Self-Defense
The pro-Israel resolution passed by congress yesterday emphasized the idea that Israel has a right to self-defense. And certainly Israel does have a right to self-defense, as do all nations. Still, this is a much more problematic concept than its invocations in the context of the Gaza assault imply.
One time when I was riding my bike, someone threw a smallish rock at me from a housing project across the street. As it happens, the kid didn’t hit me and everything was fine. But I suppose if he’d hit me in just the right way I could have been knocked down and injured. And depending on what the cars on the road were doing, it’s conceivable that I could have wound up being run over and terribly injured. Long story short, it was a pretty terrible thing for the thrower to be doing. And this has been a sporadic problem in the city for a while. But obviously it wouldn’t have bene right for me to stop, get off my bike, pull a bazooka out of my bag, and blow the houses from which the rock emanated to smithereens while shouting “self-defense!” and “double-effect!” And had I done so, and killed some innocent people in the course of things, and then I’d tried to say that the real blame for the deaths lay with the rock-thrower who’d started it everyone would look at me like I was crazy. And this is true even though it’s clear that going to the police would have been useless in that case.
I don’t believe in analogies, so don’t read that as one. Rather, it makes the point that the existence of a right to self-defense doesn’t authorize just doing whatever any more than the injustice of occupation justifies deliberately targeting civilians.
74 Responses to “Self-Defense”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 10th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Not that this is germane to your point, but what has the moral compass of this country come to when kids in DC housing projects think it’s OK to throw rocks at bicyclists? You should have run after the kid and complained to his parents about it. If neither parents, nor schools, nor the mass media is willing to teach kids right from wrong (because that would be judgmental and intolerant, don’t you know), then what you get is going to be rock throwing kids.
January 10th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“I don’t believe in analogies, so don’t read that as one.” Wow, what a transparent CYA. It is an obvious analogy – its most obvious flaw being that it confuses a situation with a context of law and law enforcement – the American city – with a situation absent that context – the relations between global actors. That rock-throwing would be classified as assault or worse, and could be prosecuted as such. That legal context acts as both deterrence and recourse in the case of a failure of deterrence. That’s why you don’t get to use the bazooka. Israel has no such recourse, and has to make its own deterrence, a bit differently.
January 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Point taken, not reading analogies in your post, but since you bring it up Matt lets expand the idea. The real question in the first place I think should be, is the “cycling Matt” Innocent?
Are you sure the “cyclist” did not steal the bicycle from the stone thrower? You don’t just throw stones ya know!
January 10th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Since you seem to be taking questions on this blog, can you explain why Marty Peretz is such an a-hole? Is he an a-hole in person? Have you met him ever?
January 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Thank you for continuing to post things like this. I am sure you will get tons of comments either pointing out the flaws in your analogies or telling you that “you just don’t understand because you don’t have children terrified by Qassam rockets.” But as an American Jew without a platform, I’m endlesslly grateful to you and fellow juicebox mafiosi for your consistent principled criticisms of the IDF’s war on Palestinian civilians.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
That rock-throwing would be classified as assault or worse, and could be prosecuted as such.
Except as MY observed, in this case going to the police would’ve been useless.
That’s why you don’t get to use the bazooka.
You can’t possibly mean that, if there wasn’t any legal recourse even in theory, that it would’ve been morally OK for Yglesias to fire a bazooka at the house, killing many innocent bystanders. You absolutely can’t mean that.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Shawel, the point is that, even in a case where one party is clearly the aggressor, proportionality is mandated. Even in cases of pure self-defense there are limits to how far you can escalate
January 10th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
When young Hector was in the Crusades, nobody threw a rock at anyone’s bicycle without some serious sword work to be paid.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Matt (Weiner):
“You can’t possibly mean that.” Well, actually, I do. Isn’t realism supposed to be en vogue at this blog? Wouldn’t realism dictate that in an international system with no overarching legal structure, morality is a very secondary concern compared to national interests, including establishing deterrence and protecting sovereignty?
The “realist” view of the international scene would translate on the micro scale to an anarchic society without rule of law (like, say, Somalia). In that situation, wouldn’t morally reprehensible behavior make sense as the only means of survival? Nasty, brutish, and short.
