Israeli Duty to Warn? What unmitigated gall (chutzpah)

[Debater Slayer]

I believe you, but this is the first time I've heard your position, so if you've repeated it here, my sincere thanks!

My position isn't as black and white as yours, but I would say that a person can lose their "civilian" label if they are aiding and / or abetting terrorists.

If you say that Gazans have had no choice but to aid Hamas for the last 20 years, then again, their blood is on the UN's hands, because EVERYONE has know for years and years that Hamas was using aid money to build it's war machine.

If Gazans have had a choice in aiding Hamas, then they are no longer civilians, IMO.

What qualifies as "aiding and/or abetting terrorists"?

For instance, if someone donates money to, say, the Russian or Ukrainian army during the current war without participating in combat themselves, do they lose their civilian status?

Many al-Qaeda supporters argued that people who voted for Bush or Blair weren't civilians and were justifiable targets. What do you think of that logic? Again, just to state my position unambiguously: I think that logic is dangerous, and I fully reject it. I draw the line at participation in combat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The last parliamentary elections in Gaza were nearly 20 years ago.

I never even implied that Hamas was faultless. Both sides are to blame here. If one only focuses on Hamas, or on Israel for that matter such events will only reoccur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What qualifies as "aiding and/or abetting terrorists"?

For instance, if someone donates money to, say, the Russian or Ukrainian army during the current war without participating in combat themselves, do they lose their civilian status?

Many al-Qaeda supporters argued that people who voted for Bush or Blair weren't civilians and were justifiable targets. What do you think of that logic? Again, just to state my position unambiguously: I think that logic is dangerous, and I fully reject it. I draw the line at participation in combat.

That is a very good boundary. One often does not have a choice if one lives in certain areas. A person that lives in the Gaza Strip has no choice but to support Hamas.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That is a very good boundary. One often does not have a choice if one lives in certain areas. A person that lives in the Gaza Strip has no choice but to support Hamas.

An average citizen could oppose it, but they would have to hide that to avoid significant risks to their safety, as is the case under many dictatorial governments. Public opposition could lead to detention, abuse, or worse, and of course, Hamas is armed while regular Gazans aren't.

And even when opposing a bellicose government wouldn't endanger one's safety (it wouldn't have been dangerous to protest against the US government before 9/11 happened, for example), I still think the line should be drawn at participation in combat. The other line of reasoning (i.e., "They support X, so they're no longer civilians") seems to me an extremely dangerous rabbit hole to go down.

 

[Revoltingest]

You seem to think that context doesn't matter. Context is EVERYTHING

There you go again.

 

[Kathryn]

I have been researching the Palestinian people and I found the following facts interesting:

Most are male and 97 percent of them are under the age of 65. The median age is 19.5 years of age.

They are either 98 or 99 percent Muslim and most of them are Sunni Muslim.

Gaza Strip - The World Factbook

www.cia.gov

 

[icehorse]

What qualifies as "aiding and/or abetting terrorists"?

For instance, if someone donates money to, say, the Russian or Ukrainian army during the current war without participating in combat themselves, do they lose their civilian status?

Many al-Qaeda supporters argued that people who voted for Bush or Blair weren't civilians and were justifiable targets. What do you think of that logic? Again, just to state my position unambiguously: I think that logic is dangerous, and I fully reject it. I draw the line at participation in combat.

It could be that we need at least a third term here, somewhere between combatant and civilian. For now, I'll using "aider", but I'm open to a different / better term.

For example, in WWII, if a German wasn't in the armed forces, but deliberately ratted out Jews, I would say that person was no longer a civilian.

 

[icehorse]

That is a very good boundary. One often does not have a choice if one lives in certain areas. A person that lives in the Gaza Strip has no choice but to support Hamas.

I think there is a lot of truth to this. In which case, the UN is to blame for this war - full stop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think there is a lot of truth to this. In which case, the UN is to blame for this war - full stop.

The UN is unable to take control because they cannot come to an agreement themselves. There is plenty of blame to go around. One cannot blame just one side.

Israel was justified in striking back. But they are not satisfied with a just retribution. They are not even satisfied with revenge. Which to me locally puts the blame back on Israel. They appear to want genocide as much as Hamas does.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It could be that we need at least a third term here, somewhere between combatant and civilian. For now, I'll using "aider", but I'm open to a different / better term.

