The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict will issue a report today accusing Israel of “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its military incursion into Gaza from December 27 to January 18. The mission headed by respected South African judge Richard Goldstone is a major development in the controversy and could put the United States in a very difficult position.
The 400-page report was written without the cooperation of Israel, which insisted that the body should have considered “the thousands of Hamas missiles attacks on civilians in southern Israel that made the Gaza Operation necessary.” There is no question that those acts are crimes themselves and are relevant to any reviewing of the cause or justification for the invasion. However, this investigation focused on how the invasion was carried out — a separate issue.
Goldstone, who is Jewish, has previously indicated that the group found clear evidence of violations of international law in the invasion.
The UN found that Israel failed to minimize casualties, used white phosphorous in civilian areas, intentionally fired upon hospitals using high-explosive artillery shells, and did not effectively warn civilians of attacks. It also accused some Israeli soldiers of using civilians as human shields and attacking food supplies for civilians.
The mission does call on the Palestinians to investigate war crimes by their side and to release soldier Gilad Shalit.
In the most worrisome part for Israel, the mission calls for an investigation by the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes prosecutions. Goldstone previously denounced Hamas for war crimes.
If Israel defies such an investigation, it would be in the same position as Serbia and other rogue nations. This could further isolate the country at a time when it has allowed the controversial “natural growth” of settlements in occupied areas.
With the hardline government of Binyamin Netanyahu, there will be a considerable effort to oppose any war crimes prosecution and he will likely look to the United States to help block that effort. The government has already denounced the findings as “propaganda,” here. After dismissing the Obama Administration’s demands for a halt to the settlement construction, it will be an awkward moment for Netanyahu to demand the U.S. use its power to stop an investigation. However, there will be many in Congress who will likely assist in that effort.
Of course, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are already limiting any domestic investigation into war crimes committed by our government in its torture program.
For the story, click here.
Gyges: “Does any of that mean that I don’t have a guiding compass? Not at all, it just means that I recognize that the compass points north because of the nature of magnets (including this planet), and not because there’s a law separate from the universe telling it to.”
Gyges,
Your post made me flash back to a scene in the film “Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas”
Raoul Duke: All energy flows according to the whims of the Great Magnet. What a fool I was to defy him.
Coincidentally, the fact that Mike “dispapproves” of Catholic policy is irrelevant, “they” couldn’t care less what he approves of, or dosn’t, in regards to what they teach their members. And unlike our country, the Catholic church is not a “democracy”, or a “republic” for that matter..
I will amend my post from yesterday,”THIS” is the most cogent and reasonable argument and “rebuttal” I have read on this blog so far. You are to be commended Bob. Cool, dispassionate argument with a search for truth. Nice..
Mike S.: “I’m glad you used the term dismissive in writing this because it perfectly captures your methodology in this whole exchange. There was nothing abstract about your use of the inapt term “semite” and I replied by explaining why I reject the term, providing its’ usage and origin and even a link.” That you choose to ignore my argument directly, rather than making the least effort refute it, is just more of the tactics you’ve been using. As to “palestinian” I also supplied a history of the use of the term in this context and in fact could actually write a much more detailed critique of this ill-usage. In this case to, you dismiss my thoughts arbitrarily, without bothering to explain your dismissal, except to use persiflage in calling it “connotatively dismissive.”
It doesn’t matter that you reject the term semite Mike, what matters is that you refused to acknowledge that I was challenging your objectification of an entire group of people. But why?
Okay Mike, I give up. If the world’s vernacular refers to a conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, what purpose did your anecdote serve? My use of the term semite was abstract, in fact, if you read closely, I rejected the use of the term too. Yet you informing me why you rejected the term failed to answer the implicit question; why would you share an anecdote with the connotation of reducing the identity of a group of people to a PR side show when you’ve already admitted they’ve been suffering from apartheid policies by the ‘better’ identified opposing group of people?
As a psychologist, I’m sure you’re aware that minimizing the identity and objectifying a group of people, e.g. seeing them as nothing more than the result of a PR stunt, makes it far easier on the conscience to look the other way from said apartheid policies. I could give you examples in history from South Africa to 20th century Europe, but … oh, never mind.
Mike S.: “Once again you refuge to engage my arguments not
by reply, but by dismissal.”
