Musings from about a quarter of a century ago.

[ristin]

When I was a child, my family had a tradition of going for a fortnight of camping on the coast. Part of that tradition was talks around the campfire. And naturally part of such discussions was solving world problems, probably call that "armchair diplomacy" much like armchair coaches.

Anyway, one topic that cropped up more than once was the perpetual conflicts in Gaza. Israel and Palestine, at each other's throats, generation after generation.

Roughly a quarter of a century ago, I offered a child's perspective on the entire issue. "It's wrong for military forces to target civilians, anyone who does it is wrong, there is never any excuse."

Now, immediately people advocating various sides started offering their justifications for armed forces deliberately targeting civilians. Like "it's OK for palestinian freedom fighters to kill Israeli citizens because Israel's army kills so many Palestinian civilians" and "palestinian terrorists hide among palestinians citizens and use them as human shields...so the civilians harbouring the terrorists make themselves legitimate targets". "Israel are an occupying force so their civilians deserve to die" and "palestinians support the terrorists so they deserve to die" and so on...the inhumanity of the people advocating either side is one of the two things they have in common. That and the desire to wipe-out the other 'side' be they armed or non-combatants.

This stance of mine that I am on the side of the non-combatants puts me in the unusual position of being frequently criticised and insulted by both sides. Ironically, that's the same problem the Palestinian non-combatants and Israeli non-combatants face. They both want an end to the fighting and any attempt at peace is opposed by the militant factions of both nations.

But, no. Simply put, no. It is never acceptable for military forces or paramilitary forces to target civilians. It doesn't matter what lame excuse someone uses to justify it, what inhuman arguments or what casual disregard for the value of life...no. It doesn't matter if it is indirect-targting or direct targeting either.

It comes down to this one simple fact. It is never acceptable for any military force or paramilitary force to target civilians. Sadly in the last quarter century nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed. I just felt the need to set the record straight on that matter.


P.S. To all the pro-Israel or pro-Palestine advocates out there...I have no interest in how you justify the atrocities committed by your chosen side upon the innocent civilians of the other side. If you don't oppose the targeting of non-combatants, then you have nothing to say that I need to hear or haven't heard before.

Comments

[schnee.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you, and I'm honestly *extremely* surprised by the reaction you got there. When I read tha paragraph where you described the opinion you offered there, I fully expected everyone to agree (and commend you for having a better grasp of these matters than most children your age would).

[ristin.livejournal.com]

I've encountered frequent and in-fact consistant opposition and anger from people who advocate their 'side' and don't realise the full horror of what they advocate be done to the opposing 'side' Sometimes quite horrifying.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Aye. :/

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty much in agreement with you (morally speaking there isn't a lot of justification for targeting civilians), but I simultaneously have a hard time answering to the problems that arise when an opposing force uses various tactics that present an existential threat. If one side elevates a conflict to all out war, it is similarly hard to justify responding with a tactic that will be certain to lose.

For example, the moral costs of targeting civilians in WW2 were enormous. The allies gradually inched more and more towards a strategy of considering civilian targets legitimate. A willingness to use such methods against a ruthless enemy is difficult to argue with if you can establish that it was a necessary condition for victory. After all, the moral costs of a loss in such a war were almost unquestionably greater than the costs of civilian bombings. Had the Nazis gained full control of Europe and the Soviet Union, we can only imagine the costs would have been much much worse.

To me the question is mostly one of if targeting civilians is even an effective strategy and/or tactic to begin with, and if the conditions for using that tactic are really morally excusable or not. In the case of the Palestinian conflict, I don't think either side is really in a position to make a serious justification for the use of such tactics, because neither side is doing anything as atrocious as the holocaust nor are as terrifying as the Fascists were. In some sense each side feels existentially threatened (Israel being a small Jewish state in the middle of a sea of Muslims, Palestine being increasingly marginalized by an aggressive Jewish state), but I don't see Israel systematically killing the Palestinians or the Palestinians systematically killing the Israelis (though both side certainly seem to have ill intent).

The reality is, both sides are having their political rhetoric dictated by extremists and the moderates are insufficiently willing to challenge the status quo. I don't think any change will ever come until the moderates pair up with the doves and make a strong coalition with the will to fight the dominant hawkish politics. The real trick is, this would have to happen on both sides practically simultaneously for it to stick I think.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

Interesting ideas and well thought out, as always my friend.

Bombing a military target nestled inside a civilian population centre is always a tough and complicated issue. Conversely the practice of building a military facility in a civilian population centre is quite black and white. It is deliberately choosing to use civilians as human shields.

What you say about the decisions faced by the allies in WW2 is valid. But as I mentioned above, the original choice to put military targets like munitions factories in cities as inexcusable. That doesn't absolve the allies of blame or blood for the collateral damage of bombing German cities, but that same blood is on the Nazi regime's hands also.

Same thing in Palestine. When Palestinian militants hides-out among Palestinian civilians, the blood of the civilians is on the militants hands (wether they are bombed or not) and the IDF's hands if the IDF choose to bomb the militants despite the proximity of civilians. One could argue that that is better than Palestinian militants deliberately and directly targeting civilians with rocket attacks...but that doesn't make any of it 'okay' or justify anything.

On the topic of Israel verses Palestine, I am also sick of the lies. People act like Israel alone holds control of all of Palestine's borders...but they don't. People criticise the Israeli border control but no-one criticises the conduct of Eqypt and their border control. And both sides seem to blame the other for everything, and delight in political point-scoring.

Your conclusion paragraph is spot on.