Why does Hamas launch rockets from cities?

[Alceste]

This argument (and extremely weak analogy), can stand only if you're granted a whole boatload of "givens" that are clearly not close to be "given" in this discussion.

- agreement to relative victimhood has not been established.
- agreement to relative aggressor-hood has not been established.
- agreement that perpetually "hunkering down" is a viable strategy is not a given.
- firing from civilian-occupied buildings is a war crime, and it's not been agreed that Hamas has no other choice of launch sites. (In fact it's quite apparent that they have endless, less-populated launch sites.)

It's a war. Both sides are the aggressor. It's also an asymmetric war, where the most rational strategy to kill the enemy while avoiding being killed depends entirely on which side you're on, and not at all on some imagined moral superiority of one bunch of murderous thugs over the other.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's a war. Both sides are the aggressor. It's also an asymmetric war, where the most rational strategy to kill the enemy while avoiding being killed depends entirely on which side you're on, and not at all on some imagined moral superiority of one bunch of murderous thugs over the other.

This is just so right. Frubal. Spread the word.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is nonsense.

 

[Sunstone]

It's a war. Both sides are the aggressor. It's also an asymmetric war, where the most rational strategy to kill the enemy while avoiding being killed depends entirely on which side you're on, and not at all on some imagined moral superiority of one bunch of murderous thugs over the other.

Last time I looked, a "rational strategy to kill the enemy" need not be moral. Also, the last time I looked, there were degrees to what was moral and immoral, and some strategies to kill the enemy were relatively more moral (or relatively less immoral) than other strategies to kill the enemy. For instance, a strategy that involves actually targeting civilians is barbaric and relatively less moral than a strategy that does not actually target civilians.

One of the more telling things about the worldwide debate over the morality and ethics involved in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict is how often these days people say that Hamas is morally superior to the Israeli government simply because Hamas has killed only one or two civilians while Israel has killed hundreds. To believe that, you must believe that intention counts for nothing in questions of morality. Hamas intends to kill civilians. It targets its rockets at civilians. Israel, so far as I can see, seldom intends to kill civilians, and if and when it does, the decision to kill civilians seems to be made a low level, rather than at a high level of the government. I loathe the Israeli government, and would take a happy and glorious **** in every one of their faces, if I could, but intellectual honesty does not permit me to believe the government has a policy of targeting civilians.

If the Israeli government were purposely targeting civilians, a lot more civilians would be dead than are dead.

 

[esmith]

We are starting to see the growing anti-Semitic views outside of the Middle East. For example,
Supporting Palestinians should not mean supporting Hamas | Rob Eshman | Jewish Journal
Now of course this is what you will get from a group that supports Hamas.
Now the world is starting to see those of the Jewish religion once again fleeing Europe.

Newsweek Highlights Second Jewish European Exodus - Jewish World - News - Arutz Sheva
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/08/exodus-why-europes-jews-are-fleeing-once-again-261854.html
Is this because of the influx of Muslims into Europe that is causing the governments of Europe to basically be afraid of a Muslim backlash if they support Israel? I don't have the answer, but how about an input from those in the European community. Is there an increasing awareness of the growing Muslim population?

 

[Flankerl]

I don't have the answer, but how about an input from those in the European community. Is there an increasing awareness of the growing Muslim population?

Its the same it has always been. The official Muslim Organisations go the "no to hatespeech"-way while everything that is happening at their demonstrations, mosques and community centres is the complete opposite.
At the same time they just cant stress enough that the poor muslims are being oppressed. Also nothing new.

Of course you have the occasional really honest pro-peace Muslim Organisation that is then paraded around town as the ultimate evidence that all Muslims are like this.

Meanwhile all their satellite dishes are still aimed at the middle east. Guess what kind of news they get from there.


In the end nothing has changed. Be ready for more Toulouse murders and Ilan Halimi kidnappings. The official Muslim Organisations will of course voice their concerns. But mainly because Muslims will be the main culprits and that this means "more Islamophobia" and that everyone is out to get them.

 

[Phil25]

France24 reports that Hamas fire rockets from civilian areas and just metres away from UN buildings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMiG9JD2OxM

 

[CMike]

This is very much like saying women who flirt shamelessly and wear short skirts are begging to be raped. It assumes there is little or no choice or free agency on the part of the attacker, and that it is the victims' behaviour alone causes the attacker to behave in a certain way. IOW the aggressor is assumed to be partially or completely under the control of the victim, and the assault is therefore partly or entirely the victim's fault.

I don't buy it in either application. Israel absolutely has a choice. It is already very well defended against rocket attacks, so arguing that bombing thousands civilian non-combatants in Gaza is absolutely necessary for the defence of Israel proper is disingenuous at best. The attacks are very, very obviously about retaliation.

This is utterly rediculous.

For about a month Hamas has terrorized Israeli civilians by the constand rocket attacks every day, where they have to go running to air raid shelters. They have had to sleep in air raid shelters

No country should live like that.

Hamas created this by kidnapping the 3 teenagers. They forced Israel to attack in Gaza because of their hundreds of missile attacks every day. They rejected a ceasefire before Israel went to gaza. They rejected every cease fire agreement including their own.