I know that Matt Y. is a fan of HBO’s The Wire. That actually is an illustration in which the legal framework has completely failed a segment of society. The characters do truly awful things, but we as the viewers are at least tempted to understand their actions as the only things to be done living in the context in which they live. I wonder how Matt would extend his analogy (oops!) to that.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Israel has no such recourse, and has to make its own deterrence, a bit differently.
Poor, little, fucking Israel.
Fuck you and your “deterrence”. There really aren’t words in the English language to show how much contempt I think your self-righteous bullshit is worth in your own effort at CYA regarding a first world style military assault on a population that is 80% refugees hemmed in a ghetto over crappy rockets.
You are scum.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“Fuck you… You are scum.”
Ah, progressive dialogue!
January 10th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I don’t believe in analogies
Every time someone says that, there is an analogy somewhere that falls down dead.
Everybody, if you believe, clap your hands!
January 10th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Daniel,
Please show me how Israeli’s massacre of Gazans will deter violence, not increase it. Thanks.
-RJM
January 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I sure am glad Daddy Reagan saved us all from those dangerous Sandinistas, who were only 2 days drive from Texas if you assume no one would notice them going through Guatemala & Mexico. It was self-defense.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Maybe you think you are worthy of debate, Daniel?
You are wrong. I don’t want dialogue, I want consensus that you are an evil twit.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Rick:
I share your skepticism on the wisdom of Israel’s actions. I’m also not sure they’re not counterproductive. My comment was instead focused on the issue addressed in Matt’s post: the legitimacy of those actions.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Isn’t realism supposed to be en vogue at this blog? Wouldn’t realism dictate that in an international system with no overarching legal structure, morality is a very secondary concern compared to national interests, including establishing deterrence and protecting sovereignty?
Ah yes, true realists have no use for the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, or the Geneva Conventions…let alone respect for human rights or a sense of shared destiny with the rest of the planet.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
You’re endorsing a world view that makes life nasty, brutish and short? Doesn’t seem very smart. Anyway, I’m not a “realist” in that sense, Yglesias is I believe a liberal internationalist rather than a realist, endorsing morally reprehensible behavior is morally reprehensible, like it sounds, and the only episode of the Wire I’ve seen ended with a character explaining that he never kills anyone who isn’t in the game, so I’m not sure it supports your analogy either.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
By the way, just to make it clear: while I support Israel’s right to exist, and am fairly unsympathetic to the Palestinian cause in general, I agree with Mr. Yglesias on the point of the post. The Israeli retaliation is disproportionate to the rocket attacks, and hasn’t taken enough care to avoid civilians, and is therefore morally illicit.
That said, the Nicaraguans weren’t lobbing rockets into Texas.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
In point of fact, given that American-backed attacks were being launched _against_ Nicaragua from Honduras and Costa Rica, I rather think the Sandinistas were in the position of Israel rather than the other way around.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Matt (Weiner):
No, the world view that I’m endorsing doesn’t make life nasty, brutish, and short, it just claims it to be so on the global scale. Frankly, I like my rule of law, thank you very much, I’m just claiming it doesn’t meaningfully exist on the international level.
While I’d love to take solace in a liberal internationalist point of view, it’s easy to understand the skepticism of anyone (including me) who has any sympathy for Israel in embracing that approach. Most of the international legal venues (such as they are), especially the United Nations and its various subsidiaries, have consistently taken an anti-Israeli stance, sometimes on the merits, but more often simply by default. From Israel’s point of view, there’s no place to get a fair hearing. Thus, a realist stance.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
That is such a shitty analogy. If you want to make one from an American prospective, we have ran the Apaches into somewhere in Nevada. We built a wall around them and kept food from coming in. In protest they built rockets that suck ass , launched them randomly, and by accident managed to kill someone once a year or so.