If someone votes for a government that wages a war of aggression or donates money to an army during a war (e.g., if they donate to the Russian or Ukrainian army right now), are they an "aider"? Does an "aider" become a valid target in a war, since they're supposedly no longer a civilian?

For example, in WWII, if a German wasn't in the armed forces, but deliberately ratted out Jews, I would say that person was no longer a civilian.

Yeah, but I think Nazi Germany was a different case in many ways, and many of the contexts in which I see it being invoked don't fit. After all, Godwin's law originated from the hyperbolic invocation of Nazism and Nazi Germany in many scenarios where neither is a suitable point of comparison.

 

[icehorse]

The UN is unable to take control because they cannot come to an agreement themselves. There is plenty of blame to go around. One cannot blame just one side.

Israel was justified in striking back. But they are not satisfied with a just retribution. They are not even satisfied with revenge. Which to me locally puts the blame back on Israel. They appear to want genocide as much as Hamas does.

Presumably the UN doesn't take sides. I think we're both saying they need to intercede?

I do not agree that Israel is looking for revenge. They are fighting to ensure their survival. Until the world steps in and eliminates terrorist organizations, the world has no right to criticize Israel.

And BTW, Muslims are more often victims of Islamic terrorism than everyone else - so moderate Muslims MUST step up and help eliminate terrorism.

 

[icehorse]

If someone votes for a government that wages a war of aggression or donates money to an army during a war (e.g., if they donate to the Russian or Ukrainian army right now), are they an "aider"? Does an "aider" become a valid target in a war, since they're supposedly no longer a civilian?

Just to be clear, are you saying that both Ukraine and Russia are fighting a war of aggression? I guess I need you to define terms again, thanks, because it seems clear to me that Russia is the unilateral, deliberate aggressor and Ukraine is the unwilling defender.

Yeah, but I think Nazi Germany was a different case in many ways, and many of the contexts in which I see it being invoked don't fit. After all, Godwin's law originated from the hyperbolic invocation of Nazism and Nazi Germany in many scenarios where neither is a suitable point of comparison.

This was an example of a broader idea. Another example would be: Imagine a civil war somewhere in the world. If one neighbor rats out a another neighbor, I would say the former is no longer "just a civilian".

 

[Debater Slayer]

Just to be clear, are you saying that both Ukraine and Russia are fighting a war of aggression?

No. I believe Russia is the aggressor in that war, and Ukraine is defending its sovereignty and people. My question is only about the delineation between a civilian and a combatant. If someone donates money to an army—money that would aid combatants—are they still a civilian or not?

I guess I need you to define terms again, thanks, because it seems clear to me that Russia is the unilateral, deliberate aggressor and Ukraine is the unwilling defender.

That's how I see it too.

This was an example of a broader idea. Another example would be: Imagine a civil war somewhere in the world. If one neighbor rats out a another neighbor, I would say the former is no longer "just a civilian".

Since the vast majority of Gazans are not doing such a thing, I don't think the above describes their situation.

In your view, are the vast majority of the approximately two million Gazans civilians or not? That's the central question in my points in this exchange, and I have repeated it because I haven't gotten a direct answer to it yet.

 

[icehorse]

In your view, are the vast majority of the approximately two million Gazans civilians or not? That's the central question in my points in this exchange, and I have repeated it because I haven't gotten a direct answer to it yet.

To be clear, I haven't been dodging your questions, I've just want to get some semantics nailed down, thanks.

Honestly, I don't know what the percentages are. I think some Gazans are victims of Hamas and some are supporters of Hamas. And while I think the either / or of civilian or combatant is too binary to be useful, the victims are mostly what I would call civilians and the supporters, no longer civilians, but "aiders".

 

[Debater Slayer]

To be clear, I haven't been dodging your questions, I've just want to get some semantics nailed down, thanks.

Honestly, I don't know what the percentages are. I think some Gazans are victims of Hamas and some are supporters of Hamas. And while I think the either / or of civilian or combatant is too binary to be useful, the victims are mostly what I would call civilians and the supporters, no longer civilians, but "aiders".

