The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

Hence my 'reckon' of ten. I don't think these scenarios ever actually occur though.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Ok, so let's state the principle then - if a state suffers a handful of civilian deaths a year because its technoligical security dome is 99.9% effective but not perfect, it has to tolerate those deaths if any action against the perpetrators would necessarily cost more civilian lives than it saves.

Is there anyone who is unhappy with this formulation?

[Prufrock]

Ok, so let's state the principle then - if a state suffers a handful of civilian deaths a year because its technoligical security dome is 99.9% effective but not perfect, it has to tolerate those deaths if any action against the perpetrators would necessarily cost more civilian lives than it saves.

Is there anyone who is unhappy with this formulation?

It quickly becomes more complicated once people start arguing that long-term you save more lives by getting rid of the perpetrators, or start arguing the boundaries of the definition of 'civilian', but as long as it's left as broadly open as that ^ then I think that's where I am.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

if the Jewish state hadn't imported its diaspora then they too would probably have faced annihilation, and the large part of that diaspora well before the 1967 war, comprised the remnants of the holocaust returning to a 'homeland' after one of the most brutally effective genocidal campaign ever carried out - do you think they and their descendants are going to sit idly by whilst an entire religion threatens to wipe them off the face of the earth, and threatens that not because of the land they occupy, but because of the religion they espouse whilst on that land. I

But they are now the powerful ones. The ones who can decide whether others live or die. And at the minute they are killing children. This notion that they are fighting for their very existence by killing children and innocent people is the exact same principle Hitler and Himmler used to justify their actions. Fighting for the preservation of the German race.

Quite frightening really.

Yes, I know... if you look back through my recent posts on this, all I'm arguing is that it is about religion - that was all. I'm not making any claims that one side or the other is right, or innocent or anything other than that it is my contention that this conflict is fundamentally about religion, not land.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Ok, so let's state the principle then - if a state suffers a handful of civilian deaths a year because its technoligical security dome is 99.9% effective but not perfect, it has to tolerate those deaths if any action against the perpetrators would necessarily cost more civilian lives than it saves.

Is there anyone who is unhappy with this formulation?

Yes, me.
Warfare constantly change. It evolves. The combatants, likewise. I'm unhappy with the fact that you have used parameters within your formula that are not defined. In the days of suicide bombers that utilise women and children, define to me more precisely what a 'civilian' is please.

[BWFC_Insane]

Ok, so let's state the principle then - if a state suffers a handful of civilian deaths a year because its technoligical security dome is 99.9% effective but not perfect, it has to tolerate those deaths if any action against the perpetrators would necessarily cost more civilian lives than it saves.

Is there anyone who is unhappy with this formulation?

The interests of humankind as a whole should always be at the forefront of any decision over and above the interests of a single state, entity or person.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Ok, so let's state the principle then - if a state suffers a handful of civilian deaths a year because its technoligical security dome is 99.9% effective but not perfect, it has to tolerate those deaths if any action against the perpetrators would necessarily cost more civilian lives than it saves.

Is there anyone who is unhappy with this formulation?

The interests of humankind as a whole should always be at the forefront of any decision over and above the interests of a single state, entity or person.

Which is to say, like Pru, you agree with that formulation?

[BWFC_Insane]

Ok, so let's state the principle then - if a state suffers a handful of civilian deaths a year because its technoligical security dome is 99.9% effective but not perfect, it has to tolerate those deaths if any action against the perpetrators would necessarily cost more civilian lives than it saves.

Is there anyone who is unhappy with this formulation?

The interests of humankind as a whole should always be at the forefront of any decision over and above the interests of a single state, entity or person.

Which is to say, like Pru, you agree with that formulation?

I wouldn't put it in those terms. I don't think you can formulate it. For example, some mad mentalist acquires a nuclear weapon, or at least is thought to. The consequence of taking him or his state down is many deaths, but the benefit to humankind is potentially massive. I'm realistic enough to know sometimes lives have to be sacrificed for the greater good.

But if it ever (and it clearly doesn't) for sake of argument came down to "ten deaths from our state or ten from theirs" then nobody ultimately has the right to say that their lives are less worthwhile than ours, IMHO.