Raise your hands if you think the correct response would be to go apeshit and send in Apache’s and F-16’s.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Daniel-
I’d be interested to hear about a case where you think the UN or one of its agencies took an ‘anti-Israeli’ stance not on the merits but ‘by default’.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
No, Hector, the Sandinistas weren’t lobbing rockets into Texas, yet the rhetoric of self-defense was still employed. Stop playing dense. Or not playing. Whichever.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
El Cid,
Then your analogy is stupid. Israel, unlike the US, has a legitimate claim of self defence. Whether that claim is sufficient to justify the retaliation against Gaza is another question- I don’t think it is. But pointing out that the same rhetoric was employed is meaningless, since the actual level of provocation is very different.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Re: I’d be interested to hear about a case where you think the UN or one of its agencies took an ‘anti-Israeli’ stance not on the merits but ‘by default’.
the famous “Zionism is racism” resolution. As was pointed out at the time, you can convert to Judaism, so it isn’t a race. The state of Israel giving special treatment to Jews is no more racist than the government of Argentina giving special treatment to Catholics.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Jack:
For 16 years, the official stance of the General Assembly was that the founding principle of the state of Israel was illegitimate.
Israel is the only country ever explicitly condemned by the UN Human Rights Council, as it has been on many occasions.
There really are a million examples. You can go read up on the debacle at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001, as another example.
Again, all of this is just to explain that Israel is justified in feeling that it has no global legal forum to which to address its concerns.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I do believe in analogies. In fact, I thrive on them. Matt, this is a great analogy.
BTW, did you hear the latest about how the IDF wasn’t responding to fire from the school when it slaughtered dozens of people? Its getting to the point where one can more readily believe the reports coming from Hamas.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
matt is right to single out the principle of double effect. indeed, that is probably the single most evil concept of moral philosophy. basically, it sanctions dishonesty in the service of whatever evil a person wants to do, because as long as you CLAIM that your intention is good, you can ruin or snuff out as many lives possible. it is nothing more than a get out of jail free card for theocrats.
intent matters, but effects matter too, and false claims about hypothetical intent don’t count at all.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Another issue is that it is my understanding that Israel blockaded Gaza after Hamas was elected. Isn’t this an act of war? Doesn’t this provide some justification for Hamas launching rockets into Israel. I know that technically it is complicated by the fact that Gaza is not a sovereign country, but in that case Israel is responsible for their well-being as an occupied territory.
Also, how about all the complaining about the fact that Hamas shoots unguided rockets, as if it is more moral to shoot guided ones. Is it more moral for me to shoot a gun straight at your head or straight up in the air, with a 1% chance that it will land on someone? Finally, if the unguided nature of the rockets is such a problem, why not supply them with guidance systems?
January 10th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Hector: The analogy is not stupid; rather, it was your choice as a reader to decide that it was there merely to be 100% analogous to the Israeli situation.
I don’t give the slightest sh*t whether you, Hector, like the fact that I pointed out that the U.S. throws around the argument of “self-defense” as cheaply as many people do toilet tissue. That was the point I was indirectly emphasizing.
But, as a matter of course, I do not in the least believe that the purpose of the Gaza invasion is to stop Hamas’ capacity to fire rockets into Israel. If someone wants to accept that, I’m not going to dispute, but I think it’s pretty silly to think that the Israeli leadership cares in the slightest about threats to Israeli civilian lives.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“Also, how about all the complaining about the fact that Hamas shoots unguided rockets, as if it is more moral to shoot guided ones.”
Um…
What’s more moral, dropping a cluster bomb around a military target surrounded by civilians, or firing a guided missile at the same target?
Although your point is fair enough, only insofar as it emphasizes that Hamas is *trying* to hit civilian, not military, targets. In that sense, the guided/unguided distinction doesn’t really have much *moral* meaning, I agree.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Self-defense is a transparent excuse when one realizes that Israel chose NOT to defend its citizens in a way that wouldn’t kill civilians in Gaza. Not to mention they appear to be trying to make a profit off of the conflict.
See this and this.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I’m sure Hamas would be willing to aim only at military/political targets, just like Israel says it does, in exchange for the same kind of military technology that Israel has.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
OK, as has been pointed out the post does as follows:
1. Sets up an analogy to make a point.
2. Claims that it’s not an analogy.
3. Asks that the point not be missed just because there are perceived flaws in the non-analogy.
The problem is with #3. Matt, you got lucky and the worst of the rock’s potential consequences did not occur. So you kept riding. But the rockets keep coming. And if you were stuck in one place (Sderot can’t really move), and rocks were constantly being thrown at you, and you had a bazooka at your disposal, after a while you’d consider it pretty seriously.