Supporters in what way? You mentioned "ratting out" in an earlier example, but again, the vast majority of Gazans are not doing such a thing. Does supporting an extremist, murderous government in the sense of voting for or agreeing with significant parts of its policies make one no longer a civilian? In that case, what category would supporters of, say, George W. Bush or Tony Blair—to go back to my earlier example about apologetics for 9/11 and the London bombings—have fallen into, in your view? And for that matter, what category do you think Netanyahu supporters would fall into given that he and his government have strongly pushed for expanding West Bank settlements and overseen the bombing campaign that has killed and maimed so many civilians?

 

[icehorse]

Supporters in what way? You mentioned "ratting out" in an earlier example, but again, the vast majority of Gazans are not doing such a thing. Does supporting an extremist, murderous government in the sense of voting for or agreeing with significant parts of its policies make one no longer a civilian? In that case, what category would supporters of, say, George W. Bush or Tony Blair—to go back to my earlier example about apologetics for 9/11 and the London bombings—have fallen into, in your view? And for that matter, what category do you think Netanyahu supporters would fall into given that he and his government have strongly pushed for expanding West Bank settlements and overseen the bombing campaign that has killed and maimed so many civilians?

In recent polls roughly 1/3 of Gazans "support" Hamas. (The numbers go up and down a bit.) I'm not making up this idea that some Gazans are "supporters". And I'll admit that it's not easy to determine who's who. But if on 10/7 a Gazan went out to the streets and cheered as dead Israelis were dragged thru the streets, I don't think that Gazan ought to be granted "civilian" status.

FWIW, I was vocally against George Bush's horrible war(s?) in the ME.

As for the West Bank, that's a very different debate.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In recent polls roughly 1/3 of Gazans "support" Hamas. (The numbers go up and down a bit.) I'm not making up this idea that some Gazans are "supporters". And I'll admit that it's not easy to determine who's who. But if on 10/7 a Gazan went out to the streets and cheered as dead Israelis were dragged thru the streets, I don't think that Gazan ought to be granted "civilian" status.

Those who cheered while people were dragged through the streets in front of them were an extremely small minority of Gazans, so if those were no longer civilians, what about the vast majority who didn't cheer in that situation?

FWIW, I was vocally against George Bush's horrible war(s?) in the ME.

My question about supporting him is in the same vein as what I said about al-Qaeda apologists who supported 9/11: their argument usually was that if someone supported a bellicose government, they were no longer civilians and were acceptable targets to attack.

I found and still find that argument extremely dangerous, but the logic is pretty much identical to what I have seen from some people who try to demonize Gazan civilians, whether all of them or a significant subset thereof, and argue that it's acceptable to bomb them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Until the world steps in and eliminates terrorist organizations..

That is a nonsense.
The more you oppress people, the more terrorists you will create.

Fortunately, people recognized that as to regards the IRA, and a diplomatic process
commenced.
That is not to say the Northern Ireland "troubles" are completely solved, but steps were taken for peace.

The govt. convention was bombed by them, for goodness sake! Members of the govt. were killed and injured.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[icehorse]

So you're determing whether someone is a civilian and, consequently, whether it is acceptable to bomb them based on their beliefs or whether they cheer on the street rather than based on whether they actually engage in combat?

I've said no such thing

First off, war sucks, and I hope we can agree to that much? Now I've heard from several sources that in urban warfare the ratio of civilian to combatant casualties is quite high, figures like 9:1 sound familiar. Further, I've heard that the IDF has kept this ratio to 2:1, which is by far the lowest ratio in any war, ever.

But I think that what we're discussing is how to categorize non-combatants, correct?

So back to your example of the war in Iraq. I think my vocal protests against the war put me in a different category of non-combatant then anyone who would go to the streets to celebrate the death of Iraqis. Agreed?

 

[icehorse]

That is a nonsense.
The more you oppress people, the more terrorists you will create.

Fortunately, people recognized that as to regards the IRA, and a diplomatic process
commenced.
That is not to say the Northern Ireland "troubles" are completely solved, but steps were taken for peace.

The govt. convention was bombed by them, for goodness sake! Members of the govt. were killed and injured.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes people are oppressed, agreed.

But more frequently terrorists are Islamists who use terror not to combat oppression but to spread Islam. If we are to take Hamas at its word - which we should - then they fall into the category of those terrorists whose goal is to spread Islam by force.

IMO, Islam is and always has been largely a colonial movement.