Blogs > Liberty and Power > "Sorry" Doesn't Cut It

Aug 2, 2006

"Sorry" Doesn't Cut It




From Adam Shatz in yesterday's LA Times:
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Israel did, in fact, make the same mistake twice in Qana — or, to take another recent example, in Gaza, where a family of eight spending an afternoon on the beach was killed by an errant Israeli shell in June. If Israeli assertions are true that these killings of scores of civilians were unintentional, does that mean that Israel can claim the high ground in its battle with Hezbollah and Hamas? Is Israel's"accidental" violence against civilians somehow better, or more morally acceptable, than that of a Hamas suicide bomber who steps into a pizzeria seeking to kill civilians? Or a Hezbollah guerrilla firing a Katyusha in the direction of a Haifa residential neighborhood? In short, do Israel's declared intentions make a difference?

To the victims in Qana and Gaza, the answer to these questions is obviously no. Nor will Olmert's" condolences" be greeted with anything gentler than sarcasm in the Arab and Muslim world, particularly because Israel barely paused after Qana before resuming airstrikes against Lebanon....

When Israel targets densely populated areas in hopes of killing one or a handful of militants, knowing that it may end up killing dozens of civilians, it can hardly claim to be showing concern for humanitarian law or civilian life. And by asking that we judge it by its professed intentions, rather than by its actions, Israel is asking too much of us and far too little of itself.
Cross-posted at Free Association.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Max Schwing - 8/4/2006

Yes, but you also have to see that this goes on on both sides! The Palestinians are not just aggressive now, but they have been a decade and more. Just the "apartheid wall" the Israelis built has reduced the amount of suicide bombers along where it is finished to half or less.

I also think you should take into consideration that Israel has changed his attitude towards Palestinians about 180°. They even started to retreat from most settlements and returned Gaza to the Palestinians (while some of the workers in those parts lamented that they didn't want the Israelis leaving, because they at least ARE PRODUCTIVE and make jobs).
And what was the answer? More violence and more threats to destroy Israel.

We are looking here at a century old conflict which was about murdering jews even before the state of Israel came into existence..

I don't think that Israel is reacting out of proportions, when they see that they got bitten off the whole arm, while reaching a hand in friendship...


Max Schwing - 8/4/2006

I must add that the Israeli military is much more careful about their military operations than decades ago, when they had enemy casualties of up to 100 in one single strike.

I think this has to do with the increased precision of the strikes, in which they can target a single garage or house and blast it, without destroying the neighbourhood.


Sheldon Richman - 8/3/2006

Don't be so sure.


Sheldon Richman - 8/3/2006

If this had happened once you might have a case. But it's been going on for over 50 years. How seriously are we to take claims about intentions and apologies?


Jonathan Dresner - 8/3/2006

(It's easy to do; I've done it myself)
That was me. here's her main post on the subject, and there's more here.

You also deleted a reply of your own pointing out that Israel's lack of guilt in this one incident doesn't excuse the general abuse Palestinians in the Gaza and West Bank have experienced. I agree, and always have (which is why I've supported Israeli withdrawal from these areas), but Israeli overreaction to threats doesn't change the fact that they are reacting to real threats. Violence is not a natural process or event; it is a choice and the context matters a great deal.


Craig J. Bolton - 8/3/2006

It isn't? I guess we can tell which news sources you don't read.


Sheldon Richman - 8/3/2006

I think the case for manslaughter or reckless homicide is very weak. The war planners knew full well what would happen if they engaged in fully avoidable actions. This is not like a shooter holding a baby to his chest.


Craig J. Bolton - 8/3/2006

So I guess that you [Sheldon] do not see any differences between (1) manslaughter, (2) reckless homicide and (3) first degree murder? If you do, why do not the same difference apply in this case?


Steven Horwitz - 8/2/2006

I believe that claim about the Gaza beach is correct - it was a Palestinian shell.

And I think there is a difference here: It DOES matter what one's intentions are and it DOES matter when you give civilians advance warning, and risk your own military in the process, to get them to clear out of areas you intend to attack. It DOES matter when Israel apologizes for *unintended* deaths of innocents and when Palestinians don't, and then give reward money to the families of those who cause the *intended* deaths of innocents. I simply cannot understand how you and others can't see those differences or refuse to see how they might matter.


Sheldon Richman - 8/2/2006

As I recall, the commenter said that the Klinghoffer blog on HNN indicates that it was an errant Palestinian shell, not an Israeli action, that killed a family of of eight on a Gaza beach. I can't find the post, so I would appreciate if the commenter would point it out. Thanks.


Sheldon Richman - 8/2/2006

I accidentally deleted the original of this post and the comment regarding new information about the killing of the Palestinians on the Gaza beach, along with my response. Would the commenter please re-post the comment. Again, sorry.