[Prufrock]

This is a good introduction to the proportionality debate: http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.m ... walzer.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's an interesting take initially but the conclusive reasoning is specious IMO, and it seems to come from a false assumption that proportionality=parity of numbers.

I particularly object to the notion that the Viet Cong, say, were 'responsible' for the deaths of the villagers mentioned and so the Americans weren't. It's far too simple IMO to say it's about responsibility, and so once I can put responsibility onto the other side, I myself am free of it. I heard a response recently to the argument that the deaths of Palestinian citizens are solely the responsibility of Hamas because they in effect use them as human shields. The response was that, in the movies, when the baddie uses a bystander as a human shield, the goodie doesn't shoot the bystander!

I'm happy to have a debate on what constitutes a civilian, but setting that aside and assuming there is a category we can agree are 'innocent bystanders' which is the same on both sides, in other words each of your sets of 10 civilians are equally and definitely 'innocent', then any formulation other than that you suggested has to imply that one category of people are more important than another.

Perhaps to move it on a bit, and to address my earlier point about proportionality not necessarily equaling parity in numbers, at least immediately:

Image now you have ten Israelis who you can save by killing 11 Palestinians, ten of whom are innocent, but one of whom is the head guy, on whom 50% of Hamas' capability is dependent. Now how many innocent civilians are proportionate, not only to save the ten currently directly in danger, but also those who will be saved by a 50% reduction in Hamas' power?

[Prufrock]

Ok, so let's state the principle then - if a state suffers a handful of civilian deaths a year because its technoligical security dome is 99.9% effective but not perfect, it has to tolerate those deaths if any action against the perpetrators would necessarily cost more civilian lives than it saves.

Is there anyone who is unhappy with this formulation?

The interests of humankind as a whole should always be at the forefront of any decision over and above the interests of a single state, entity or person.

Which is to say, like Pru, you agree with that formulation?

I wouldn't put it in those terms. I don't think you can formulate it. For example, some mad mentalist acquires a nuclear weapon, or at least is thought to. The consequence of taking him or his state down is many deaths, but the benefit to humankind is potentially massive. I'm realistic enough to know sometimes lives have to be sacrificed for the greater good.

But if it ever (and it clearly doesn't) for sake of argument came down to "ten deaths from our state or ten from theirs" then nobody ultimately has the right to say that their lives are less worthwhile than ours, IMHO.

Which is why I'm only happy with it in those broad terms.

Your scenario with the nuclear bomb doesn't contradict the formulation, but is covered by 'cost more lives than it saves'. The word 'directly' is correctly absent.

[William the White]

By and large I'm on the bish's side in this debate - though both sides have fanatical minorities for whom religion is a treasured ideological cloak, I think the primary issue is closer to the bish's 'land'.

Though I would go further. I think the real issue for Israel is that it is desperate to prevent a Palestinian state emerging which will establish recognised international boundaries. The entire history of Israel is that it is voraciously expansionist. In this it has repeatedly defied UN resolutions. It continues to gobble up Palestinian land to incorporate into the Greater Israel it is establishing.

I suspect Israel finds the establishment of a Hamas government in Gaza useful - it undermines Palestinian unity catastrophically and gives them a handy enemy to attack regularly. To make the resistance of hamas more likely it imposes extreme economic sanctions and blockades, pretending this is about fears of Hamas getting weapons (amongst imports it has forbidden are: A4 paper, coriander, crayons, shampoo and wheelchairs). I'm not surprised that a few months after the establishment of a Palestinian unity government (in which Hamas has no ministers) Israel has launched another savage war.

In 2010 David Cameron described Gaza as a 'prison camp'. he wasn't wrong - a prison containing many more innocent than guilty. almost 2000 of them dead, thousands more injured, in the latest bloodletting.

[thebish]

Religion though helps to accentuate the divide surely? But I'd agree only in the sense of labels.

yes - as I have said several times now - it is a complicating factor.

it's about which fecking book is holier than any other fecking book,

no, it's not.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Religion though helps to accentuate the divide surely? But I'd agree only in the sense of labels.

yes - as I have said several times now - it is a complicating factor.

it's about which fecking book is holier than any other fecking book,

no, it's not.