Is that what happened above? Did I summarily dismiss what you wrote or did I engage you by providing yet another counter-argument as to why I completely reject your premise regarding the term Palestinian?
Mike S.: “It was not ad hominem because I provided the reasons I believe that [philosophy & philosophers, necessarily including the subset known as LOGIC & LOGICIANS, are worthless], whether or not you accept my reasoning.”
Actually, to be clear, your reasons smacked of ad hominem while your overall presentation is what Logicians refer to as argument from personal incredulity.
Allow me to provide you with another example of this type childish argument. “I can’t believe the Bush administration authorized and ordered the use of torture, so it can’t be true.” or “I refuse to believe that the Bush administration defrauded the country into war with Iraq, so it can’t be true.” It’s the implicit premise “whether or not you accept my reasoning” that’s the giveaway.
Mike S.: “This is another example of you smugly patronizing me in this debate and we both know how hubris turns out.”
Gee Mike, be honest, would you accuse me of being smug & patronizing and full of hubris if I were using the same clarification tactic on the hammer-heads that followed Bush/Cheney in lock step? See, that’s the thing about those principles those worthless philosophers discuss; helps ya maintain integrity.
Mike S.: “If you were really interested in discussion, instead of showing off your Kantian erudition, you might see why I, for admitted different reasons also don’t believe in “history based morality,” I don’t believe that morality has one damn thing to do with history, except when used in dubious claims
of government justification and have repeatedly stated no government is moral, nor can be by definition. You are in essence arguing with a straw man and not me.”
Mike, I agree with your observation about the a-moral actions of nations in the past, but that’s not what I’m talking about when I refer to disregarding history as a basis for moral law. I’m talking about the principles of human morals. Nations are run by people and it is people who push nations to commit immoral acts. The fact that nations tend to politicize crime does not excuse the immoral acts. It could be argued that Germany acted immorally, but what was the object of the Nuremberg trials; to hold Germany morally and legally culpable for its actions, or certain people?
Mike S.: “Your equation of the two, coupled with your accusation that Israel claims an “immaculate morality, like your sister” could certainly create the impression that you deem Israel immoral. Where this get complex is that you carry on your argument in abstract terms, utilizing a philosophical ground work and so are in a position to deny any presumption of your opinions your writings create.”
Mike, arguments begin with ‘resolutions.’ This is why, when you witness a debate, the opponents rise and begin with “Resolved: Israel has and continues to act immorally and the countries of the world have wrongfully remained silent (…yada yada, cause she acts with an air of entitlement like my sister).” The opponent then rises and recites the opposing resolution. If it get complex, it’s only because I find comfort in certitude. After all, as any practical pig will tell ya, far better to build your house out of bricks of certitude than mere straw.
Mike S.: “Where have I said this? My point was about why the Israeli’s act as they do and not in justifying all their actions. You posit your sister’s abuse as enabling her to excuse further inappropriate actions on her part. I agreed that this has been a problem with the Israeli’s. However, I think this is a problem of all governments and so I think singling out Israel is overly simplistic.”
Mike, you’re forgetting the existence of past trauma creating the ‘walking on eggshells’ phenomena and thereby creating the illusion of moral immaculateness no matter what they do. I told you how my sister felt entitled by using it as leverage to bar all accusations and you made your acknowledgment of Israelis and Israel doing the same quite clear. How do you accuse me of being simplistic when it was you, not me, who used the phrase “felt justified.” I on the other hand clarified your position by narrowing it down to the concepts of self defense and proportionality.
Mike S.: “Bob, you really must get out more. Neither the world, nor the US, has ever walked on eggshells where Israel is concerned. Most of the world is currently pissed off at Israel and cuts them no holocaust slack.”
I’m sure you’re aware that being pissed off and holding accountable are two distinct concepts. No eggshells? You mean to tell me that Israel doesn’t have the world wound so tight with the events in Nazi Germany that I can’t use a 13th century term to describe some other atrocity without looking around the corner for the PC police? And this overall reticence to speak for fear of mis-speaking around a race of people who were the victims of said horrific event, this doesn’t amount to any form of ‘holocaust slack?’
And the apartheid policies discussed above aren’t hidden in the penumbras of holocaust slack? Really Mike? Who should get out more?
