Professor David Luban of Georgetown and my colleague Amos Guiora have this interesting exchange about Israel's recent incursion into the Gaza strip.
Luban argues that the Gaza campaign violated both the jus ad bellum and jus in bello proportionality principles and that the Hamas civil administration were not lawful targets under Israel's own interpretation of the law of armed conflict. Prof. Guiora argues that terrorism changes the landscape of armed conflict and requires a reconfiguration of international law. Under this reconfiguration, an entire terrorist organization may properly be targeted.
Prof. Luban's article is entitled "Was the Gaza Campaign Legal;" Prof. Guiora's is entitled "Proportionality 'Re-Configured.'" Interesting reading.
The narrow issue of attacking the Hamas headquarters was not a major item of controversy in the operation AFAIK.
A primary issue was to what extent Israel is expected to abstain from attacking military targets that are deliberately stationed in civilian areas, or with human shields.
Another primary issue was the interpretation of the notion of "proportional" response in the context of the Hamas rocketing, with some observers believing that Israel's system of bomb shelters and early warning systems render the inaccurate rockets into "no big deal".
The Greek Civil War failed because Tito took away the sanctuary.
The Korean War failed, from the Nork's point of view, because they came over the border horse, foot, and guns, looking like a conventional war, to which the response was almost reflexive.
The North Vietnamese suceeded in part because they had their own sanctuary which they could anticipate keeping, and they didn't come across the DMZ like a conventional army. They'd learned.
This provided them with the benefits of making war as a state and the cover of giving their western lefty allies room to pretend it was either a civil war or an uprising, thus hobbling the response.
Looks like an attempt to make this happen for the benefit of terrorists.
Not a surprise. Not even new.
To benefit Israel.
Good luck with that.
Even with those details added, you would still be omitting at quite a few others, which is what makes your superficial analogy so -- superficial.
If be a Mexican entity that "pledges" to "replace (in Spanish of course)" Mexicans with Anglos, you then necessarily would justify a US invasion of Mexico? Also, does Israel only attack governments that have "pledged" to destroy Israel and no others? Mexico does import all kinds of arms as does, say Iran; who determines the "purpose" for each arm? If Hamas were to expurgate Israel from it's charter, would Israel then open Gaza's border and permit Hamas to import arms? In addition, since Iran's constitution contains no reference to Israel, shouldn't Israel renounce it's impeding of Iran's nuclear development?
Many Jews propose themselves to be civilized adherents to Law and claim "self-defense" in attacking defenseless Palestinians, but these Jews hate all non-Jews and would do the same atrocities to Mexicans and Iranians as they do now to Palestinians.
However, we are provided with another whom it would be well to ignore.
"attacked". Nasty column equals blowing up.
Riiiight.
I'll back away slowly.
Verrrrrry slowly.
If gastritis is a disease of the stomach and appendicitis is a disease of the appendix, is Cognitis a disease of the cognition?
Zark, you're from CA. Has there been a tectonic shift I missed so that all the loose cannons are now rolling towards there?
If there is such a thing, don't you need international police to arrest people who violate it, international courts to try offenders, and international prisons or executioners to punish offenders?
Zark, you're from CA. Has there been a tectonic shift I missed so that all the loose cannons are now rolling towards there?
California has always been like this. Everything loose in the country seems to roll into it. I'm originally from New York City (born, raised, educated, worked) and experienced quite a culture shock when I first arrived. You get used to it and take in stride. The idea is to find a niche community of sane people. But it's a sobering fact that only three states on the continent have a lower average IQ.
I agree with others that this proportionality concept is given more credence than it was ever meant to have. Proportionality doesn't mean you can't win a war. It doesn't mean you have to stop when the other side starts losing. It is a vague concept that simply means you should avoid (not can't) using far more force than is rational to get a military goal accomplished. That is, if the enemy has a squad of men with rifles, destroying a city of millions is a bit out of proportion.
But if the enemy shoots thousands of rockets at you, fired from across a city, it is certainly proportional to sweep through the city and destroy suspected command and control nodes and people.
Some people mistake international law with an insistence that no one is allowed to win a war.
For the most part Jewish organizations like ADL are supportive of Mexican illegal immigration, aligning themselves with La Raza. But few Jews seem aware that according to polls done by the Pew Foundation (a very liberal organization) Mexican immigrants are the most anti-Israel of all immigrant groups.