Oh yes it is

(he's beeeeeeehind you).

[Montreal Wanderer]

Would that it were that simple. And it was on our watch, from the end of the First World War, til just after the end of the Second, that the seeds were largely sown for these problems, with first the Balfour declaration and then the Mandate of Palestine. In the same way that The Troubles were a largely manufactured "Religious Conflict" in NI, our hands have more blood on them in this instance than many would like to openly admit.

This is correct (though the French should be apportioned some of the blame) - breaking up the Ottoman Empire we drew borders with a ruler and a helping of ignorance to serve our economic interests. However, the UN creation of the State of Israel was also a result of (response to) the Holocaust for which others were more to blame. I also feel it may be a mistake to define Judaism purely as a religion - it seems broader than that.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I also feel it may be a mistake to define Judaism purely as a religion - it seems broader than that.

So long as it is made clear as to which Jewish you refer to, it isn't.
For example it is quite plain that Arab and Muslim can be easily separated, whilst Jew and Jewish is much more intertwined. There are very few Jews who aren't Jewish and even fewer non-Jews who are Jewish.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I also feel it may be a mistake to define Judaism purely as a religion - it seems broader than that.

So long as it is made clear as to which Jewish you refer to, it isn't.
For example it is quite plain that Arab and Muslim can be easily separated, whilst Jew and Jewish is much more intertwined. There are very few Jews who aren't Jewish and even fewer non-Jews who are Jewish.

Er...Yes...I think so. A Jew can be an atheist (indeed a number of my friends are) and will still be a Jew. I don't think a Christian or Muslim can be an atheist. Ethnicity is part of Judaism which it is not in other major religions. The Holocaust was not religious discrimination, it was racism.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I also feel it may be a mistake to define Judaism purely as a religion - it seems broader than that.

So long as it is made clear as to which Jewish you refer to, it isn't.
For example it is quite plain that Arab and Muslim can be easily separated, whilst Jew and Jewish is much more intertwined. There are very few Jews who aren't Jewish and even fewer non-Jews who are Jewish.

Er...Yes...I think so. A Jew can be an atheist (indeed a number of my friends are) and will still be a Jew. I don't think a Christian or Muslim can be an atheist. Ethnicity is part of Judaism which it is not in other major religions. The Holocaust was not religious discrimination, it was racism.

A Muslim can be an atheist as being Muslim is based on birth, with the exception of converts. I know little of Judaism, but Christianity is based on personal choice.

[thebish]

A Muslim can be an atheist as being Muslim is based on birth, with the exception of converts. I know little of Judaism, but Christianity is based on personal choice.

unless you're talking about catholicism!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

A Muslim can be an atheist as being Muslim is based on birth, with the exception of converts. I know little of Judaism, but Christianity is based on personal choice.

unless you're talking about catholicism!

Yeah, but they're nuts

No offence to Catholics or any other faith reading...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I also feel it may be a mistake to define Judaism purely as a religion - it seems broader than that.

So long as it is made clear as to which Jewish you refer to, it isn't.
For example it is quite plain that Arab and Muslim can be easily separated, whilst Jew and Jewish is much more intertwined. There are very few Jews who aren't Jewish and even fewer non-Jews who are Jewish.

Er...Yes...I think so. A Jew can be an atheist (indeed a number of my friends are) and will still be a Jew. I don't think a Christian or Muslim can be an atheist. Ethnicity is part of Judaism which it is not in other major religions. The Holocaust was not religious discrimination, it was racism.

A Muslim can be an atheist as being Muslim is based on birth, with the exception of converts. I know little of Judaism, but Christianity is based on personal choice.

Islam may consider anyone born a Muslim is still a Muslim and that apostasy is the greatest possible sin, nonetheless I would imagine that one who becomes an atheist is not a true Muslim. A true Muslim must make the declaration of faith (There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God) and an atheist would not do so. This happened in the recent case of the woman born and raised a Christian by her mother. Yet because the father had been Muslim she was condemned to death for apostasy when she refused to declare herself a Muslim. Is she a Muslim or Christian? Both would claim her.