01/04/2009 12:54:38 AM EST

What's Kind of Civilian Killing is Worse?

posted by Cenk

I've been thinking about this all weekend and I can't really make up my mind. This is both a theoretical question and a very real and practical question at the same time.

What's worse if someone (Hamas) intends to kill civilians and kills four people or someone else (Israel) does not intend to kill civilians but kills 60.

I have a poll about this below.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Now, some might argue whether Israel doesn't really intend to kill civilians when they drop bombs on houses in the middle of civilian populations. But remember if their true intent was just to kill Palestinians, civilian or not, they could do it on a grand scale. And they do not do that.

You could call it public relations effort or whatever, but the bottom line is that Israel's main purpose is not to kill Palestinian civilians. However, the effect of their actions is to kill far more civilians than does Hamas (as far as numbers are concerned, this is indisputable).

I'm not going to give you any cop out answers in this poll, like neither is acceptable (of course, but that would make for a very simple question). I will happily accept more nuanced answers in the comments section, however.

So, with that in mind, here's the question:

< Ok, so tell me again why we post diaries? | Cenk we have black people in Utah >

Poll

What's worse killing 4 civilians on purpose or killing 60 when that is not your intent?
a. Killing the fewer number of civilians on purpose 35%
b. Killing the larger amount of civilians while you're aiming at military targets 64%

Votes: 53
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
What's Kind of Civilian Killing is Worse? | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 hidden)
Not really the point... (5.00 / 2)

IMHO, there is no difference between killing with suicide bombs and cruise missiles.  The people are just as dead and the intent of the perpetrators is the same -- to incite terror.

 BTW, of course killing one's self in the process of inflicting pain on one's enemy or in the perceived belief that one is protecting one's friends and loved ones is usually considered more courageous that pressing a button or raining terror upon an enemy from a weapons platform flying overhead -- except of course in the case of "terrorists."

 As far as I can tell, the point to be examined here is that one side is seen by the vast majority of Americans and their media as heroes and victims and the other side is depicted as cowards and terrorists.  The fact that the United States and Great Brittain can decide to illegally invade a sovereign country that has neither attacked nor threatened the former and then kill tens maybe hundreds of thousands of civilians without one drop of remorse is appalling.  The American/British dead are heroes and saints and the dead Iraqis are worthless, not even worthy of note except as a statistic.

This is what we have with the Israelis and the Palestinians in Gaza.  One side lionized and the other demonized.  The handful killed by Palestinian rockets balanced against the hundreds killed by Israeli military action and their abdication of legitimate responsibilities as an occupying power.

by Verfluchte Hunde on 01/04/2009 06:07:18 AM EST

OK going to bed now for reals :D (none / 0)
You are more right than me. Thank you JzkAlh ws

by AmericanMuslimGirl on 01/04/2009 06:59:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Brilliant (none / 0)

I think that everything you said is spot on. I wish that I could have expressed my thoughts into well developed sentences, but you took the words out of my mouth.

 Some how, we Americans have developed a tough guy bully way of thinking, where, because we think we are right on every subject, then we are aloud to instill fear on other nations that we claim to be evil. Our goal as a nation should not be to prove we are right by kicking everyone's asses and letting our own people die while we are at it, but rather to create a principal based on the value of peace and developing a society where all religious beliefs and races can accepted without blowing each other up and keeping the minorities in fear. I know that sounds like a bunch of hippie bullshit, but when you really think about it, if so many right winged Americans were as christian as they claimed they were, then this wouldn't even be an issue

 

 

What would Jesus bomb?

by Enlightenedthoughts on 01/05/2009 12:31:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm surprised (none / 1)
No option C?

C. They are equally bad.

I'm not saying that's necessarily my answer because I need to think about it more, but I'm guessing more people would participate if that was an option.

by ihavenobias on 01/04/2009 03:33:15 AM EST

CENK your even handedness is AWESOME (none / 0)

THEY ARE NOT EQUALLY BAD.

 

stop being ignorant

 

you are inciting MUSLIMS I am trying to get them not to blow themselves up over this but you are making it hard liberals!!!!