Judging from their website La Voz de Aztlan strikes me as a radical extremist organization prone to incoherent and unsubstantiated assertions. It's pretty easy to find such example with only a cursory look. I don't mind the extremeness so much as the flaming ignorant and illogical narrative. Do you really think Berg was decapitated at inside the Abu Ghraib prison? We already know they can't keep secrets there.
If Mexico should start shooting missiles into San Diego from Tijuana, the US government would certainly invade Mexico if that's what it took to put a stop to it. I can tell you what the US wouldn't do-- shoot rockets into Mexican schools and hospitals unless those kinds of places were the sources of the rocket fire. The Palestinian low life don't even care about their own children and hide within the civilian population so as to acquire a victim status and play to the international media.
As far as I'm concerned the Palestinians are America's enemies. Anyone who would push an old man in a wheelchair off a ship deserve no quarter.
I suspect that it's impossible to have a dialogue with you so I won't pursue this any further.
Doesn't that argument fall apart when you realize that Hamas fired its rockets across the border, as an offensive action rather than a defensive one?
Read the linked debate before not after proposing vain arguments. Both Guiora and Luban dismissed arguments about defining aggressors or defendors. Clearly, Nipperdey and even Giora dismiss your impertinent argument.
Nick
No need to suspect what has been conclusively proven in thread after thread.
Zark, it dawned on me why we still have our loose cannons in middle America. You have to have round wheels to roll. Those with square wheels stay put.
cognitis write:
Aristotle warned of the fallacy of arguing by analogy, which fallacy this argument makes. Even conceding that there is massive corruption within the Mexican government, police and military caused by narco-money (and considerable, although not as widely reported corruption on the US side of the border caused by narco-money), that does not result in a situation equivalent in Mexico to Hamas' situation in Gaza or Hezbolla's situation in Lebanon. The analogies between Mexico and Hamas and/or Hezbolla break down well before your conclusion is reached.
Both Hamas and Hezbolla are supported in signficant measure by an outside government (Iran). Both organizations' prinicple purpose, as stated in their charters, is the destruction if Israel. Both organizations are part of the internationally recognized governing bodies of their respective territories (Hamas is part of the PLA, and Hezbolla is part of the Lebonese government) and both are at least the de facto, if not the de jure governments in the areas they control (Hamas in Gaza and Hezbolla in southern Lebanon).
In Mexico the criminal gangs exist to make money and exert power by exporting drugs to the US and bringing money from the US to support the life styles of their members. Violence is directed towards those who threaten this trade (including rival gangs, police (US and Mexican) and the population -- and against their own gang members who threaten their bosses. Any political agenda is no more than secondary. They do not want to destroy the US, since that would end the source of their income and power. They are criminal gangs -- rich and ruthless ones to be sure -- but, they are not driven by a political or ideological or religious agenda. They are the Mob Bosses of early 21st Century Mexico, like Pablo Escobar was a Mob Boss of late 20th century Columbia and Al Capone was a Mob Boss of an earlier 20th Century Chicago.
I got it.
The problem is a bad situation build on an unsound foundation decades ago.
The Palestinians attempt to stake claim to the moral high ground by lobbing rockets and using suicide bombers for military operations.
The Israelis attempt to stake claim to the moral high ground by strewing cluster bombs and using religious crusaders for military operations.
Neither side is likely to "win." Neither side appears to deserve to "win," at least not on its terms.
Religious crusaders? The deuce you say. Why, just the other day I read a book about the Last Templar. So if he's the last, there aren't any more.
Seems a bit suspicious to me.
Those things were cheesy, but the tree men scared me.
There's a kind of elm around here--I think it's elm--along water courses. It bends more than other trees, more susceptible to prevailing winds. Looks like where those tree guys used to hang out.
Arthur K? Who's that?
Especially when they set their own forest on fire in that one episode -- deliberately -- in order to catch the earth people. There's probably a metaphor there somewhere.
The article reports that a stolen vehicle, packed with over 100 kg of explosives was found in a mall parking lot in Haifa. Isreali authorities say that Hamas was behind the plot. Had the car bomb gone off, it would have been a major terrorist attack likely causing heavy civilian casualties (with many women and children likely as being among shoppers at the mall).
