Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I was pleasantly surprised to find the folks at “The Economist” join the chorus of international leaders, nations and organizations to condemn Israel in it’s latest excursions in Gaza. In Gaza: the rights and wrongs, the editors note that while Israel has some grounds for this offensive, she will utlimately pay a higher price to achieve it’s goals.
“The Economist” notes that
a war must pass three tests to be justified. A country must first have exhausted all other means of defending itself. The attack should be proportionate to the objective. And it must stand a reasonable chance of achieving its goal. (These tests are generally in line with the just war theory)
The writer concludes: “On all three of these tests Israel is on shakier ground than it cares to admit.” Read the article for the magazine’s justification of it’s thesis.
To me, the most noteworthy observation of the article is that these two peoples will continue to be neighbors (regardless of the outcome of this war). Unless Israel eliminates Palestinians from the face of the earth, this war will not bring a coveted long-term peace. “The Palestinians it is bombing today will be its neighbours for ever.”
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts: |
Thanks for stopping by my blog. Find out more
I tend to agree…
I say these vermin have justified there removal from Israel’s borders. These devils target women and children. There targets are Church’s, schools, and homes. They admit to that every Jew is a target. Looking at the three rules layed out, I’m not seeing the shaky ground the author is trying to sell. I can’t imagine a more exhausted scenario. They give these devils more land and just ask for peace, and the devils use it to fire missiles deeper into the heart of Israel. These has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years, so I’m not sure what definition the author is using to call rule number one shaky. Rules 2 and 3 have to do with objective, and right now that is up for speculation, but if I were Iran, I would be pissing myself right now. What seems to be often left out of the conversation is that Palestine has the same objective as Hitler. The only good Jew is a dead Jew. Palestine will never be satisfied, and will always be funded by the likes of Iran. The threats of a nuclear atrocity in Israel has never been greater. Its time to send the funded devils back to there funders and off of Israels boarder, IMO. As far as rule 3 Israel has the power to do what ever they want to the Palestinians so to call this shaky, to me is delusional. In any event, my hopes are #1 that we stay of of this, and #2 wish much sucess to Israel in a long over due responce to Palestinian, terror. I respond the the author with what rules are you holding the palestinians to? Clearly not the same, so you either agree they are incapable animals or you are bias.
Wow humble! You’re calling the author biased? Hello pot… meet kettle.
You know what else was a Nazi trick? Portraying one’s opponents as ‘animals’, ‘vermin’, and ‘devils’. Nicely done.
while I appreciate your comparisons aneel, I do admit to my tendencies to refer to people who target the defenseless, especially women and children, as vermin. The targeting of schools and the murder of school children is devilish at best, I’m not sure how else to describe it. I’d be interested in how you would put it? I’m going to go out on a limb and say your not fond of Hitler as you used him in comparison to me. So I’m sure you don’t appreciate hamas and irans call for Jewish extinction anymore than Hitlers. I’m sure with any research you will find that the Palestinians will not rest until Israel is concurred. As well, any peace treaty is no more that a means for Palestinians to regroup and rearm. My comparison is this, hamas hits the big kid and then runs to the teacher to ask for truce, so he doesn’t get pummeled. In summery I assume while you have issue with my terminology, we agree that Israel has every right to protect the lives of it’s innocent civilians from these racist hate mongers (”Hitlers of our time”), called hamas/iran. You show the capacity to compare my words to Hitlers, certainly you can easily compare irans and hamas’s call for the Jewish extinction to Hitlers. If this is not the case I would love to hear why you exempt them from the same standards you hold to everyone else. I say a rat cannot live in the same box as a snake. So again I call for the removal of Palestinians from Israel’s borders, in the name of peace and stability for the middle east.
You missed my point entirely. I was not actually comparing you to Hitler, but simply pointing out the absurdity of your comments by saying something equally absurd.
Back to the point – the author simply questions whether Israel’s current aggression satisfies the “three tests”. There is no bias there – simply a suggestion that this violent response is not the best means to a peaceful end. IMO, that’s a fair, unbiased, and meaningful path to walk down.
As the great philosopher Ice-Cube says: Chiggity-check yo self before you wreck yo self. The language and tone of your response is strikingly similar to Hamas’ call for the extinction of Israel.
Aneel, Actually HC’s language is not just “strikingly similar to Hamas’ call for the extinction of Israel.” It is the same call. Unless I misread you HC, you are calling for the extinction of the Palestinian people, right?