 

AMERICAN MUSLIM GIRL

by AmericanMuslimGirl on 01/04/2009 05:17:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Weird (none / 1)
Why ALL CAPS followed by a lack of capitalization?&nbs p;On top of that there is missing *and* excessive punctuation.

;)

PS---I didn't say C was *my* choice, I just think it should be *a* choice.

by ihavenobias on 01/04/2009 05:34:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
BIAS is LIFE (none / 0)

because im tired and people are dying

 

its a waste of my breath

 

people are dying inside and out

 

i have learned to use caps. its my assertiveness ASSERTING!!!

by AmericanMuslimGirl on 01/04/2009 05:40:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
HA! defensivness :P (none / 0)

OH and allahuakbar wa la ilaha ila allah

 

God is Great and there is No being worthy of worship except the ever living self sufficient One

 

 

And I like you just chill out

by AmericanMuslimGirl on 01/04/2009 05:42:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"C" is my choice. (none / 0)

To me, both crimes deserve life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Which crime is morally "worse" is irrelevant and meaningless because we must treat them the same.  The perpetrators of both crimes should be buried so deeply in the prison system that they are never heard from again.  Decent society must be protected from all such criminals, whether they be Arabic, Palistinian, or Jewish.

Of course, if they don't want to go peacefully, then they should be arrested by whatever means necessary, even if the criminals are killed in the process.

The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 01/06/2009 05:38:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good to know (none / 0)
AMG rated my comment a 2 simply because I suggested that many people would like an option C.

by ihavenobias on 01/06/2009 06:00:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Im WASTING my breath (none / 0)

/watch?v=Mg_4o6sCD_E

 

AMG on youtube

by AmericanMuslimGirl on 01/04/2009 05:27:54 AM EST

RESULTS MATTER (none / 1)
B has to be worse, because it is represents a larger tragedy.

Also, to people saying that there should be an option C, read Cenk's original post for an explanation of why there is no option C.

by huwrj on 01/04/2009 06:00:05 AM EST

I know, no "cop-out" answers (none / 0)
Ultimately though I think it just means less people will respond to the poll but maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing.

by ihavenobias on 01/04/2009 02:11:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
WHAT what!!! (none / 0)

My Muslims Always come through for me. Always.

 

Peace out.

by AmericanMuslimGirl on 01/04/2009 06:45:01 AM EST

my answer... (none / 1)
I agree with many of the previous posts. Israels killing is generally seen more justified than the Palestinian even though the Israelis kill more people.
Now I think that it is worse to kill more people even if that is unintentially. BUT the question we also have to ask ourselves is if Hamas can be blamed for some of the Palestinian killings. I dont know the specifics on this one, but it appears that some members of Hamas are hiding on purpose among civilians to increase the risk of civilians killed thereby conducting propaganda warfare against Israel.
One can argue that Israel ultimatly chooses what to do and should be equally responsible in each case.
Im just sayin..

by DrT on 01/04/2009 07:07:11 AM EST

ASK (none / 0)
OK DrT we can ask, and we can answer. YES. It doesn't change the fact that we ALL have the responsibility to act according to certain set in stone principles that should not change according to the supposed expediency of the moment.

by AmericanMuslimGirl on 01/04/2009 07:12:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
i thought that you were goin to bed a.m.g.? :) (none / 0)
True, I also would like to think so. But its easier said than done.
Killing is always bad, unintentionally or not. It almost always leads to more killing. Both sides have to stop, preferably Israel first because they are the bigger and wealthier one (and also the source of the whole conflict).

by DrT on 01/04/2009 07:21:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
government vs militia (none / 0)

Hamas is now the elected government of Palestine.

It's one thing to say that a military force should not seek refuge among a civilian population but an elected government must necessarily be close to the population they serve. Hamas provides welfare stipends and food rations to the poor, police protection and medical services to Gaza at large, management and salaries for tens of thousands of civil servants and manages a smuggling/distribution system that brings consumer goods and currency to blockaded Gaza.

If the government is in a defacto exile, secluded to the country side - the suffering of Palestinians would only increase.

