2) age/gender profiling is wrong, even in urban war against irregulars. Both of these propositions are more controversial than the rising certainties that (3) reckless, (4) knowing, and (5) intentional killing of civilians is wrong. The latter certainties, however, hang on a factual case that is much weaker than the Beeb would have us believe.

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:49:36 +0000

I am a Jew and a Zionist. I am not going to argue the morality of Israel’s actions or its right to exist. This may sound unreasonable to you, so be it. My continued existence, the continued existence of my people, our right to live in Israel, if we wish, and our ability to defend ourselves, are not and will not be the subjects of negotiation. Make no mistake about it, the “Palestinians” of what ever stripe have, and have had since their beginnings in the 1960’s, one goal and that is the destruction of Israel and the extermination or expulsion of the Jews from its territory. This has lead to the current war, the seventh, eighth or ninth between the Arabs and the Jews. This war, like all wars is hell. That is too bad, but that is the way all wars are, without exception or apology. If one side finds that hell is too hot, it can lay down its arms and sue for peace. This is not an option for Israel since it would be suicide. It was, and in truth remains, an option for the “Palestinians.” Although their ability to improve, or even obtain all of, the terms they were offered three years ago is gone. “The International Community,” which stood idly by while Hitler slaughtered the Jews of Europe is opposed to Israel. So what? This is not news, they would sit idly by if the Palestinians had their way and killed all of the Jews. As for the nominal beginning of this thread, Honderich is an Anti-Semite and academia and the left are marbled with Anti-Semitism, like a rib-eye steak is marbled with fat. Again this is not news, but it is a major reason why I am anti-leftist and why I will not support academia politically or financially.

By: Josh Klugman

Josh Klugman — Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:13:18 +0000

I do not see how using gunships, tanks, and mortars in urban areas in the O.T. is necessary for Israel’s security. However, I do see how it fits into a strategy to pummel Palestinians into submission and eventually annex O.T. land and resources. By the way, sympathizers of the suicide bombers tell similar convenient fictions to justify the intentional killing of civilians—”no-win situation”, etc. As far as the intent/knowing distinction goes, I gladly endorse your idea of making the ratio of punishments for Palestinian militants and Israeli leaders similar to the ratio of punishments the state of Michigan doles out for intentional employment benefit fraud and knowing fraud—it’s certainly an improvement over the current situation. How about 100 years imprisonment for Ahmed Yasin and Ramadan Shallah, and 50 years for Sharon and Ya’alon?

By: pathos

pathos — Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:19:08 +0000

It is the Palestinians who chose to hide in heavily populated areas. The Israelis can either allow the tactic to work, or not. If they do, there are more terrorists, if they don’t, they are blamed for knowingly killing innocents. Given the no-win situation, they prefer to take the blame from people who have no interest in placing blame with Palestinians. Why did everyone get so angry at Geraldo for carrying a gun? Because then every journalist becomes a target. Palestinians hide with women and children. Therefore, women and children get killed. Second, the “distinction without a difference” between intentional and knowing is an integral part of American criminal law, whether you have heard of it or not. A quick google search gave me a Michigan law on fraud (in the URL link). Section I is “intentional failure to comply”. Section II is “knowing failure to comply.” The penalty in Part II is less than in Part I. You may think what I wrote was meaningful, but hundreds of years of Anglo-American common law say different.

By: Josh Klugman

Josh Klugman — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:45:55 +0000

Pathos—you are making a distinction without a difference when you delineate between intentional killing and knowing killing. Intent really matters when the perpetrator doesn’t really know if his/her actions will result in deaths (deaths caused by recklessness/negligence). Israel’s continuing use of heavy firepower in dense residential areas, to my mind, qualifies as knowing killing rather than recklessness/negligence. The fact that IDF soldiers, officers, and generals are rarely punished when Palestinian civilians do die as a result of their operations suggests to me that the Israeli leadership is just as callous about Palestinian lives as Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Fatah are about Israeli lives. The moral difference between the IDF and Palestinian militants is not as stark as you (or suicide bomber romanticizers for that matter) want to believe.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:12:09 +0000

First, those who argue that “Israel” has never intentinonally targeted innnocent citizens clearly do not know much about Ariel Sharon. I guess I don’t know much about Ariel Sharon. Is this supposed to be some vague Sabra and Shatilla reference? If so, whether or not you condemn Sharon for what he allowed to happen, Israel fired him for his (in)action, indicating that the actions of “Israel,” i.e. government policy are separate from the actions of one particular individual within that government. Of course not all of them are Israeli — do you remember Racheal Corrie? Sure do. First, there is no conclusive evidence that her death was intentional. Second, even if it was, there is a difference between intentionally killing a civilian who is interfering with military action and intentionally killing a civilian who is riding the bus to work. Third, Israeli policy is determined, in part, by popular will. Anyone who votes for Sharon’s party, or worse, is not that innocent. So you believe that suicide bombers check voter-registration cards before they murder everyone on board a bus?

By: musz

musz — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:53:34 +0000

First, those who argue that “Israel” has never intentinonally targeted innnocent citizens clearly do not know much about Ariel Sharon. He has. He did. I believe he still does. Of course not all of them are Israeli—do you remember Racheal Corrie? Second, I never said that Chris advocated passive resistance for one side but not for the other. I implied that some people do this, and indeed one such person has done so explicitly in this thread. Third, Israeli policy is determined, in part, by popular will. Anyone who votes for Sharon’s party, or worse, is not that innocent.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:05:31 +0000

FDL: If we grant that the deliberate targetting of civilians to break their will to fight is moral, then it would be okay if Israel started doing the same thing? I personally do advocate passive resistance for the Palestianians, and not for the Israelis, for one reason: if the Palestinians did it, it would work. If the Israelis did it, it would not.

By: FDL

FDL — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:01:17 +0000

Being a lawyer, not a philosopher, I’m bound to make a mess of this. But nevertheless: why is it that, in war, intentional killing of civilians is wrong, but knowing killing is permissible? And isn’t it a little convenient for the victors to be writing the rules? I’m also not much of a historian, but I understand that the Allies deliberately caused firestorms in Tokyo and Dresden, that when Sherman marched to the sea he left devastation behind him, that the US’s settlement of the Western US is probably the single most successful genocide in modern history. (Anyone who wishes to correct me, jump in.) Somehow, the victors did not face the same judgment as wars’ losers have. One possible viewpoint is that the Palestinian nationalists see themselves in total war against not only an occupying army, but follow-on civilians determined to exterminate their way of life completely. History teaches that the targetting of civilians is permissible in total war, to break the will of the enemy to fight. Do I condone the strategy of suicide bombing? No, but since my wife is a Jew, I find it difficult to keep a dispassionate view of the events. But if the US were occupied by little green men, then their little green women and children started riding the buses while the LGMs were killing our [freedom-fighting/underground/resistance] leaders, then I’m not so sure that I would disapprove of a war strategy that brought pain and suffering to those who are benefitting from the military successes of their little green husbands. but what the hell do I know, i’m just a land use lawyer.