Not necessarily. What's probably happening here is that Israel does not believe that what it's doing is wrong, but they understand that other powers might view what they are doing as wrong, and are preparing to defend themselves by the standards of the other powers in case that foreign definition of "crime" is imposed upon them.
E.g., "this isn't a crime by our definition, but we will now show that even by YOUR definition it is not a crime".
Well, I agree that Israel's leaders obviously either (a) don't think they were wrong, or (b) don't care, or they would not have done them in the first place. But that doesn't mean that they are unaware that by other standards than their own their behavior might be found questionable.
It's like walking in on a five-year old a minute after he's done something he knows he's not supposed to, and the first thing he says is "I didn't do it!" If Israeli troops didn't break international law, why are they pre-emptively putting together a defense instead of waiting to be accused, inaccurately or otherwise?
And also, it is silly to use terms such as "guilt" and "crime" in the international context. These are terms from national criminal systems. The international system has very little in the sense of a formal, legitimate criminal system that can enforce its will on states.
I disagree. You are confusing the inability to impose a penalty with the nonexistence of a standard. The terms are no less cogent in an international context than they are domestically.
There's a difference between a standard that is clearly binding and enforced, and a standard that exists but is not universally regarded as binding.
What the UN calls "international law" is no more law than what would result if I said "Nobody should breed ligers" and some people who admired me wrote angry letters to any zoo which did so.
I mean, I think your first sentence is correct. But my point is that whatever actual sanctions (say) the UN imposes (in the unlikely event that they do anything meaningful) are neither more nor less valid than the legal penalties imposed by a government on its citizens. For examine, I might decide that I don't think law X is binding, but if the state can put me in jail for breaking it, whether I agree to it or not is irrelevant.
Your second sentence is just wrong. If, for example, Israel's alleged use of white phosphorus is in violation of treaties it has signed, as it probably is, that is obviously of significantly greater import than if they failed to abide by your "law," to which they had never agreed.
Regardless of my stance on various subjects commented on in the above replies (i.e. is "ass-hat" a term which means anything when talking about the complex interplay of government, military, and citizens, or does it imply the ass-hatdom of the person utilizing the phrase?), defending one's soldiers is no new things, in far less controversial situations; and Israel's defense can be seen as a desire not to do what, for example, some African coups and regimes do: use nasty methods to get into power and then drop associations to the people who used them, letting them get in trouble. While also indicative of too narrow a view on the part of the Israeli government of right and wrong and law, it is also simply a nation protecting its citizens when they follow orders--something which should not be mocked. I would also be cautious about the idea that there were killings 'indiscriminantly'--the whole horror and tragedy of the long history of this conflict is actually erased by black-whiting it--I'm not saying collatarel damage is acceptable,
( ... )
You will note that I referred to "Israeli leaders" and "Israeli troops," not "Israel." (And of course I am aware that there are many human rights groups in Israel filled with people outraged by the conduct of their government, just as many Americans have been with our own.)
I think the claim that "issue X is complicated, don't make it black and white" is often used to sidestep having to make moral judgments. For example, do I think Israel's behavior is absolutely in the wrong? Of course not; Palestinian groups have been conducting terrorist campaigns against Israelis for decades. (Although if you really want to open up the historical debate, let's think for a second about which of the two "sides" might really have started the violence back in, say, 1948.) On the other
( ... )
Also, I would point out that I am not blaming individual Israeli soldiers, but their commanders and especially the civilian politicians who are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the operation.
I think you've hit on the main problem with the conflict--by which I mean the main problem OF the Israelis and FOR the Israelis--which is that while Israel acts as a state (albeit a democratic one, and thus one bursting with opinions), they tend to act like they fight another state--which they are (yes, you know, they are), and they aren't. Anyway, punishing civilians for the acts of terrorist groups was never the higher moral ground . . . though what to do when the civilians elect a terrorist group to power? You don't want to have it both ways, but it is. A 'state' can in fact be controlled by extremely dangerous and violent criminals--though I don't think that means the innocent should be punished in any way. I am more inclined to your view of blame than the opposite, by the by, but I refuse to accept the view that understanding nuance is a way of sidestepping morality--it is a way of defining morality. It is the only humanity possible
( ... )
Comments 22
E.g., "this isn't a crime by our definition, but we will now show that even by YOUR definition it is not a crime".
Reply
It's like walking in on a five-year old a minute after he's done something he knows he's not supposed to, and the first thing he says is "I didn't do it!" If Israeli troops didn't break international law, why are they pre-emptively putting together a defense instead of waiting to be accused, inaccurately or otherwise?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
What the UN calls "international law" is no more law than what would result if I said "Nobody should breed ligers" and some people who admired me wrote angry letters to any zoo which did so.
Reply
Your second sentence is just wrong. If, for example, Israel's alleged use of white phosphorus is in violation of treaties it has signed, as it probably is, that is obviously of significantly greater import than if they failed to abide by your "law," to which they had never agreed.
Reply
Sure looks that way, doesn't it?
Reply
Reply
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
On non-Godwin's law notes:
You will note that I referred to "Israeli leaders" and "Israeli troops," not "Israel." (And of course I am aware that there are many human rights groups in Israel filled with people outraged by the conduct of their government, just as many Americans have been with our own.)
I think the claim that "issue X is complicated, don't make it black and white" is often used to sidestep having to make moral judgments. For example, do I think Israel's behavior is absolutely in the wrong? Of course not; Palestinian groups have been conducting terrorist campaigns against Israelis for decades. (Although if you really want to open up the historical debate, let's think for a second about which of the two "sides" might really have started the violence back in, say, 1948.) On the other ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment