who holds the moral highground : Israel, or Muslims?

[peacefan]

Hamas leaders sit safely in Qatar and we found Bin Laden in Pakistan, our buddies

dealing with militant death cults while retaining the moral highground is not an easy task.
hence the delays to success, and the relatively high collateral damage count.
note : it is our enemies' goal to create as much damage as possible on our side.
and they have struck first in every instance.

 

[Shusha]

how about safe return of remaining hostages?

Temporary pause, rather than a ceasefire. Sure. But Israel offered a seven day pause, in exchange for the remaining hostages. Hamas refused.

how about peace?

Peace? Like a permanent peace? They've have to disavow their wish to kill Jews (never mind the raping, burning, torturing, beheading, and abducting). They've have to give up their notion of destroying Israel and re-covering territory for the caliphate. They've have to renounce violence as a means to developing their own state, and then have a long, long period where they prove it. Once ALL THAT is done, I think peace can be considered.

Meantime, I think we are going to have to force peace on them. Or rather, they have forced us to force peace on them. Wouldn't have been Israel's first choice.

 

[Shusha]

... and the relatively high collateral damage count ...

I would really love to have a serious discussion with someone (you?) about comparing incidental harm in various wars. When people, sometimes rather casually, toss around claims like this, I really would like to know the comparisons they are using.

 

[peacefan]

I would really love to have a serious discussion with someone (you?) about comparing incidental harm in various wars. When people, sometimes rather casually, toss around claims like this, I really would like to know the comparisons they are using.

ok, sure..

what do you define as 'incidental harm'?

 

[toomuchtime_]

ok, sure..

what do you define as 'incidental harm'?

Harm to civilians or civilian infrastructure incidental to an attack on a military target as opposed to harm to civilians or civilian infrastructure being directly targeted, otherwise known as collateral damage.

The term, incidental does not imply the lives and property of people harmed are unimportant, but that under international law there is no equivalence between directly targeting civilians and harming them as the result of an attack on a military target. Directly targeting civilians is always a war crime, but if the rules of International Humanitarian Law are followed, affirming the military necessity of destroying the target, advising civilians to vacate the area in advance of the attack and not using means in excess of what is necessary, are followed then the incidental harm to civilians is not a war crime.

International Humanitarian Law has been built up since WWII to try to reduce the horrendous civilian casualties of that war. IHL is the product of the collective wisdom of the world on how to reduce civilian casualties to their bare minimum that is consistent with the objective of the war, which in this case is the destruction of Hamas in order to prevent future attacks on Israeli civilians, and since Israel meticulously follows International Humanitarian Law, we can be assured that although the Hamas casualty number may seem high, they are the bare minimum necessary to destroy Hamas and protect Israeli civilians from future attacks.

 

[Shusha]

ok, sure..

what do you define as 'incidental harm'?

What toomuchtime said.

Reasonably foreseeable, but unintended harm occurring as a consequence of engaging in acts of warfare against legitimate military targets under the operational necessity to achieve the military goal.

I prefer this term over "collateral damage" as that language skews towards a broader definition of unacceptable overall losses without consideration of military objectives and goals.

Specifically, I've seen very raw, rough comparisons made (in which Israel ALWAYS seems to come up short) based on total number of casualties, casualties over a span of time; ratio of (presumed) combatants to (presumed) non-combatants; number of casualties in certain occupations; number of child casualties either as a total or as a ratio; size of munitions used; and others.

What I rarely see is the math on how these claims that Israel is "worse than" are calculated. What I never see is any conversation about the conditions that the military in question is operating under and how this affects the comparisons. So my question, to those who have more military understanding than I do, is: when you claim a "relatively high collateral damage count", how are you making that calculation?

 

[rylah]

Good to see the Freedom Fighters driving the Israeli terrorists back home to their Mummies .
See the supposed crack elite Golani Brigade sustained such severe losses that they have been sent home to rest and to overcome stress and fatigue .

You cannot send half trained amateurs to fight seasoned professionals .

The Israelis are good at dropping bombs on women and children but not very good at hand to hand fighting .

So carry on brave Freedom Fighters . Do your best to rid us of an insane bunch of Child Killers

Islamist trash talk.

What hand-to-hand battle?

Hamas barely see the light of day hiding in tunnels.

 

[Lisa558]

The moral high ground goes to the side that does NOT seek out babies to decapitate, bake to death in an oven, or set on fire.

 

[rylah]

OP let me ask You a question - is it moral to prevent cruelty,
specifically, such that is in harsh contrast to Your culture,
when the result is prolonging the conflict?

 

[rylah]

The moral high ground goes to the side that does NOT seek out babies to decapitate, bake to death in an oven, or set on fire.

The cruelty of abuse among Muslims to other Muslims,
is the lowest point of human condition today.

22 Arab states at war with each other,
their treatment of Israel is used as
example to other MENA "infidels".

Do Sinwar and Haniyeh
deserve a bullet?

Or a high tree?

 

[surada]

Show us Muslims not on the side of Hamas.