Quoting HC:
“So again I call for the removal of Palestinians from Israel’s borders, in the name of peace and stability for the middle east.”
aneel – I responded with my rational for using the terms you deemed “absurd”. They were also followed up with a question to you, (The targeting of schools and the murder of school children is devilish at best, I’m not sure how else to describe it. I’d be interested in how you would put it?) which could help me understand your position perhaps a little better. I’m also wondering if iran/hamas’s call for Jewish extinction is worth the protection, and benefit of the doubt that many seem to be calling for on Palestinians behalf? I agree with your statement that “Back to the point – the author simply questions whether Israel’s current aggression satisfies the “three tests”. There is no bias there” The bias began to ring with his proclamation “On all three of these tests Israel —”IS”— on shakier ground than it cares to admit.”. I found no logic behind the statement, in fact the opposite, and gave a few examples that were contrary to his opinion. I understand there are many paths to solution. I submit to you that 7 X 77 cheeks have been blown off the faces of Israel’s children. Just as the impotent league of nations failed to halt Hitlers aggression to it’s neighbors, which ended up resulting in a world war, the united nations is doing the world a huge disservice by excusing iran/hamas attacks on Israel. I say there is a time for peace, and a time to stop Hitler in his tracks. IMO this time is past due.
Ed – I’m not calling for a Palestinian genocide, I’ll leave that in Iran’s and Hamas’s handbook. My statement was as it was written. I believe that Palestinians have lost the right to occupy the Gaza strip, I also feel that Israel should consider reclaiming the west bank, and possibly the Golan heights to create a safer buffer from a neighbor/enemy, you say potato I say potahto. This maybe also be the time to dismantle Iran’s threats of nuclear holocaust. That is my statement.
For aneel and Ed, you both appear to feel that Palestinians are worthy neighbors for Israel. I would like to know how you envision the two of these parties co-existing in peace? What needs to happen, the Israel crisis isn’t my strong suit and I’m wondering what it is you two see, that I cannot. I hear a lot of critics who are not dodging missiles criticize Israels response, but I don’t hear any solutions or alternative remedies.
I’d like to argue that there is bias in the “tests” themselves. It gives the “attacker” a free ride, while giving the “defender” a set of rules to retaliate by.
#1 – A country must first have exhausted all other means of defending itself. (After the attacks of 9/11, should the United States Government have called for meetings w/ all the terror cells within it’s borders and conference called Al Qaida and Bin Laden in?)
#2 – The attack should be proportionate to the objective. (The irony of this statement is that it is completely “subjective”. During WWII the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of people in hopes of ending a war. Was the attack proportionate to the objective? Ask an American WWII Vet. Better yet, ask a Japanese native. Heck, all Japan did was attack Pearl Harbor… Did the US “exhaust” all other means??)
#3 – And it must stand a reasonable chance of achieving its goal. (This is the great UNKNOWN. It’s easy to see in hindsight that someone achieved it’s goal. Many would argue the fact that there hasn’t been a terror attack on US soil since 9/11/01, that our foreign policy has achieved it’s goal. Many would argue otherwise. Yet again, a very subjective “rule”.)
I just stumbled upon this blog through a random link of people, but glad I did. I’d like to hear Aneel’s and Eddie’s response to Humble’s question. Why aren’t you holding Hamas responsible for their actions? Or is it that you both don’t believe Israel should have ever regained their homeland in the first place, therefore justifying all Palestinian actions?
One last question (back to my original point): Try holding the Palestinians to the “3 tests”… what do you get?
Well I thought this blog was getting hot. Anyway I found an article that I thought did a great job of explaining what’s happening, and why so many people thanks to the drive by media and our institutions of low learning, run to falsely defend hamas. ——”Mr. Segev is correct when he says that the suffering of children on either side is intolerable — this is why the pictures from Gaza make us shudder. But he is wrong to draw a moral equivalence between the two sides. In this, he lends a hand to the Palestinians’ most shameful military tactic: pimping the suffering of their civilians as a weapon of war.
Palestinian children are dying today not because of Israeli brutality, but because their own leaders have chosen to use their children as human shields, and their pain as a battering ram against Western sensibilities.
Of course, it is easy to blame Hamas. It is they, after all, who deliberately put their weapons caches in mosques, their rocket launchers in schoolyards, and their command centers in hospitals — all with the explicit goal of maximizing the tragedy of an Israeli response.”
people who put there own children in front of bullets deserve to be called vermin. Actually it’s an insult to vermin everywhere. They actually protect there young. And devilish again, I feel is very soft for the types crimes these people commit.