Another point I'd like to illustrate is the fact that Israel is not only assasinating high ranking Hamas officials and incurring colateral damage on the way. They are targeting civilian infrastructure e.g. bridges, power generators, graineries which they claim is focused on destroying Hamas' capability to fight back. This is standard procedure in an Israeli invasion. Look back to the last invasion of Lebanon where they bombed all of the ports and powerplants. Most collateral damage occures when the IDF hits these targets.

by sovnarkom on 01/04/2009 02:58:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Secluded to the country side? (none / 0)
I wonder if that's even possible.  Gaza is tiny and way over-populated. 

by Arna on 01/04/2009 06:20:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hard question (none / 0)
I think I am with you Cenk and I can't make up my mind. Killing people over ideology seems so dumb to me. I realize there is more behind it than ideology in the Israel-Palestine conflict but in in general terms killing for any reason is wrong.

by joshny on 01/04/2009 09:53:06 AM EST

what does the law say ? (none / 0)

Hi,

You could certainly find an answer in the law. 

I'm swiss, so I'll take my country's law as an example. 

If I kill someone because I'm driving too fast , it's a crime. It's not homicide by negligence. If I drive at 60 mi/h in a city I'm accepting the risk of kiling someone. I may not want to, but I know it COULD happen. I would certainly not get the same jail time as if I killed someone with a gun, but I would be judged for this crime.

This is exactly what the israelis are doing.  They are accepting the risk of killing civilians.

 To answer the question above (which is worse?), you can compare the jail time you would get in both situation (fast driving and shooting someone) and multiply by the number of victims. You will have a rationnal answer, using the advise of all lawyers, judges and representatives who were asked this question. They had to come up with a solution. I think it's wise to follow their  conclusion.

by moogly81 on 01/04/2009 10:02:23 AM EST

Law and Order (none / 0)

I watch a lot of Law and Order (the original show).

As fans of the show will be aware, the DA regularly convicts people of murder in cases where a person or people were killed unintentionally, in the pursuit of some other activity or purpose.

For 2nd degree murder, it must be proved that the accused caused the death of the victim whilst demonstrating a "callous disregard for human life" which is the specific wording of the New York statute relating to 2nd degree murder.

If I was on that hypothetical jury then I personally think that Israel would be guilty of murder under that definition. Therefore, it's 4 murders vs 64 murders (or whatever the numbers are).

And therefore, option B is still worse in my opinion.

by huwrj on 01/04/2009 08:02:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bad Logic (none / 1)
This question is wrong, and the logic is bad. The Palestinians initiated this recent nonsense. Their rockets interrupt Israel's commerce and happenings-- and they have for several years. They force people to flee to shelters for hours. They destroy property. "There were only 7 casualties last year." Uh... and? THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE F--ING DIED.

On CNN they read an email from a guy who said that during all 5 of his visits to Israel he was forced to flee to a shelter because Hamas was launching missiles at it.

I'm tired of this "only 7 were killed last year" nonsense. DON'T F--ING DO IT, you morons. It's really that simple. They don't have a leg to stand on.

by FlaccidMember on 01/04/2009 11:50:23 AM EST

is it really? (none / 0)
So what would you have the Palestinians/Hamas do?
Remember that:
1. Their land was taken from them by force
2. Israel did build a big wall around the litte land that the Palestinians have left and imposed blockades on it (both illegaly)
etc


So you think that the Palestinians should just peacefully accept that? Maybe if you were in their shoes you would do the same thing, who knows?

Killing is always wrong, BUT when the palestinians dont have the military means to break an illegal blockade that hs been imposed on their land for example and want to strike back on Israel then how do you do it?

By the only means availible: rockets and suicide bombings (hamas have not conducted those for over a year now).

I think FM that you see the whole conflict in black and white - but its not that simple.
And btw maybe the Palestinians did initiate "the recent nonsense" but its not crystal clear if they did or not.

by DrT on 01/04/2009 02:14:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
blah blah subject who fing cares (none / 0)
"1. Their land was taken from them by force"
__________

Debatable. In my opinion, only tiny tracts of land were "taken by force." I've read "The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. He actually makes the case that NOTHING was "taken by force."
This "justified because it was taken by force" argument is nonsense on its face. By this rationale, The Cherokee Nation, Navajo Nation, etc. have a right to launch random missile strikes against the United States. Such an occurence would probably amuse me.. until our government destroyed them. The other analogies of Cuba or Mexico launching strikes against us is not farfetched. We ALL know that we would destroy them-- without the patience that the Israelis have displayed, and definitely without a single care about "proportional violence" (whatever the hell that means).