So what was the point of the non-analogy?
January 10th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Can you say, “Bernhard Goetz”?
I, too, am horrified at the Gaza situation. On the other hand, given that 3 million innocents have been slaughtered in the Congo, several hundred thousand in Darfur, and let’s not forget tens or hundreds of thousands in Iraq thanks to our White-Man’s-Burden act–it’s just a little hard to take all this freaking out about several hundred Gazans hugely seriously. I mean, welcome to the human race, people.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Actually, here’s a sharper analogy: Matt Yglesias is all for ditching Iraq even on the understanding that tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians will probably be slaughtered in the civil wars that will be the direct sequelae of our abandoned intervention there: So why carry on histrionically about a few hundred Gazans? That’s not to say that anyone’s life is worth less than anyone else’s–in fact, it’s clearly not. But consequentialism is the merciless mistress of foreign affairs.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
El Cid,
Fine, whatever.
Dilan Esper,
My vitriol is all used up today, so let me just point out that I don’t think you fully understand the doctrine of double effect. (As it was developed by Aquinas and his commenters, I mean, not in terms of how the court theologicans of the Bush administration abuse it). The doctrine of double effect requires, first of all, that the good that is directly intended needs to outweigh the evil side effects, and secondly, that care is taken to minimize the evil side effects to the greatest extent possible.
For example, it’s permissible for a doctor at a Sudanese hospital to treat government soldiers that he knows are involved in genocide. What he’s doing (healing the sick) is inherently good: the genocide is a foreseeable side effect, not a direct outcome. Likewise, it’s permissible to attack military targets where you know that civilians will be- but it requires that you do your best to avoid killing civilians (if necessary, by using ground troops instead of bombs) and that the number of civilian deaths be proportionate to the provocation and to the desired goal. The doctrine of double effect can’t justify _anything_….it certainly couldn’t justify Hiroshima, nor could it justify the attack on the Golden Temple, and probably not on Gaza either.
A strictly consequentialist moral theory is, on the contrary, not just morally deficient but also logically incoherent. Mostly because the complete consequences of a series of actions is neither knowable nor controllable, and therefore (to my mind) any consequentialist theory must ultimately break down even on its own terms.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Given that Hamas has now said that there will be no negotiation or settlement with Israel, doesn’t that change the calculus of supporters of Israel who are uncomfortable with Israeli actions in Gaza? Without settlement or negotiation possible, what reason is there to support the morally corrupt Hamas?
January 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Again, all of this is just to explain that Israel is justified in feeling that it has no global legal forum to which to address its concerns.
That’s fair enough, I suppose. It’s true that some UN bodies seem to focus their criticisms disproportionately on Israel, and that certainly might make Israel feel put out. That’s somewhat different from saying that those criticisms are actually unjustified though, as you seemed to be doing.
And as a critique of the fair functioning of current international bodies, it’s OK, but it’s hardly an excuse for Israel to ignore international law. (Even if Matt felt the police were unfairly singling him out for some other crime he was committing, he STILL wouldn’t be justified in rocketing an apartment building…)
January 10th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Hi Matt,
You “don’t believe in analogies.” I’m intrigued. Seriously. Can you explain your view here.
January 10th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
The U.N. has reported (PDF) that about 800 Gaza residents have been killed so far. Israel has said that its forces have killed approximately 300 Hamas fighters. Taking the numbers at face value, and assuming for the sake of argument that all the Hamas combatant KIAs are counted among the dead reported by the U.N., that means the IDF is killing more than one and a half times as many civilians as fighters. This is a clear violation of the Law of Land Warfare. In other words, a war crime.
The most pro-Israel guy on the planet, Alan Dershowitz, of course tells us Hamas is committing a war crime by positioning their people among the civilian population of Gaza– therefore making them “human shields.” (1) Where else can Hamas possibly be? and (2) They wouldn’t need human shields if nobody was attacking them.
