Speaking of Israel...

[Don Corleone]

The remains of the three missing teenagers who were kidnapped 3 weeks ago have been found.

Praying for the souls of the departed, and comfort for their family. Also praying for cool heads and restraint. Barring that, also praying for the soon-to-be victims of what is likely to follow... a heavy-handed retribution designed to punish, not resolve.

[Hooahguy]

Cooler heads will not prevail, more blood will be spilled, peace will never come.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Prayers well placed, and I will echo them.

Hooahguy:

"Never" is a long time, and I pray not lifetimes away in this instance, but this 50-year-old, despite hoping to double that total, does not expect to see it in his lifetime.

[Hooahguy]

I have lost any hope in a peaceful settlement of this conflict. Just look at the comments people are saying, on both sides. The Israelis are demanding Palestinian blood (preferably of children it seems) and Palestinians are celebrating the murders. Disgusting.

[Fragony]

Hit back and hit hard, how obvious do you want things to be. Palestinians cheer for the death of these poor sods, they cheer for 9/11, they cheer for the death of an abducted Israeli soldier and rub up their face with his organs, crazy frenzy. It is what it is so treat it as what it is. Why care if it only makes them angrier, the hate is already well established.

[Greyblades]

Hit back and hit hard, how obvious do you want things to be. Palestinians cheer for the death of these poor sods, they cheer for 9/11, they cheer for the death of an abducted Israeli soldier and rub up their face with his organs, crazy frenzy. It is what it is so treat it as what it is. Why care if it only makes them angrier, the hate is already well established.

Probably not a good idea to be advocating that a Jewish state, currently accused of recreating the early days of the holocaust against the Palastinians, hit back hard.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have lost any hope in a peaceful settlement of this conflict. Just look at the comments people are saying, on both sides. The Israelis are demanding Palestinian blood (preferably of children it seems) and Palestinians are celebrating the murders. Disgusting.

I don't know - eventually both sides will get worn out, or more likely the US will lose it's grip and another country will impose peace. In another generation the Holocaust will be merely history, with no living witnesses, and at that point Israel's special standing will drain away and they will be forced to behave like adults.

Then the Palestinians will be forced to behave like adults in turn.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't know - eventually both sides will get worn out, or more likely the US will lose it's grip and another country will impose peace. In another generation the Holocaust will be merely history, with no living witnesses, and at that point Israel's special standing will drain away and they will be forced to behave like adults.

Then the Palestinians will be forced to behave like adults in turn.

The sense of guilt will last longer than the deaths of those remaining Holocaust survivors. How much longer I am unsure.

[Hooahguy]

To be fair, they aren't sure if it was a revenge killing. Either way, pretty despicable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be fair, they aren't sure if it was a revenge killing. Either way, pretty despicable.

To be fair, they aren't sure those three boys were killed by Hamas.

Wasn't there a case a couple of years ago there Hamas got blamed for a dead boy and it turned out to be just a regular domestic murder?

[Hooahguy]

Fair enough.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To be fair, they aren't sure those three boys were killed by Hamas.

Wasn't there a case a couple of years ago there Hamas got blamed for a dead boy and it turned out to be just a regular domestic murder?

Well some Hamas leaders did praise the episode, albeit without claiming specific "credit" such as it is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Fair enough.

Which is not to say that it wasn't an ethnically or politically motivated killing - but I don't see any suspects as yet.

Well some Hamas leaders did praise the episode, albeit without claiming specific "credit" such as it is.

I'm sure they did - but Israel has no proof and has already begun blowing up houses just for kicks.

It's not hard to see why these guys think the only good Jew is a dead Jew, given that the vast majority of Jews they meet want to kill them and actively try to do so.

[Hooahguy]

As someone who is Jewish who has no intention of marrying Jewish, I know that I will probably be disowned if I don't marry within the fold.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As someone who is Jewish who has no intention of marrying Jewish, I know that I will probably be disowned if I don't marry within the fold.

Eh - come to the UK.

Although, if you'd seen Suzie Gold you'd think all Jews here were obsessed with their children "marrying out". Although the main reason to see that film is to appreciate just how hot Summer Phoenix is, and then to curse because it's the last film she made.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348155/

[Hooahguy]

Eh - come to the UK.