Mike S.: “Did I mention that Howard Zinn is Jewish? From my perspective characterizing my beliefs as “nightmarish” as a way to dismiss them is not only patronizing, but really shows an inability to understand where I’m coming from.”
What the fu(k does Howard Zinn, someone I don’t know and is not family, have anything to do with my better ability to empathize with you to the extent that I can?
I already confessed that I couldn’t truly empathize with you; I’d be a liar if I said anything different. So put the whip down and back away from the horse.
However I did say that while I can’t truly empathize with you, all I could do was do everything in my power to defend you. Furthermore, you, as a former therapist, should acknowledge that arguing from your fear leads to argument from emotion; and that Mike is an informal fallacy, never an argument. But I’m the bad guy for informing you about the patently obvious; right Mike?
Mike S.: “I wonder what Kant says about empathy?”
Quite a bit, but then again you’d have to get over your attitude towards philosophy to find out.
Mike S.: “Gosh Bob, Gol-ly! Thanks for the shout out. were I the paranoid though you paint me I might get the implication that you think I normally change engage in argument by changing the entire subject with each post. I’m so comforted by your applause though that I won’t entertain that nightmarish scenario.”
You are paranoid, because I was comparing you to another poster who has the habit of ignoring counter-argument completely by changing the subject and eventually folding up the chessboard in lieu of seeing the argument to some semblance of a conclusion.
You don’t want the compliment, don’t take it.
BTW, about that Lebanon thing, and why it pisses me off:
You want smug, I give you the Israeli ambassador and his defense of Israel regarding the war crimes in Gaza. Same tripe used to defend the invasion of Lebanon.
And I’m still waiting on your proportionality assessment.
Gyges, know hard feelings, you and Mike are both good guys and I appreciate the thoughtful feedback. Somehow, when you share things, you don’t come off as insulting, rude, or with an agenda. I appreciate that..
Billy,
What exactly are you talking about? Making fun of you doesn’t equal being bigoted against Catholics, it just means that he’s using humor to point out some of your less likable quirks.
If you’re talking about past posts where Mike has commented about the policies of the RCC, I’d point out that he also doesn’t like all the actions of the U.S. government, but as near as I can tell he isn’t prejudiced against Americans as a whole.
Strange, when I read his post, it seems pretty persecutorial to me. I love the “back handed” validation especially. Priceless..
Billy,
I would think it’s because Mike strikes me as a better person then the bigots who persecuted him because of his religion. One who tries to not judge an entire group based on the actions of a few of it’s members.
I am a bit surprised though Mike, that you could attend mass at St. Patricks Cathedral and spend Christmas day at Catholic friends’ of the family, in light of the fact “they” persecuted and tormented “your people” throughout history. What you “say” now, in light of your “past experiences” seems strangely incongruent. But what the heck, that is the “paradox” of man, he dosn’t always do the logical thing..
Sorry if I offended Mike. My apologies. I of course don’t believe in the tenets of Judaism, in light of the fact I am a Catholic. Its’ okay, we’re still part of the “brotherhood of man”.
“Western Fresh Water Salmon? That sounds like it’s either: Made up, farmed salmon, or Kokanee.”
Gyges,
You got me. I was so involved in my satire and really had to go shopping, that made up became my version of choice and necessity.
Mike,
By the way, that earlier “Mike Length post” was in fun. I wish I could string together as many words as you. I’m pretty sure if I tried it’d end up reading like a paragraph in Naked Lunch.
“Don’t get “bitter” Mike. I still like you. I get a “barrels worth of entertainment” reading your posts. Really, I do.. Anytime someone wants to discuss religion, the middle east and morality, you are gonna get division.”
Billy,
Entertaining you gives me great pleasure. I’m not bitter, I find you enjoyable also, particularly your proclivity for mostly posting superficial cheer leading, messages that can be read on many levels, bragging about your possessions and your accomplishments, and your general good cheer. I’m sure you’ve come across the term “passive aggressive” many times in your work and personal life.
“Mike on the other hand chooses not to conceal his own obvious contempt for Christians, primarily Catholics.”