January 10th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Forgot a link to Dershowitz. Here it is: Hamas’ war crimes.
January 10th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
tomemos, I know the point he is trying to make. But the crazy analogies just kill me.
Just to clear something however, this is a war. Israel has declared war and they are using their arsenal mercilessly. Hamas is not and will not back down until they are defeated. Therefore I do not consider the idea of proportionality in a war situation. Each party is out there to win a freedom or be occupied. At the moment it will be an occupation because Israel will always have the upper hand, until an equivalent power is in place.
What needs to be clear however is call what is happening what it is? Just as we blame Mugabe for war crimes, Israel should be blamed for it as well. No matter what defense for Israel someone tries to make, you cannot escape that fact. Superior power is used against a civilian who are defenseless period. Just because the United States or any other state defend their action does not make them less of a criminal. It just became an acceptable kind of war crime. And as long as they have the kind of support and capability, the rest of the world is defenseless to do anything about it as well.
January 10th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
actually i thought matt’s non-analogy analogy was pretty great. it was 1) funny to think about matt getting hit by a rock (as long as he wasnt tooo hurt) 2) insightful and 3)he wrote an analogy and then admitted that he doesnt believe in analogies even though he knew you fucks would get a rager over it. he probably doesn’t “believe” in analogies because, like the rest of us, he is sick if hearing people drawing analogies between nazi germany and my weener, among other things. i know my weener is brutal, but guys, i swear, it’s not hitler.
January 10th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
The Congress is full of shitheads imo.
I’m so good at tact.
January 10th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
what’s wrong with analogy or arguing/reasoning by analogy? we learn almost every basic life lesson by example–by definition analogy, since any example is only an approximation to your own life or situation. further, the brain is naturally an analog instrument–only machines do binary well.
especially in the case of moral arguments one has to argue by or from analogy, since other choices (such as experimenting with the questionable acts)are often not allowed.
further, matthew’s analogy is apt. the moral dimension of his hypothesized over-reaction would be exactly what changes the situation from a dispute into a moral issue. so it is with Gaza. even if you accept all Israel’s rationale, is there really NO limit on what reaction would be morally acceptable? how about nuking every town in which any member of hamas lives?
so, morality has a quantitative and qualitative dimension in most cases, and certainly in this case. that’s why the analogy is useful–it makes this lesson plain.
although that hasn’t prevented some readers here from missing the point anyway.
January 10th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
brendan,
I agree with you about analogies except for the part about the brain being good at analogies because it is analog. Yes, those words share most of the same letters, but otherwise they really don’t have anything to do with each other. For example, I don’t think an analog computer is intrinsically better suited for using analogies than a digital computer.
January 10th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
brendan
Nothing wrong with analogy, they just need to be thought out better and be actually “analogous”. Covering all scenarios would help too. The last thing that is needed is to confuse the whole situation because the user extrapolated on the analogy a little bit.
January 10th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Self-defense, eh:
Israel’s Wars of Forced Regime Change
by Helena Cobban
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cobban.php?articleid=14032
January 10th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Self-defense, eh? Sixty percent of the casualties are Hamas, eh?
UN: Israel bombed building used for evacuated Palestinians (Roundup)
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1452559.php/UN_Israel_bombed_building_used_for_evacuated_Palestinians__Roundup__
January 10th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Self-defense, eh?
Israeli strike on civilian house may be ‘war crime’ says UN
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4209242/Israeli-strike-on-civilian-house-may-be-war-crime-says-UN-gaza.html
January 10th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Self-defense, eh?
UN: One-third of Gaza dead, injured are children
http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/01/09/un-one-third-of-gaza-dead-injured-are-children/
January 10th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Self-defense, eh?
Aid Groups Dispute Israeli Claims in Gaza Attacks
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=14034
January 10th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Self-defense, eh?
Israel Rejected Hamas Cease-Fire Offer in December
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=14031
January 11th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Matt makes the incredibly weak and lame claim the existence of a right to self-defense doesn’t authorize just doing whatever
It is certainly true that the right to self-defense doesn’t allow “whatever.” But it is also certainly true that the right to self-defense, at the very least, allows countries to use the minimum amount of force needed to deter attacks. That’s exactly what Israel is doing.