"2. Israel did build a big wall around the litte land that the Palestinians have left and imposed blockades on it (both illegaly)"
____________

Great. Hey, I know the best way to combat such things: fire missiles at it randomly for several years. Actually, that's just fucking stupid. When the Israelis invaded Gaza the Palestinians claimed DELUSIONAL things about their destruction, which caused me to wonder if Hamas believes that through the power of magic Muhammed they can actually destroy a superior military force.

"And btw maybe the Palestinians did initiate 'the recent nonsense' but its not crystal clear if they did or not."
__________________

Almost every flare up of violence in the Mid East and every debate about such flare ups is nonsense to me because it is mostly rooted in religion. "Native Americans" would not dare to attack U.S. states with the inevitability of their destruction because they don't have the Palestinians' religious fervor against us. The&n bsp;Israelis would probably regard the Palestinians better if they shared the same religion.

Aaaand, finally, yes, they DID initiate it-- it's a fact that not even Arab countries dispute. They oppose the ground offensive, but they supported or were silent about the air strikes BECAUSE they know that the Palestinians were out of line.

by FlaccidMember on 01/04/2009 04:31:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
let me respond (none / 0)
"Debatable. In my opinion, only tiny tracts of land were "taken by force.""

But you do admit that there were bits of land taken by force? And even if the rest were not taken by force you think that the Palestinians just gave their lands to the Israelis and then had a change of hearts?

"This "justified because it was taken by force" argument is nonsense on its face. "

Please give me concrete examples why you think so because if someone would kick me out of my home/ country I would try to get it back. Just because Israel has the means to "crush" the palestinians you think they should?
Sure if some native americans would today be angry about their landloss I would understand it. But it wouldnt give them right to fire rockets with intention to kill people, thats not what Im saying. What I AM saying is that I do understand their situation. And it seems to me that you think that the Palestinians should simply accept what has happened to them? Would you do the same thing? 

"Great. Hey, I know the best way to combat such things: fire missiles at it randomly for several years. Actually, that's just fucking stupid."
 
Yes, indeed its very stupid and unjustified. But with no other means to strike back and with so low education level - how would you combat what you think are the invaders?

"Almost every flare up of violence in the Mid East and every debate about such flare ups is nonsense to me because it is mostly rooted in religion. "

It shouldnt be nonsense to you, its never nonsense when people are dying and struggling. Yes there is almost always religion involved in the middle east, but it occur on both sides.

"Aaaand, finally, yes, they DID initiate it-- it's a fact that not even Arab countries dispute."

Please read next topic.

Again you seem only listen to one side in this conflict and not trying to understand the other side. Sure some Palestinians are killing Israelis but the threat is almost more theoretical than practical. There is a lot of hoplessness, poverty, unemployment and even starvation among the Palestinians. Surely it cant be that hard to see why they would strike against Israel.

by DrT on 01/04/2009 05:14:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Cherokee Nation, Navajo Nation, etc??? (none / 0)

Although I liked your Native American analogy, you're a little off.  The Cherokee Nation, Navajo Nation, etc. did fight to get their land back.  Remember the American Indian Wars?  American records list over 300 years worth of battles, and a lot of people died on both sides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Indian_Wars

the US fought them to submission and nearly extinction, but eventually we gave them equal rights as Americans and autonomy as sovereign people.  The Palestinians have none of this.  If we built walls around Native American territories, restricted their trade, sent in armies to occupy their streets and removed all of their freedom, liberties and hopes for the future, I assure you we would still be fighting.

Is Israel willing to do what we did to the American Indians? This war has been going on for decades, and bombing civilians hasn't made Israel any safer.