Billy, Billy, Billy, I have no contempt for Christians or Christianity, I simply do not believe in their premises, resent their appropriation (and misinterpretation) of the Torah, am cognizant of their persecution of Jews throughout history and contemptuous of their belief that the only way to God’s acceptance is through Jesus. Since my parent’s best and closest friends were almost all RCC, I literally spent many a holiday in their homes, have been to many a Christmas Mass
(the best being St. Patrick’s in NYC) and these times represent some of my best childhood memories. My contempt is reserved for fundamentalists of any religion, including Judaism, who I personally believe are bigoted and blasphemous.
Bob,
I’m not sure they’re a result of an evolutionary trend either, but the facts sure seem to point that way. Since it’s been awhile since I’ve read the books, and I won’t do the evidence justice, I’ll just point you in the direction of both “The Science of Good and Evil” by Shermer and “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors” by Sagan and Druyan. Now admittedly, they’re no great works of philosophy, but I prefer theories backed up with facts to theories backed up with assumptions.
Does any of that mean that I don’t have a guiding compass? Not at all, it just means that I recognize that the compass points north because of the nature of magnets (including this planet), and not because there’s a law separate from the universe telling it to.
“No, you were abstract in your use of Semite; your use of Palestinian was connotatively dismissive.”
Bob,
I’m glad you used the term dismissive in writing this because it perfectly captures your methodology in this whole exchange. There was nothing abstract about your use of the inapt term “semite” and I replied by explaining why I reject the term, providing its’ usage and origin and even a link.
That you choose to ignore my argument directly, rather than making the least effort refute it, is just more of the tactics you’ve been using. As to “palestinian” I also supplied a history of the use of the term in this context and in fact could actually write a much more detailed critique of this ill-usage. In this case to, you dismiss my thoughts arbitrarily, without bothering to explain your dismissal, except to use persiflage in calling it “connotatively dismissive.” Once again you refuge to engage my arguments not
by reply, but by dismissal. You seem to be dealing in Bob’s movie and in your movie you’re the arbitrator of what the debate is. SIYOM? Well in my movie you are heading smack dab towards Bob’s tautology on Israel.
That you know doubt believe that this is a discussion that should be carried out on your terms, in some abstract (to use your words) pseudo-philosophic dialogue that only abuts on reality by reference, is as I have said a game on your board that I won’t play. How nice that you adopt the “moral” high ground of critique, without referencing the realities of conflict. It’s so………………why it’s so philosophical.
“Third, your carpet bombing of philosophy and philosophers in general represents nothing more than an en masse ad hominem.”
That wasn’t ad hominem, that represents my attitude towards philosophy. I think of it as mental masturbation. An abstraction of the world best utilized in retrospect and peopled by self congratulatory sycophants and psuedo “Giants”
of thought. To bastardize one of my favorite quotes “God save us from the Philosophy Masters of the world and their students, they’re the ones who get everyone else killed.” It was not ad hominem because I provided the reasons I believe that, whether or not you accept my reasoning. This is another example of you smugly patronizing me in this debate and we both know how hubris turns out.
“Fourth, I offered the quote from Kant as one of the reasons I refuse to accept History based morality.”
If you were really interested in discussion, instead of showing off your Kantian erudition, you might see why I, for admitted different reasons also don’t believe in “history based morality,” I don’t believe that morality has one damn thing to do with history, except when used in dubious claims
of government justification and have repeatedly stated no government is moral, nor can be by definition. You are in essence arguing with a straw man and not me.
“The question was never “what motivates a country” the question was “is the country morally culpable.”
Your question is whether a country is morally culpable, my answer is morals have nothing whatever to deal with a country’s actions, hence moral culpability is irrelevant.
“If I’ve made any argument requiring further facts to back it up, then why don’t you simply enlighten me as to what facts they are in your counter-argument in lieu of simply making the bald assertion?”
Bob, sadly you are the one making “bald assertions” and dismissively ignoring the facts I’ve presented. I know you are more than smart enough to know this, but I fear hubris or philosophical cant is blinding you.
“Mike, argumentation is not about mere conflict. Argumentation is the method by which two people reach truth in agreement.”
Bob, that may be so, but your argumentation in this instance seems to be about you setting the terms and dismissing cavalierly anything that doesn’t meet your standards.
“I no more consider Israel to be an immoral state than I consider the U.S. to be during and post Bush/Cheney.”