One concept in the Law of Armed Conflict is that it is permissible to retaliate against an enemy that fails or refuses to follow the laws of war. Given Hamas' complete disregard of the laws of war, and deliberate targeting of civilian targets that have no military value, targeting Hamas' "civil administration" is easily justified.
Thanks for your civil reply. While I've read Aristotle and hopefully also Luban and Giuora, Aristotle's precepts don't pertain to this well-defined Luban-Giuora debate; indeed, Guiora uses an analogy here:In any case, I didn't use my Mexican case as an analogy or metaphor in order to disprove Guiora's precept as I cited, but instead assumed the precept to be true and argued about it's application; to clarify, some argue with metaphor as Shakespeare comparing a woman to a summer day in order to discern a thing's or a concept's (or a law's) nature; to argue that applying a precept or law to every case is argument by analogy and then to argue that all analogies are fallacious would render all laws feckless; instead once a law or precept has been accepted by both debaters as valid, next argue whether the law apply to a given case rather than whether two cases be similar. Here is my cited precept from Gioura:US authorities have estimated Mexican gang membership in the US to number in the 10's of thousands, and recently more deaths of US citizens have been attributed to Mexican gangs and their drugs than Israeli civilian deaths to Hamas, and Mexican drug gangs like Hamas "consistently" and "constantly". Since Guiora never uses the charter in this debate's arguments, Hamas' charter doesn't pertain to them here; even should they pertain, do you really believe IDF would change it's policy without the pledge? Do you really believe that, the pldge having been expurgated, IDF would then ignore the same rocket attacks over a scrap of paper? Hardly. The charter doesn't pertain to srguments about Israel's right to self-defense, and Guiora rightly ignores the charter. Adhere to the Guiora-Luban debate and render this dispute coherent.
http://volokh.com/posts/1235745737.shtml
<blockquote><b>cognitis</b>: Mailer, typical Neocon and Jewish Establishment member, along with others of his genus credit Jews to be superior to other humans in spirit and proximate to God himself. Comprehend this Jews' estimate of themselves and Jews' once inconsistent gestures and insults clarify and consist.</blockquote>What you didn't know that Norman Mailers was a "typical Neocon and Jewish Establishment member?
Oh, there is much you would never have imagined if you hadn't read all of <b>cognitis</b>'s more bizarre contributions. When he holds forth on Constitutional law, <b>cognitis</b> can leave even Eugene Volokh ("typical Neocon and Jewish Establishment member"?) nonplussed. http://volokh.com/posts/1235410395.shtml
http://volokh.com/posts/1235745737.shtml
What you didn't know that Norman Mailers was a "typical Neocon and Jewish Establishment member?
Oh, there is much you would never have imagined if you hadn't read all of cognitis's more bizarre contributions. When he holds forth on Constitutional law, cognitis can leave even Eugene Volokh ("typical Neocon and Jewish Establishment member"?) nonplussed. http://volokh.com/posts/1235410395.shtml
And that the bomb, had it exploded, would likely have ignited the cars in the parking lot, causing their gas tanks to explode in a chain reaction. And that the car bomb apparently was designed and intended to do just that.
Where is the outrage from the usual sources? Oh, that's right. Deliberate atrocities by Arabs don't count, and neither do Jewish victims. Of course, in highly integrated Haifa, there may well have been Arab victims as well, but Arab victims don't count if they were killed by other Arabs, or by Indians, or by anyone except Jews.
Mailer the neocon? You couldn't can't make up stuff like this if you tried. ("If I'd've read this in a comic book, I wouldn't have believed it" -- Ben Grimm, Fantastic Four #6[?], whichever early issue featured Dr. Doom meets Submariner. Beats the heck out of Sir Toby Belch.)
You're right, even Cognitis can't do a parody that does justice to Cognitis.
Given that other posters have been banned over anti-semitic remarks milder than his comment at 3.23.2009 4:10pm, I'm surprised that Cognitis is still with us. The comic relief (or is it nauseating relief?) is just not worth it.
You didn't know this stuff before, your not just pretending ignorance of it? (BTW, have you seen the agenda for this month's meeting of the Elders?)
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.