Maybe they should just skip to the end and give the Palestinians equal rights, freedom and sovereignty, like the US eventually did with the Native Americans. 

by YourLeftOne on 01/06/2009 12:01:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"this recent nonsense" (none / 0)
You can conveniently say that the recent violence began with Hamas' Qassam rocket attacks but that opinion and the mainstream media fueled conventional wisdom it represents is short sighted. What I'm about to say may look like an angry tirade because there's no inflection in text communication so know that I mean no offense, fellow young turk. To say that the fact that Israel's revenge has killed disproportionately more people doesn't matter because the rocket attacks from Gaza "interrupt Israel's commerce and happenings" is laughable. The Israeli army controls the air space, territorial waters, offshore maritime access, population registry, entry of foreigners, import and export of goods as well as the tax system in Gaza and they've abused this control to collectively punish the Palestinians. There is an extreme shortage of food, fuel and medicine in Gaza as a result of the military blockade. Gaza is being starved. The Israeli military continued to collect VAT taxes on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in calendar year 2007 but refused to hand over the collected revenue to the government or alternatively return it to tax-paying citizens. They've also seized the assets of Palestinian banks (at gun point) and curtailed the flow of sheckles into the occupied territories. Gaza is being robbed. Compare hiding in a bomb shelter for a few hours to living in the world's largest ghetto.

by sovnarkom on 01/04/2009 04:40:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nonsense. (none / 0)
Yeah, wonderful, man-- let's assume that your allegations are all true.

No one is answering this question: does is justify the constant daily stream of rockets into Israel? Is there a better means of proesting the Israelis? Apparently you guys believe that there isn't a better means of protesting them.

This is all Deductive Logic 101 to me, but it's expected because I understand how human beings view things. They take one side of an argument then everything else about the other side is warped or meaningless to them. To me and anyone else who has a firm grasp of logic, the issue is "who is initiating the violence? Who has outright declared war against the other side?" You can say "the Israelis did this and that covertly 20 years ago and this and that 15 years ago and that thing with the thing 5 years ago, therefore Israeli civilians should just take missiles up their asses daily and try to go on about life as normal." Beautiful. To me, it's bullshit.

When blacks protested violently&nb sp;in Watts during '65 and around the nation during '92 I guess you guys would make the case or made the case that based on America's history it was all justified. In fact, blacks should have taken it a step further-- maybe they should have formed their own colonies, declared war against the states then launched random missiles against the U.S. I don't know... and I'm starting to think that I don't WANT to know how people who side with Hamas think.

I will say that I would never label Hamas "a terrorist organization" because it's counterproductive to Palestinians' sovereignty and the long term stability of the region. Our moronic politicians label Iranians terrorists without a second thought, so it's also expected.

In conclusion, you guys are f--ing crazy. No, I kid.

by FlaccidMember on 01/04/2009 05:17:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
100% right, 0% wrong (none / 0)

in my humble opinion.

There's a reason the Palestinians are often shown throwing rocks as weapons. 

Seems to me that Israel was already itching for an excuse to bomb the shit out of Hamas.

by desertpear on 01/04/2009 05:30:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Question (none / 0)

Can't you see how much of a one-sided view that is?

The Palestinian civilians who die DON'T LAUNCH THE ROCKETS.

They are equally as innocent as the Israeli civilians who are victims of the rocket attacks.

They also shouldn't have f-ing died.

The only solution is peace.

One-sided views will not lead to peace.

by huwrj on 01/04/2009 08:12:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Listening to Cat Power + not wanting to title shit (none / 0)
"The only solution is peace."

Yes, I agree. Maybe you should have told the Palestinians that peace is the only solution before they elected Hamas leaders. Maybe you should have told them that peace is the only solution before they pissed away millions of dollars on missiles to provoke Israel-- millions of dollars that could have been spent to improve their education  and general welfare.

Peace is great, man.

by FlaccidMember on 01/04/2009 10:37:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, cop-out, each is just as bad (none / 0)
Sorry to beat it to death, but as a former military man, I just don't think either is "ok". Bullets, shells, missles, etc. are real; so are the people whose lives are claimed by them.

This is almost too horriffic to think about now. I really have been hoping for peace, and the end of needless death and destruction, but I guess the world goes on and human nature remains as it is.

I wish there had been a c; I would have made that choice. Though as a military man, deliberate targeting of innocent and un-armed civillians is in my opinion, among the most henious and barbaric things anyone can do. You take somone's life with pre-meditation and without regret.

