• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYU Professor advocates war crimes and collective punishment

Status
Not open for further replies.

werks

Banned
JdHeIU9P.jpeg

Hamas's Civilian Death Strategy
Gazans shelter terrorists and their weapons in their homes, right beside sofas and dirty diapers.

By THANE ROSENBAUM
July 21, 2014 3:19 p.m. ET
Let's state the obvious: No one likes to see dead children. Well, that's not completely true: Hamas does. They would prefer those children to be Jewish, but there is greater value to them if they are Palestinian. Outmatched by Israel's military, handicapped by rocket launchers with the steady hands of Barney Fife, Hamas is playing the long game of moral revulsion.

With this conflict about to enter its third week, winning the PR war is the best Hamas can hope to achieve. Their weapon of choice, however, seems to be the cannon fodder of their own people, performing double duty in also sounding the drumbeat of Israeli condemnation. If you can't beat Iron Dome, then deploy sacrificial children as human shields.

Civilian casualties will continue to mount. The evolving story will focus on the collateral damage of Palestinian lives. Israel's moral dilemma will receive little attention. Each time the ledgers of relative loss are reported, world public opinion will turn against the Jewish state and box Israel into an even tighter corner of the Middle East.

All the ordinary rules of warfare are upended in Gaza. Everything about this conflict is asymmetrical—Hamas wears no uniforms and they don't meet Israeli soldiers on battlefields. With the exception of kaffiyeh scarves, it isn't possible to distinguish a Hamas militant from a noncombatant pharmacist. In Vietnam, the U.S. military learned guerrilla warfare in jungles. In Gaza, the Jewish state has had to adapt to the altogether surreal terrain of apartment complexes and schoolhouses.

There are now reports that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are transporting themselves throughout Gaza in ambulances packed with children. Believe it or not, a donkey laden with explosives detonated just the other day.

The asymmetry is complicated even further by the status of these civilians. Under such maddening circumstances, are the adults, in a legal and moral sense, actual civilians? To qualify as a civilian one has to do more than simply look the part. How you came to find yourself in such a vulnerable state matters. After all, when everyone is wearing casual street clothing, civilian status is shared widely.

The people of Gaza overwhelmingly elected Hamas, a terrorist outfit dedicated to the destruction of Israel, as their designated representatives. Almost instantly Hamas began stockpiling weapons and using them against a more powerful foe with a solid track record of retaliation.

What did Gazans think was going to happen? Surely they must have understood on election night that their lives would now be suspended in a state of utter chaos. Life expectancy would be miserably low; children would be without a future. Staying alive would be a challenge, if staying alive even mattered anymore.

To make matters worse, Gazans sheltered terrorists and their weapons in their homes, right beside ottoman sofas and dirty diapers. When Israel warned them of impending attacks, the inhabitants defiantly refused to leave.

On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.

It also calls your parenting skills into serious question. In the U.S. if a parent is found to have locked his or her child in a parked car on a summer day with the windows closed, a social worker takes the children away from the demonstrably unfit parent. In Gaza, parents who place their children in the direct line of fire are rewarded with an interview on MSNBC where they can call Israel a genocidal murderer.

The absurdity of Israel's Gaza campaigns requires an entirely new terminology for the conduct of wars. "Enemy combatants," "theater of war," "innocent civilians," "casualties of war" all have ambiguous meaning in Gaza. There is nothing casual about why so many Gazans die; these deaths are tragically predictable and predetermined. Hamas builds tunnels for terrorists and their rockets; bomb shelters for the people of Gaza never entered the Hamas leaders' minds.

So much innocence is lost in this citizen army, which serves as the armor for demented leaders and their dwindling arsenal of rockets and martyrs. In Gaza the death toll of civilians is an endgame disguised as a tragedy. It is a sideshow—without death, Hamas has nothing to show for its efforts.

Surely there are civilians who have been killed in this conflict who have taken every step to distance themselves from this fast-moving war zone, and children whose parents are not card-carrying Hamas loyalists. These are the true innocents of Gaza. It is they for whom our sympathy should be reserved. The impossibility of identifying them, and saving them, is Israel's deepest moral dilemma..



Startling similarities to Osama Bin Laden.
(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.


https://twitter.com/nyulaw
https://www.facebook.com/NYU
 
On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.