January 11th, 2009 at 1:10 am
rmwarnick writes, “the IDF is killing more than one and a half times as many civilians as fighters. This is a clear violation of the Law of Land Warfare.”
But he forgets to actually cite any particular provision of the Law of War. If it’s so clear, surely it should be easy to name the specific law they’ve broken?
January 11th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Ragout: Is Israel deterring attacks? Please provide evidence.
January 11th, 2009 at 3:49 am
I’m genuinely curious how Matt wants me to look at this analogy in a way that’s not an analogy? He wants me to draw parallels between two different situations that are similar in certain regards in order to draw a conclusion from the second situation. Doesn’t “making the point that the existence”…just do exactly that? How can you possibly read this as not being an analogy? Do I just not understand the definition?
January 11th, 2009 at 7:59 am
matt, you may yet get to where many the world have known long ago – israel is a racist, terrorist state fighting for territory and not security…israel has there own manifest destiny
sadly the u.s. is israel’s partner in the slaughter
January 11th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Is public opinion even pro-Israel at this point?
January 11th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
hector:
my issue isnt simply with bush court theologians (though i admit that is a great description). my issue is also with respect to the way serious conservative catholics and christians use the principle. i know that in theory, effects must be considered, but in practice, the problem is that the ‘intent’ can be a total lie. think about catholics having sex and not intending at all to have children. obviously there is nothing immoral there, but conservative catholics have to lie baldly and claim they really do intend to conceive to save their stupid moral theories.
and once you make that move, you can justify any atrocity.
also reread my post. you think the only alternative is pure consequentialism, but that is not true. there are plenty of other rubrics.
January 11th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
@Ed Marshall: I want consensus that you are an evil twit.
Count me in to that consensus. Speaking of evil twits / apologists for mass murder:
@Ragout: But it is also certainly true that the right to self-defense, at the very least, allows countries to use the minimum amount of force needed to deter attacks. That’s exactly what Israel is doing.
… after the Israeli army first took the town on Saturday night soldiers had ordered about 100 members of the clan to gather in a single house… the house was repeatedly shelled with appalling loss of civilian life… According to the survivors between 60 and 70 family members had been killed by shrapnel and falling masonry… Convoys of ambulances twice headed to the area to look for wounded but they were driven back by Israeli shooting.
The international Red Cross accused Israel… of “unacceptable” delays in letting rescue workers reach three Gaza City homes hit by shelling where they eventually found 15 dead and 18 wounded…
The rescue team “found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses. They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up,” the statement said. “In all, there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses” in one of the houses…
“The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded,” the international Red Cross said….
The organization alleged Israel also refused requests to go to other destroyed houses in the same neighborhood of Gaza City, where the ICRC had reports of more wounded people.
January 11th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Stupid moron Ragout doesn’t understand that when fifty percent or MORE of your kills are civilians that this violates the Geneva Convention that military attacks must be conducted with due regard for the presence of civilians and attacks which will endanger an excessive number of civilians must not be conducted.
Dropping 2,000-pound bombs with a kill radius in the hundreds of yards on a residential area is knowingly not complying with that requirement.
Also, preventing the Red Cross from accessing wounded civilians is also a war crime.
With reference to:
Protocol I
Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977
Article 51:
And Article 52, with respect to the bombardment of schools which Israel has been engaged in:
And further:
January 12th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Regarding the alleged violations of the “Law of War.” As you can see from Steven Hack’s quotes, Israel hasn’t violated any law. Israel’s attacks have been on military targets, which are entirely legal, even if civilians are killed too. The Geneva Conventions are laws *of* war, not laws *against* war.
Not to mention that Hack is citing Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, which hasn’t been signed by Israel, or Hamas, or the United States for that matter.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
It’s so easy to have these stupid debates when you live in a free country that you only THINK is headed by terrorists. You would all be first against the wall if Hamas had anything to with it. Especially a bike riding Dalton nerd.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:22 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:02 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 17th, 2009 at 3:30 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:31 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:55 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 3:57 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me.
viagra