I don't believe in Captial Punishment or an "eye for an eye". Still, as  Jew, I am really pressed hard to believe that there is room in G-d's Heaven for everyone, no matter how evil they might have been.

Cenk, great question. My fellow diarists, thanks for giving me a lot to think about.

by acramer on 01/04/2009 07:20:26 PM EST

See, I knew option C was a good idea (none / 0)
Even if someone didn't agree with it it would've given a more accurate Quick Read on what the TYT community thought about the issue.

After all, not everyone is willing to leave a comment, but even lurkers will click an anonymous poll.

by ihavenobias on 01/04/2009 08:51:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
depends on how you judge (none / 0)
The line between civilian and military among Hamas is blurrier, because people who want to join Hamas probably come directly from civilian ranks without a whole lot of differentiation&nbs p;- they're a more populist movement by necessity, because if they were as separate from the civilian population as the Israeli military is, Israel would have gotten rid of them already.  So in a way, civilian deaths are inevitable.

I voted that it's worse to kill 60 civilians, simply because in the long term, the more civilians die, the longer a population is likely to hold a grudge, and the harder it is for peace to take hold.  I predict that after this military action, Israel will significantly reduce or even crush the group Hamas' grip on Gaza, but that new groups will form espousing Hamas' philosophy, and they'll be just as popular.

But on the other hand, Hamas' tactics were WAY less effective in terms of protecting their people than Israel's.  They killed four civilians on purpose, they're getting their ass beat down.  Israel kills 60 civilians and their international political clout is reduced.  Both actions are bad decisions, but Hamas' were far more suicidal.

by marlonm on 01/04/2009 07:43:51 PM EST

agree (none / 0)
While I would agree from a rational perspective no matter what the intenet people still die, however I find it easier to sympathize with those who do not intend it. This is an interesting question but the conflict is definately not that simple.

by nmaks on 01/04/2009 09:00:22 PM EST

mens rea or not (none / 0)

this is ultimately a question of jurisprudential philosophy.

if you believe in "mens rea" intent matters and collateral damage is just the cost/risk of war.

if you do not believe in "mens rea", the ultimate _effect_ is what counts, and you assign blame based on the #innocents killed.

 

i do not believe in "mens rea". like the mikado, i am of the firm opinion that the punishment should fit the crime, and crime is defined by its _effect_, not its _intent_.

(a) ken lay should have been fried on the electric chair, and even now, his assets must be seized, for the crimes committed by enron on his watch, never mind that he himself was "out of the loop".

(b) bush, cheney, rumsfeld must be tried, convicted, and punished for war crimes, even if they "delegated their decision making" or "were fed bad intelligence" or "were just trying to protect the u.s.".

and so on.

 

as long as the american jurisprudential system subscribes to "mens rea", scumbag lawyers (yes, that means you, john edwards) will always be able to claim: temporary insanity, out of the loop, bad-apple minions exceeding their authority, and any and every sorry shit of an excuse to argue that a criminal is not really guilty or merits a punishment less than the one they truly deserve.

punishment must be based on the depth and breadth of the suffering and damage an action causes, whatever its intent. 

by neo on 01/04/2009 10:31:32 PM EST

It's a rethorical question first of all. (none / 0)
Whether the one or the other is worse is more a rethorical problem to me than anything else.

If I ask myself "Does Hamas intend to kill civilians?" the answer is "Yes, they do."

If I ask myself "Does Israel intend to kill civilians?" the answer is "No, they don't."

But, if I ask myself "Does Israel intend to NOT kill civilians?" the answer is "No, they do not intend to not kill civilians."

So neither part intends to NOT kill civilians and as long as both sides are fully aware that this is the direct cause of their actions whose "worse" is impossible to decide without taking sides in the conflict and thereby involving more emotions into the whole thing.