It does not count showing us all the neighboring Muslims who refuse to welcome Palestinians into their county, which is all of them.

I think Islam views the Palestinians as a whole as a giant human suicide bomber. They want them to agitate Israel and kill Jews as much as they can before they all die, but in no way want to save them by welcoming them into neighboring countries.

That's a lie. There are Palestinians all over the middle-east.

 

[surada]

The cruelty of abuse among Muslims to other Muslims,
is the lowest point of human condition today.

22 Arab states at war with each other,
their treatment of Israel is used as
example to other MENA "infidels".

Do Sinwar and Haniyeh
deserve a bullet?

Or a high tree?

Which countries are at war with each other?

 

[Roudy]

That's a lie. There are Palestinians all over the middle-east.

They don’t grant them citizenship because ingrates ingrates turned on the country that let them in. Imagine being the lowest Arab on the Arab totem pole.

 

[rylah]

Which countries are at war with each other?

The only common denominator to all ongoing conflicts

in the Middle East is - Arab Imperialism.

Template:Ongoing military conflicts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[peacefan]

What toomuchtime said.

Reasonably foreseeable, but unintended harm occurring as a consequence of engaging in acts of warfare against legitimate military targets under the operational necessity to achieve the military goal.

I prefer this term over "collateral damage" as that language skews towards a broader definition of unacceptable overall losses without consideration of military objectives and goals.

Specifically, I've seen very raw, rough comparisons made (in which Israel ALWAYS seems to come up short) based on total number of casualties, casualties over a span of time; ratio of (presumed) combatants to (presumed) non-combatants; number of casualties in certain occupations; number of child casualties either as a total or as a ratio; size of munitions used; and others.

numbers, when fighting religious extremists, should be heavily in favor of the defenders.

What I rarely see is the math on how these claims that Israel is "worse than" are calculated. What I never see is any conversation about the conditions that the military in question is operating under and how this affects the comparisons. So my question, to those who have more military understanding than I do, is: when you claim a "relatively high collateral damage count", how are you making that calculation?

population size v. casualty numbers?

 

[Blaster]

Islam is a cult of hate.

 

[Lisa558]

numbers, when fighting religious extremists, should be heavily in favor of the defenders.


population size v. casualty numbers?

But you have to take into account that the HAMAS savages are purposely putting their own people in the line of fire to drive the numbers up. Israel is dealing with a barbaric, 7th century enemy.

 

[rylah]

There's no "higher" moral ground, just one.

Israelis are criticized for trying to fight morally beyond international norm.
Hamas is granted to be nothing but savages, at the expense of Gazans.

Israel being a state more moral in its conduct
of war than any of the UN members, sheds
a dim light on their culture, Israel simply
can't be perceived as just, and better.

 

[Lisa558]

There's no "higher" moral ground, just one.

Israelis are criticized for trying to fight morally beyond international norm.
No one expects Hamas to act better than savages, at the expense of Gazans.

Israel being a state more moral in its conduct
of war than any of the UN members, sheds
a dim light on their culture, Israel simply
can't be perceived as just, and better.

Absolutely the truth!

But the leftists Keep trying to draw a parallel between HAMAS terrorists sworn to the destruction of Israel and all her Jews, and Israel who is defending herself against the threat of a continued genocide against them, and taking effort to limit civilian casualties, and at risk for themselves.

It’s quite an undertaking when your enemy is so savage and immoral that it hides behind its own women and children - and the world so antisemitic that it tries to equate HAMAS and Israel.

 

[Foxfyre]

i'd say it's Israel.

Israelis number only 8 million, in a world that holds well over a billion(!) Muslims, many of whom will privately and even publicly support Hamas.
now, Hamas is a death cult.
and i doubt they have Allah's approval for real.
i'm thinking Allah prefers moderate fundamentalists.

feel free to squeeze more of what i consider the truth out there, out of me.
but be prepared for a challenging discussion...

Morality is what a culture says it is. The Native Americans prior to the late 19th Century were highly immoral by 21st Century standards--they tortured their victims to death, enslaved other people, stole, murdered (by our definition), kidnapped and otherwise were not nice people. But by their own code of ethics, standards of what was noble and expected of themselves, they were just fine.

Many ancient peoples lived by standards we--including modern day Native Americans--consider wrong, barbaric, unjust, unacceptable, contemptible.

Distinguishing between mainstream Muslims who are decent people and Hamas who are not:

Radical militant Islam is far more 'ancient' than modern and many of its beliefs are largely unacceptable to modern day Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc., even Atheists. But for those who embrace that religion, their intent to kill all Jews, destroy Israel, destroy the United States is Allah's will and therefore moral and just. I don't how they justify their undescribably savage, vicious, cruel means of doing that, but they do.

Judaism has a much longer history than Christianity or Islam, but it does come with a long tradition/moral code that has evolved into something very good for both the Jews and all of humankind. Christianity which came out of Judaism took much of that moral code with it.

To ask which is the most moral isn't the right question. To ask which code of morality produces goodness and mercy for all and which produces that which is evil, regressive, cruel, savage, destructive is the right question.