Although, if you'd seen Suzie Gold you'd think all Jews here were obsessed with their children "marrying out". Although the main reason to see that film is to appreciate just how hot Summer Phoenix is, and then to curse because it's the last film she made.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348155/

Technically if your child doesnt marry Jewish then Jewish law says you must consider them as if they were dead. Funny lot we Jews are.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Technically if your child doesnt marry Jewish then Jewish law says you must consider them as if they were dead. Funny lot we Jews are.

I remember a pal of mine from my grad school days....his grandfather told him to enjoy himself all he wanted but to remember that "shiksa were just for practice."

[Hooahguy]

I remember a pal of mine from my grad school days....his grandfather told him to enjoy himself all he wanted but to remember that "shiksa were just for practice."

Haha yes that is a saying. There really isnt anything that I know of in Jewish law that prohibits sex with non-Jews, its the procreating part which is the problem.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I remember a pal of mine from my grad school days....his grandfather told him to enjoy himself all he wanted but to remember that "shiksa were just for practice."

That's sickening.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Israeli operations constitute war crimes.

[Montmorency]

The position is simply that both, though distinct in the manner, are unacceptable. Nothing is being conflated except in your position.

You can't honestly think that people who consider the Iraq War to have been a crime against humanity due to its conduct would not recognize the current invasion as such...

Anyway, it's not even a moral position, necessarily. There's nothing ambiguous about these human rights, and if "not being signatory" is the best you can put up, well...

[Montmorency]

The Israeli invasion is strictly to control the rockets, both presently and in the future. They have that right, under international law, no matter how much you don't like it.

But, again, that's not the point...

based on the laws of war as practiced and understood by the nations that actual go to war.

The fact that international laws and norms of war are outdated and apply best to national wars between national states is another topic entirely. The point is that according to the letter and spirit of these aforementioned, the Israelis are mucking things up.

[Papewaio]

Also not true. The laws of war have been updated internally by the nations that still go to war. Under the US Laws of Land Warfare, (so far) the Israelis are doing nothing wrong strictly regarding the conduct of this invasion to control Hamas' ability to launch rockets. If you're trying to say that Israel is breaking international law as a few very stuffy European signatories understand it, then that's a very disingenuous and political argument. Your problem is with international law, and the ability of nations to opt in and opt out. So make that argument.

You realize the US, Israel and Sudan are still signatories to this set of laws even though they have said they are stepping away from them to join the likes of Russia and China.

Yeah might makes right.

[Papewaio]

I could say literally anything and you'd find a way to make it political. Whatever.

Well stop making political rhetoric :p

Surely the Palestinians if they are a state can evict invaders too?

[Papewaio]

That's far from the best I've come up with. I'm out, done with this one. My position is non-partisan, and based on the laws of war as practiced and understood by the nations that actually go to war. Invading Iraq could be a war crime, given that it was based on false evidence knowingly given--but even so, the president gets a pardon and the UN has absolutely no authority to enforce such a thing. If Bush is a war criminal, he will be convicted in an American court. Since that will never happen, its a moot point. The Israeli invasion is strictly to control the rockets, both presently and in the future. They have that right, under international law, no matter how much you don't like it.

I think you are confalting a (hypothetical) war crime and its ability to be prosecuted. Just because a criminal could get away with a war crime does not extinguish the war crime. All it means is that justice/law cannot be served.

[Papewaio]

The Israeli invasion is strictly to control the rockets, both presently and in the future. They have that right, under international law, no matter how much you don't like it.

Sure targeting missile platforms. But not everyone thinks these are the only things being targeted and some of them are not the norm for a military target.

Do police count as civilian or military casualties?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Its an important distinction to make, between Israeli policy towards Gaza, and Israeli conduct during this invasion. I've said it as thoroughly and in as many ways as I can, so whatever. Go on confusing the two if you want, I'm just trying to steer the discussion in a direction that's less painful to read.

Gelcube:

You are operating with a different frame of reference in mind regarding legitimacy in military targeting.