That is the LAST thing the international community should do if we want this thing to end as soon as possible!

by perbyhring on 01/04/2009 11:11:48 PM EST

i get annoyed (none / 0)
when i see academics write stupid questions like this.....and then more annoyed when retards who never have even came close to sitting in the mud freezing their ass off holding a weapon answer the question......

from a soldiers perspective war sucks.....period.....it is that simple.....

by sfinneganus on 01/05/2009 09:59:36 AM EST

Without a doubt option B (none / 0)
Hi,

Without a doubt it has to be option B. The reasoning is that Israel has absolutely no regard for Palistinian life. Let me illustrate:

Imagine that Hamas takes say 10 Israeli hostages and hides them in cellar somewhere. Israeli intelligence knows that on the same building there is a hight Hamas official. Would Israel blow up the whole building using airplanes, helicoptors, tanks,  knowing there are Israeli citizens in that building? Of course not! They wouldn't dare risk the lives of there citizens. Try to rescue them either by negotiating or by using a cleaner more surgical method such as commandos.

Now if in the cellar of the said building there are Palistinian children, they don't give a fukc!! To them the ends justify the means and innocent children are just "collateral damage" and Hamas shielding behind children.

Another example, imagine a few bank robbers entering a US bank and taking say 20 hostages. If the Police department followed Israeli methods, they would blow the whole bank up saying "At least we got the bad guys, the innocents that died are totally the robbers fault and  collateral damage." 

'nuf said

 

by JaimeH on 01/05/2009 10:19:13 AM EST

Intent (none / 0)
I don't think it's a good idea to assume intent from either side.  Israel says they are not targeting civilians.  Although I haven't seen any evidence for this, lets assume Hammas says they want to kill as many civilians as possible.  Either both sides are lying about their intentions, or they are incompetent at achieving their intended goals.  The problem is the use of violence on both sides. 
 
Leaders on both sides benefit politically from committing acts of violence on the other side.  Right-wing politicians in Israel benefit when they counter Hammas attacks, which they don’t get to do if more attacks aren’t instigated.  Hammas benefits politically by standing up to Israel when they launch rockets in retaliation for lost land and all those dead Palestinian civilians.
 
People support leaders who actively fight for their cause.  Peace talks are slow and arduous while bombing is instant gratification. 
 
Killing civilians perpetuates the cycle on both sides.  The situation requires a mediator who benefits politically from sustained peace, like the US, when peace in the region is our intention.

by YourLeftOne on 01/05/2009 11:53:52 AM EST

Balance (none / 0)
This is a tough one mainly because I'm not sure if Hamas had the opportunity to kill 60 civilians that they wouldn't. And, I'm not convinced that Israel is not targeting civilians.

by Dauoo on 01/05/2009 01:54:48 PM EST

The missing argument (none / 0)
Cenk, you miss the 3rd option:

Israel doesn't target civilians, but doesn't care (much) if they happen to be in the way.

The same can be seen IMO in America's actions in Iraq, I don't think the US government targeted Iraqi civilians, but neither do they care that several hunderd thousand Iraqis are dead and 5 million lost their homes

by callisto on 01/05/2009 04:00:25 PM EST

Ratios (none / 0)
what happens when the ratios change? what if it's 4 versus 200, will people's opinion change?

by callisto on 01/05/2009 04:02:27 PM EST

Intentions or Excuses (none / 0)
The Road to Hell is paved with good Intentions.
(and apparently willy-pete)

by mauirising on 01/05/2009 04:25:49 PM EST

After a night of sleep: my opinion (none / 0)
as with so many things, it all depends on the parameters, change them and the opinion might change

parameter 1: total numbers
killing 4 civilians with intent is worse than 60 without intent, but that change at a certain point. Killing 60000 without intent is worse than 4000 with intent for me.

parameter 2: ratio
what if it's killing 1 with intent versus 100 without intent (as is the case it seems now in Gaza), then I think it's worse that the hunderd people got killed

parameter 3: statements of guilt/fault/regret (also gives a look at intent)
for the killings with intent, we know their intent and it's bad
for killing without intent, we actually don't know whether there was intent, they could just as easily be hypocrits, which makes it worse in my view, it shows a lack of spine and character if you hide behind your own sanctimoniousness

one of the ways we can gauge intent is by what they say after innocent civilians have died, do they show regret or not, if you just see them as collateral damage and don't show support to the casualties, you're as bad as the ones with intent, maybe worse in my book

so mix those 3 parameters and you can start determining which one if worse in which situation

every nation and people makes mistakes, it's how they own up to the mistake and deal with the aftermath that says something about that nation or people.
Nobody is as pure as virgin snow, so stop hiding behind that image, accept your greyness and always try to make it a lighter shade of grey

by callisto on 01/06/2009 01:06:09 PM EST

I am a little biased on this topic. (none / 0)
I am in the military and currently live in Israel so I am somewhat biased.

