Telling someone they are morally wrong can and should have an effect. Pointing out that they lost also has an effect.

-- libertyson

OK ... up to a point.

The problem I have is that utilitarian arguments for aggressive (and pre-emptive & nuclear) war can and have been made, very recently by these same creeps, and once you give up the primacy of the moral objection to aggression then you cannot sensibly oppose a victorious militant party.

What you tend to get in that case is "it wasn't pretty, but it worked"

(That's almost a quote, btw, from Friedman: "It was not pretty, but it was logical.")

I hope we can share the disgust that the totally un-necessary deaths of hundreds and the maiming of thousands can be written off with a glib "It was not pretty, but it is logical".

Dershowitz has become so twisted that he'll justify any Israeli action and condemn any Palestinian response except complete submission to Israeli authority.

He's a classic example of how emotion can consume an otherwise rational mind. I wrote him off completely a long time ago.

There is a well known, controversial, but widely defended moral principle (the doctrine of double effect) that says, roughly, that it is sometimes justifiable for an agent to perform an action that has foreseeable negative consequences if the intention of the action be for something good. So, for example, there is supposed to be an important moral difference between attacking a military target (the intention is to destroy the military target; let's assume, for the sake of argument, that eradicating Hamas forces is acceptable) while knowing that such an attack will likely kill 100 civilians (a foreseeable, but non-intended, outcome) and attacking the 100 civilians (the intention is to kill the civilians). Let's suppose that there is some truth to the distinction; can we understand Friedman's position in light of it? It's not clear to me that we can. If Friedman had said that the aim of Israel was to eradicate Hamas, that eradicating Hamas would have the unintended but forseeable consequence of inflicting property damage and civilian deaths, and that that consequence would have the consequence of "educating" the civilians of Gaza, then perhaps he/Israel would have some moral cover. But he does not characterize the aims that way. Rather, it seems he is saying that the goal of the attacks is to inflict this civilian damage--it is the intention, carried out by targeting combatants. In other words, the strategy seems to be, "Let's attack Hamas forces as a means to achieve the end of civilian casualities." If that's right, then the DDE provides little moral cover.

Careful people, you are teetering on the edge of examining reality, and most aren't going to like it.

What, precisely, is there to "like" about this situation?

Other than the fact that Friedman is advocating these actions for an actual state rather than a "subnational group,"

But that's the substantive difference here isn't it and aren't you trying to evade that distinction? If that distinction weren't there, every national participant in wars from the dawn of time would be "terrorists." Duh.

So much for your premise. How about a little honesty here for a change?

If by this you mean a political state has launched a military offense upon an ethnic enclave, all on the pretext of 'defending' itself from 'attack', then that's hardly in doubt.

The question here is multiformed, including whether the response is equal to the provocation, and whether the underlying strategy will prove effective to the expressed ends. Neither appears to be the case, and there's a hell of a body count as a result.

“The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.” - Moshe Yaalon

Mr. Yaalon is nothing if not succinct.

Exactly. Until the Palestinians surrender and curb their own terrorists, no progress can be made. I don't care who came when from where, this is today. Do you want peace today? Don't shoot rockets or the weight of a National Army will descend upon you.

Do you want peace today? Don't blockade the delivery of water and supplies to a starving people, or the weight of their anger and desperation will descend upon you.

Don't like it? Too bad.

I believe that's the attitude that got them all, Israeli and Palestinian alike, into this mess.

Convince the Palestinians they are better served to pursue peace and prosperity wherever they end up. Otherwise you're on the side of more war.

Such profound wisdom! I'm in awe! Lets just drive them all into the sea and watch them drown!

P.S. This is why proportional response is a really bad idea. It merely perpetuates war footing and unrealistic expectations. More duh.

Yes, I agree. Genocide is always the more effective option, isn't it?

What that says about you, shooter242, is something else entirely.

It's nothing more than: There are bad guys attacking us and so we have to kill them all so the attacks will stop.

-- GlennGreenwald

That pretty much covers it. Glad to see you finally get it.

Based on this CBC news piece, Israel smashes holes in people's walls all the time, just to get from one street to the next. I guess they are too lazy to walk around http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

No wonder Israel is hated, and the US for supporting them.

The World Book Encyclopedia

Copy right 2006

Page 104

• Roman rule. In 63 63 B.C. Roman troops invaded Judah and it came under Roman Control. The Romans called the area Judea. Jesus Chris was born in Bethlehem in the early years of Roman rule. Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts of Roman rule. Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts in A.D. 66 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drive the Jews out of Jerusalem.

Page 105

• The Zionist movement. Beginning in the late 1800’s, oppression of Jews in Eastern Europe set off a mass emigration of Jewish refugees. Some Jews formed a movement called Zionism, which sought to make Palestine an independent Jewish nation.

Page 105

• World War II and the division of Palestine. (Paragraph 2) The United nations Special Commission on Palestine recommended that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The commission called for Jerusalem to be put under International control. The UN General Assembly adopted this plan on Nov. 29 1947. The Jews accepted the UN decision, but the Arabs rejected it. Fighting broke out immediately.

This is why Howard Cronkite's idea of promoting a one world government is such a bad idea. He believed, as you will see if you watch his speech, that the world should be governed by a one world government managed by the United Nations

http://mrxfromplanetx.com/2008/11/11/walter-cronkite-global-governance-award

The United Nations is not fight to make decisions for other countries. They don't have a very good track record.