They view the use of any weapons that could harm non-combatants as a war crime. Artillery, rockets, crew-served weaponry of any kind...all of these have margins of error during normal use that virtually guarantee civilian casualties in densely populated areas such as Gaza (which is, of course, exacerbated by the positioning of equipment near or within civilian concentrations). As such, your "opposition" would view ANY such weapons use as wrong and would argue that the Israelis should refrain from counterfire.

They would probably -- in terms of the morality of the specific act, NOT the implied policy -- accept the deployment of military personnel to effect a direct response using small arms after specific identification of the militancy of the target has been confirmed using mark one eyeballs. Even then, I suspect they would expect these soldiers to show the same restraint a police force would for the potential of collateral casualties during such a "shoot."

Please note, even if they accept that such a military response would be moral in its limitation of civilian casualties, they view the policies and behavior of Israel within Gaza as inherently criminal and tyrannical.

I hope I am summarizing this clearly -- that is my read of things based on the above.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...was American policy in Iraq for the last two years, despite the fact that far more (up to what the Israelis are currently doing) would have been legal under our own laws of warfare. The cost and manpower required to do it that way is prohibitive, and nobody should be expecting Israel to do it that way from a practical and realistic military (or even legal) point of view. Would I like to see them try? Absolutely. But I don't expect it, and neither should you.

I do not.

Earlier I noted that war in its most basic form -- at least past symbolic/ritual conflict -- was ghastly and makes no distinction between civilian and military.

While saddened, I am not surprised when I read of incidents involving brutality/civilian targeting -- I am surprised that it does not happen more than it now does.

[Pannonian]

was American policy in Iraq for the last two years, despite the fact that far more (up to what the Israelis are currently doing) would have been legal under our own laws of warfare. The cost and manpower required to do it that way is prohibitive, and nobody should be expecting Israel to do it that way from a practical and realistic military (or even legal) point of view. Would I like to see them try? Absolutely. But I don't expect it, and neither should you.

Militarily, the cleanest way for Israel to sort out Gaza and Hamas would be to remove all settlements from the West Bank so as to bolster Fatah's position, do whatever else to strengthen Fatah's position, eg. giving it economic aid to be spent on the West Bank (Europe and the US would probably be glad to contribute to this), give them some form of military aid that would never put them within a million miles of threatening Israel's existence, but would be enough to sustain them through a small scale civil war, then let them loose on Hamas in Gaza. All the losses and atrocities would be the business of other Palestinians, not the Israeli state, whose only contribution in this is the benign support of the legitimate Palestinian government.

No chance of that happening though. Rabin demonstrated that Israeli leaders who make peace with Palestinians are killed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Gelcube:

You are operating with a different frame of reference in mind regarding legitimacy in military targeting.

They view the use of any weapons that could harm non-combatants as a war crime. Artillery, rockets, crew-served weaponry of any kind...all of these have margins of error during normal use that virtually guarantee civilian casualties in densely populated areas such as Gaza (which is, of course, exacerbated by the positioning of equipment near or within civilian concentrations). As such, your "opposition" would view ANY such weapons use as wrong and would argue that the Israelis should refrain from counterfire.

They would probably -- in terms of the morality of the specific act, NOT the implied policy -- accept the deployment of military personnel to effect a direct response using small arms after specific identification of the militancy of the target has been confirmed using mark one eyeballs. Even then, I suspect they would expect these soldiers to show the same restraint a police force would for the potential of collateral casualties during such a "shoot."

Please note, even if they accept that such a military response would be moral in its limitation of civilian casualties, they view the policies and behavior of Israel within Gaza as inherently criminal and tyrannical.

I hope I am summarizing this clearly -- that is my read of things based on the above.

I won't speak for the others, but my problem is the huge number of casualties.

What is the end goal here?

If it was to neutralise the rocket launchers, surely that could have been done with counter-battery fire - there would have been collateral damage but it would have been localised. What we have seen, though, are punitive strikes against the homes of Hamas "commanders", intel we mostly have to rely on Israel for, and strikes on populated areas.

The 2006 War in Lebanon and previous strikes into gaza have been primarily punitive - the local populace are ground into the dust to drive home the fact that opposing Israel is worse than opposing the militants.