My take on this is that it is far worse when you intend to kill civilians. I don't care if the number number is 1 intentional death to 1,000 unintentional deaths. My opinion isn't swayed.

The reason is I feel bad if I unintentionally kill or injure a civilian, and then I render medical aid immediately. Hamas on the other hand celebrates whenever they kill civilians. Some people lose sight of that I think. They literally go out in the street and dance when one of the Jews has been killed. Hamas would kill every single Jew in Israel if they had the chance. I was watching an interview with a Palestinian the other day who wanted to take it further and kill every Jew in the world. The scariest part is that he looked like a sane person, and the people with him agreed. This wasn't Israeli propaganda. It was an interview done by Al-jazeera. I saw an interview yesterday of a 5 or 6 year old girl in Gaza who was mad at the Israelis, because she couldn't go to school. She said the Israelis were preventing her from going to school so she "could become educated, and grow up to fight and kill the Jews." This was an interview in Gaza by a Lebanese TV station. Not Israeli propaganda. The kids in Gaza get crap like this from Hamas who run CHILDREN'S TV shows advocating the killing of Jews.

Some people only talk about Hamas' rocket attacks that have been going on for a long time. They were going on during the supposed cease fire that Israel broke. Let's not forget about the suicide bombing attacks in Israel two years ago. Suicide bombers went into buses, trains, and night clubs for the sole purpose of killing civilians. Hamas exploits teenagers to put on bombs and go blow themselves up. Yes, this is the elected government of the Gaza strip. I wonder why Israel does not like them, and at this point is doing everything in their power to eliminate them. When Hamas soldiers cross streets they are known to literally pick up a kid, hold the kid in front of him, and then cross the street. This is definitely the kind of government out to protect the people who elected them.

For some people who don't know anything about how civilians get killed during war, let me try to paint the picture for you. You're patrolling through an area when you start receiving gun fire from a building maybe 200-300 yards out. Do I for the sake of saving civilian lives run the 300 yards to the building to bust down the door and clear it room by room to prevent the death of innocent civilians which will most likely happen anyway, because they will be shielding the gun men or perhaps be posing as civilians who will shoot you in the back? No, you call in a tank, artillery, or air strike to flatten the building and move to clear the area, and render aid to anyone injured. I am sure some people are outraged or sickened by this, but that is how warfare works everywhere.
 
Israelis aren't walking down the street shooting little kids in the face. They are trying to prevent civilian deaths, but in a gunfight you get scared, everything happens very quickly, and you can't step back to analyze a situation. You have to act quickly to save yourself and your men. Israelis have a difficult job in a highly populated Urban area. There will be a lot of civilian casualties. It is unavoidable. Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms which is required by the Geneva convention to prevent civilian casualties.

All the Israelis that I know think the civilian deaths are unfortunate, but they blame Hamas. If Hamas would stop firing the rockets which they haven't done for more than a week at a time then Israel would have no reason to do what they are doing. Israel the other day had their 3 hour cease fire to get medical supplies into Gaza, and guess what Hamas did. They took the opportunity to launch rockets into Israel.

Some people talk about disproportinal force. There is no such thing as a proportional resolution in warfare. What should israel do? Fire hundreds of rockets back into civilian areas in Gaza? I am sure that would be looked at as acceptable by the rest of the world. Israel is in a battle against Hamas, and to win a battle you overwhelm your enemy with superior firepower. It is unfortunate that the civilians are trapped in the middle.

I will be the bad guy here and say that the people of Gaza voted for Hamas, and knew what they were getting into when they elected Hamas. Hamas was firing rockets back then, and the people wanted someone who would fight back against the Israelis. Unfortunately, they are unrealistic and picked the wrong fight.

The Palestinians in the West Bank are living much better lives than the Palestinians in Gaza. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that they aren't firing rockets into Israel?

by karlrule13 on 01/13/2009 01:44:34 PM EST

What's Kind of Civilian Killing is Worse? | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: