Arahant

I come from an environment where we believe in getting to the root cause of things.  One tool is the five whys.  So, let's start digging in:

1. Why do the Arabs claim the Israelis have stolen their land?  Because the Arabs had conquered the land many years before and have done everything they could to erase the fact that the Jews were there first, and they believe that once a land was Islamic-Arab-ruled, it is always Arab land, such as a large part of the Iberian Peninsula, which they also claim.
2. Why do they think that?  Because Muhammad told them that about 1400 years ago when they controlled a very small bit of land in the Arabian Peninsula.

So, we have the root cause. · _{22 minutes ago}

Leigh: In a theoretical situation that would cost the lives of 100 Arab children to save 2 innocent Israelis, I don't have a clear answer to that moral dilemma.  But the fact is the numbers are never that clear-cut.  You don't usually know how many innocent bystanders are in harm's way, and you never know how many will be killed by the next terrorist.  War doesn't work that way.

By the way, I don't have a problem with analyzing the morality of Israel's actions, or America's for that matter, when done with a proper view of their situation and their enemies.  [...]

It's not a question of numbers, though.  The two questions should be 1) Is this action, which will inevitably cost innocent lives, necessary for Israel to defend its people?  2) Is Israel doing all that is reasonably in its power to protect innocent bystanders?

Those aren't easy questions to answer, and nobody can get it right every time.  What is clear is that Israel is striving to answer both questions with "yes," and receives nothing but contempt and hatred in return. · _{31 minutes ago}

Leigh

But we're talking about Israeli children who are in no position to agree to give their lives.

[...] as I see it (I know people have different views on this), the government's responsibility to protect its people isn't a contract.  It's a God-given duty_.

Arahant

These are offset deaths, though.  If they did not fight back, then many, many times the number of innocent Israelis would die.  So, it always goes back to the Arabs and their unrelenting attacks on Israel.  They start it.  They cause it.  They bear the burthen of these deaths. · _{25 minutes ago}

Leigh

And if Z's sworn duty is to defend Z2, non-defense of Z2 is not noble at all.  National self-defense isn't really "self-defense" in that sense. 

The primary duty of the Israeli government -- indeed, the primary reason for the existence of government -- is to defend its people from those who would do them harm.  Non-defense in that circumstance is not noble. · _{28 minutes ago}

Jonathan Cast

You're dodging the moral agency issue.  Israel is not morally responsible for the deaths of civilians when those deaths are deliberately caused by Hamas --- not even a little bit.  Israel has no general obligation to minimize the number of innocent civilians who die --- not that such a thing is even possible --- it has an obligation to minimize the number of innocent civilians whose deaths it is morally responsible for.  It's not possible for Israel to incur moral guilt because Hamas kills a civilian. · _{3 hours ago}

jkumpire

Ah, this is a false statement, as is your whole argument. These children may well die anyway, you don't know that. The level of misery and violence in Gaza is such that these children could easily be killed by their own "government", and certainly when they grow older as they are exposed to such horrible propaganda as they are they may well die attacking Israel, or someone else. The fault is with Hamas.

You cannot isolate the fact that these children, and Israeli children are dying because unlike Westerners, these people have no qualms about putting military assets in and among innocents, just like the past fighters in Gaza used women and children as human shields in gun battles with Israeli soldiers.

[...]
· _{7 hours ago}

david foster: "If you asked Jesus, how do you think he would answer?"

If you believe Jesus was an absolute pacifist, which the tone of your question implies, you'd have to say "zero." Which would also imply that he would say "zero" for Allied actions in WWII, even if the result was that 30 million more children and others would be killed by the Axis. Presumably he'd way they would get their reward in the next life.

But many Christians, such as C S Lewis, have argued convincingly that Jesus was NOT an absolute pacifist. If you want to engage in this kind of discussion, you should go find his essay and read it. · _{7 hours ago}

Zafar: [...] Certainly the number is over a thousand) from Israeli rockets is a worthwhile price to try and stop this, then why shrink from saying it?

[The blame lies squarely with Hamas.  If they stopped their attack on Israel]

Oh hey, why stop with blaming Hamas?  Just blame the Palestinians for existing.  They're the ones who had the poor taste to exist and get in the way of that whole 'land without a people' thing.  They have nothing to blame  for the trouble they find themselves in but their own existence.  How could any reasonable person think anything or anyone else is responsible?

Regards · _{7 hours ago}

Edited 7 hours ago

iWc: The only way this gets settled is to have a clear victory. Without one side winning (and both sides acknowledging it), there can be no peace.

There are parallels to our economic problems. Sometimes the long and drawn out process, while it seems more humane in the short run, ends up causing a lot more harm in the long run than a very rapid and short transition.

Certainly if Israel had dealt with the intifada in 1987 by summarily deporting all those who threatened or committed life-threatening violence, then the Middle East would be very different today. And if Israel ends up retaking Gaza, then this kind of policy will be necessary in order to allow coexistence. · _{7 hours ago}

Guruforhire

The upper bound is dictated by hamas and their willingness or unwillingness to surrender. · _{12 minutes ago}

Edited 9 minutes ago

Mama Toad: Does anyone remember the Fogel family? With the little three-month-old baby decapitated? The dead were discovered by the 12-year-old daughter of the house, returning from a youth group function to find her parents and siblings murdered. 

Even when evil like this happens, Israel still is under the rule of Law, unlike any of its neighbors. The murderers were found and tried and convicted based on evidence and the rule of Law.

In war, terrible things happen. The difference between Israel and Israel's enemies is that Israel mourns the losses and conducts reviews to determine how to respond even better and more justly while its enemies celebrate. · _{8 hours ago}

Flapjack: If the death of innocents is the "central moral question" of war, then wars should be fought with as much concentrated force as one can muster.  As Guruforhire points out, it is more humane in the long run for everyone on all sides.

As a side note, we obviously need to do a much better job teaching about violence. · _{8 hours ago}

Vice-Potentate: "Accidental" killing.

No upper bound.

I think Jesus would concur. · _{8 hours ago}