However, earlier you wrote:
“Which is worse; Bush & Cheney defrauding the country into bombing Iraq or Israel propagandizing its citizens and the West to justify their bombing of Lebanon?”
Your equation of the two, coupled with your accusation that Israel claims an “immaculate morality, like your sister” could certainly create the impression that you deem Israel immoral. Where this get complex is that you carry on your argument in abstract terms, utilizing a philosophical ground work and so are in a position to deny any presumption of your opinions your writings create.
“Since when does ‘feeling justified’ act as a substitute for ‘justification?’ How does one assault differ from ongoing assaults in the context of ‘feeling justified’ equals actual justification?”
Where have I said this? My point was about why the Israeli’s act as they do and not in justifying all their actions. You posit your sister’s abuse as enabling her to excuse further inappropriate actions on her part. I agreed that this has been a problem with the Israeli’s. However, I think this is a problem of all governments and so I think singling out Israel is overly simplistic.
“It seems the only part of my argument that you absolutely refuse to assent to is the world walking on egg-shells regarding any of Israel’s (allegedly wrongful) actions because of the Holocaust”
Bob, you really must get out more. Neither the world, nor the US, has ever walked on eggshells where Israel is concerned. Most of the world is currently pissed off at Israel and cuts them no holocaust slack. You are caught in a tautology if you think this is not true.
“should have been ample evidence of my empathy regarding your nightmarish beliefs. Oh yeah, did I mention that there are Jews’ in my family?”
Did I mention that Howard Zinn is Jewish? From my perspective characterizing my beliefs as “nightmarish” as a way to dismiss them is not only patronizing, but really shows an inability to understand where I’m coming from. I wonder what Kant says about empathy?
“Finally Mike, I applaud you for engaging the argument in lieu of changing the entire subject with each post.”
Gosh Bob, Gol-ly! Thanks for the shout out. were I the paranoid though you paint me I might get the implication that you think I normally change engage in argument by changing the entire subject with each post. I’m so comforted by your applause though that I won’t entertain that nightmarish scenario.
Buddha,
I agree with your observation re: the need to escape surface awareness traps in order to guide your life by principle. If you go back and read that block quote from Kant I posted to Mike, you’ll see he’s saying pretty much the same thing.
Gyges,
You seem to be focused on half the picture; i.e. duties to others (aka duties of right). While codes of morality can be helpful guides, I’m not sure they’re the product of an evolutionary trend. Yes we change laws to reflect changing policies and values, however the empirical change may or may not reflect the principle at issue.
If you take a step back from the empirical and focus on the timeless principle as it is or is not being carried out in the world, you at least have a compass as to which side you should be on and why.
Take the civil war; please. I often like to imagine that if Hamilton was president (for argument’s sake, let’s say he was born on Long Island) and Jefferson was his vice president, what they could have done when the South got all ‘passive aggressive’ about adhering to a certain Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, running with the land and recorded July 4, 1776.
Jefferson confesses to Hamilton that he plagiarized Locke and reminds Hamilton that exercising power over the inalienable right of self ownership (e.g. slavery) is tyranny per se.
So what does everyone’s favorite New Yorker, Hamilton, do? Is he concerned more about preserving the union or enforcing a contract regarding the treatment of all people? I say he holds up the DOI (and the timeless principles recited therein) to the seceding south and utters that famous New Yorker phrase “Fu(k you pay me!”
So, it’s a fractured fairy tale; sue me. But my point is you can’t oppose the South with that line from Goodfellas if you ain’t got the principles to back it up.
BTW, the founding fathers may have dressed like fairies but they had balls the size of church bells.
Next month will be the forty-second anniversary of the Patterson Film. If any of you gents have an opportunity to travel to the nortwestern corner of California, do see the Redwoods, they are as awe-inspiring as the Grand Canyon. Not far from the Redwoods is the Six Rivers National forest and Bluff Creek, where the historic film was shot. I am convinced that in Northern California and especially Northeastern California, that the forests and mountains are so remote, and impenetrable in some areas as to be untouched by human feet. “Bigfeet”, are another issue..
I just keep readin’, learnin all kinds of new things…
Bob is one “HEAVY DUTY HOMBRE”!