They then use their own people as human shields because they want them to get killed so it looks good for cameras.

Your analogy doesn't work.

A better analogy would be armed terrorists take over a mall. They start shooting everyone in the mall and no one can run away.

They are using women and children as hostages.

In the meantime they keep picking off people in the mall.

If the hostages are killed whose fault is it? Is it the police's fault because the hostages got hit by mistake, or is it the armed terrorists fault for using hostages in the first places.

The fault is that of the armed hostages.

With Hamas it's even worse. They are using their own women and children as the armed hostages. Actually the leaders are living it up in luxury. They are using their subjects women and children as hostages.

 

[icehorse]

Last time I looked, a "rational strategy to kill the enemy" need not be moral. Also, the last time I looked, there were degrees to what was moral and immoral, and some strategies to kill the enemy were relatively more moral (or relatively less immoral) than other strategies to kill the enemy. For instance, a strategy that involves actually targeting civilians is barbaric and relatively less moral than a strategy that does not actually target civilians.

One of the more telling things about the worldwide debate over the morality and ethics involved in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict is how often these days people say that Hamas is morally superior to the Israeli government simply because Hamas has killed only one or two civilians while Israel has killed hundreds. To believe that, you must believe that intention counts for nothing in questions of morality. Hamas intends to kill civilians. It targets its rockets at civilians. Israel, so far as I can see, seldom intends to kill civilians, and if and when it does, the decision to kill civilians seems to be made a low level, rather than at a high level of the government. I loathe the Israeli government, and would take a happy and glorious **** in every one of their faces, if I could, but intellectual honesty does not permit me to believe the government has a policy of targeting civilians.

If the Israeli government were purposely targeting civilians, a lot more civilians would be dead than are dead.

Wonderful point, deserving of a frubal.

"Intention" is key. It's frequently the key in legal discussions AND in discussion of morality.

The intention of Hamas should be clear from its charter and its actions. Hamas's intentions force Israel's hand. If Hamas had the same intentions (and proximity) towards any other country, that country would be hard pressed to act more morally than Israel has.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I wonder how many Israeli civilians would be killed if Hamas suddenly had Israel's military resources and Israel had Hamas'?

I'm pretty sure it would be a lot less.

 

[icehorse]

This is just so right. Frubal. Spread the word.

I disagree.

Sunstone has it right - please explain how you compare the intentions of the two adversaries?

 

[Sunstone]

I wonder how many Israeli civilians would be killed if Hamas suddenly had Israel's military resources and Israel had Hamas'?

I'm pretty sure it would be a lot less.

I'm prepared to bet my life's savings on it being less. Then again, I've got nothing to lose.

 

[MD]

This is very much like saying women who flirt shamelessly and wear short skirts are begging to be raped. It assumes there is little or no choice or free agency on the part of the attacker, and that it is the victims' behaviour alone causes the attacker to behave in a certain way. IOW the aggressor is assumed to be partially or completely under the control of the victim, and the assault is therefore partly or entirely the victim's fault.

I don't buy it in either application. Israel absolutely has a choice. It is already very well defended against rocket attacks, so arguing that bombing thousands civilian non-combatants in Gaza is absolutely necessary for the defence of Israel proper is disingenuous at best. The attacks are very, very obviously about retaliation.

Are you going to use your superior rationalizing skills and analogies to defend ISIS next? I suppose you will come up with some idiotic argument (which you will probably find intelligent) about how the killing of religious minorities in Iraq is warranted and tie that in with some inane feminist argument.

Liberals and Islamists are two sides of the same coin and are both dangerous.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm prepared to bet my life's savings on it being less. Then again, I've got nothing to lose.

So about the same as the amount of integrity and intellectual capital of those who strive to paint Hamas as some type of heroic freedom fighters.

 

[CMike]

I wonder how many Israeli civilians would be killed if Hamas suddenly had Israel's military resources and Israel had Hamas'?

I'm pretty sure it would be a lot less.

All.

Hamas would kill them all.

They wouldn't do like Israel and care about civilians. Hamas doesn't even care about their own civilians.

 

[Father Heathen]

Liberals and Islamists are two sides of the same coin and are both dangerous.

While I find this statement to be quite imbecilic, I do find it rather odd when some secular liberals staunchly defend homophobic and misogynist religious radicals.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

While I find this statement to be quite imbecilic, I do find it rather odd when some secular liberals staunchly defend homophobic and misogynist religious radicals.

There is a curiuos inconsistency in their narrative.

 

[xkatz]

I do find it rather odd when some secular liberals staunchly defend homophobic and misogynist religious radicals.

It's because Muslims are not barbaric KKKhristians.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's because Muslims are not barbaric KKKhristians.

I'm not a fan of abrahamic faiths in general, and they all have their fundamentalists, radicals, extremists, etc.

But let's take an honest look at the proportions and frequencies.

 

[MD]

While I find this statement to be quite imbecilic, I do find it rather odd when some secular liberals staunchly defend homophobic and misogynist religious radicals.

During the revolution in Iran, the leftists joined with Islamists in overthrowing the Shah.

After Khomeini came he killed off the leftists by the thousands, even before killing those loyal to the Shah.

The same will happen in the West in a few decades, if they are left unchecked.