Wonder what his thoughts were on Northern Ireland then
 

AkuMifune

Banned
"I'm desperately trying to rationalize this campaign of blood and terror that we support as a country by generalizing it in the dumbest possible way."
 
Glancing over this guy's other writings, he has a hardcore revenge fetish, borderline bloodthirsty.

The Allied bombings of Dresden and the atomic detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified militarily, but the disproportionate civilian deaths were, for some, too morally painful to accept. Similarly America’s recent war in Afghanistan was intended to avenge 9/11, punish the Taliban, and disable al Qaeda’s terrorist operations, but thousands of civilians lost their lives, too.

It's telling how clinically he distances himself from considerations of innocent lives lost in the pursuit of war gains, and it's further telling how closely together he ties the aims of World War II bombing campaigns in Europe and East Asia with modern counterinsurgencies in the Middle East and Central Asia. He actually doesn't fucking care about lost innocents.
 
Under such maddening circumstances, are the adults, in a legal and moral sense, actual civilians? To qualify as a civilian one has to do more than simply look the part. How you came to find yourself in such a vulnerable state matters. After all, when everyone is wearing casual street clothing, civilian status is shared widely.

The people of Gaza overwhelmingly elected Hamas, a terrorist outfit dedicated to the destruction of Israel, as their designated representatives. Almost instantly Hamas began stockpiling weapons and using them against a more powerful foe with a solid track record of retaliation.

What did Gazans think was going to happen? Surely they must have understood on election night that their lives would now be suspended in a state of utter chaos. Life expectancy would be miserably low; children would be without a future. Staying alive would be a challenge, if staying alive even mattered anymore.

Thane Rosenbaum is a novelist, essayist, and a Senior Fellow at NYU School of Law where he directs the Forum on Law, Culture & Society.

He is the author of the critically acclaimed novels, The Stranger Within Sarah Stein, The Golems of Gotham, Second Hand Smoke, the novel-in-stories, Elijah Visible, and the forthcoming How Sweet It Is.

His articles, reviews and essays appear frequently in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Haaretz and the Daily Beast, among other publications.

He moderates an annual series of discussions on politics and culture at the 92nd Street Y called The Talk Show.

His nonfiction books include, Payback: The Case for Revenge and The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What’s Right. He edited the anthology, Law Lit, from Atticus Finch to "The Practice": A Collection of Great Writing about the Law. His forthcoming book is entitled, The High Price of Free Speech: Rethinking the First Amendment.

He graduated from the University of Miami School of Law where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the University of Miami Law Review. He clerked for Federal District Judge Eugene P. Spellman from the Southern District of Florida. Following that he was an associate at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York, and then for 22 years taught at Fordham University School of Law where he was the John Whelan Distinguished Lecturer in Law. He holds a Masters Degree in Public Administration from Columbia University and graduated with a B.A. from the University of Florida where he was class valedictorian.
https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/profile.cfm?section=bio&personID=41349
Drank too much of that Florida water.


Anyone read: Payback: The Case for Revenge or The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What’s Right? Titles sound ominous.

edit: goodreads review:
In Payback: The Case for Revenge, Thane Rosenbaum argues several points:

1. Anger is a natural and healthy reaction to being the victim of crime or being the relative of a victim.

2. A desire to punish the person responsible for crimes against oneself or one's family is also natural, although it's become culturally unacceptable to express this desire in American society.

3. In the Western world (and, to an extent, in other parts of the world as well), the earliest legal systems expected--and even required--the victim or the victim's family to be personally responsible for exacting vengeance against the malfeasor. The rules for carrying out this vengeance varied by culture and time period, but they are generally exemplified by the lex talionis, ie, what most of us would call "an eye for an eye."

4. Humans are wired to feel indignant at experiencing unfairness or seeing unfairness happen to others. We are, likewise, wired to feel pleasure in the anticipation of revenge ("revenge is sweet" is very close to literally true). These are some of the reasons that we as audiences love revenge stories: from Taken to The Count of Monte Cristo, The Brave One to the Oresteia of Aeschylus.

5. During the Enlightenment, when the concept of the modern state was being created, the right to take vengeance was one of the rights that states assumed from individuals as part of the social contract. While this is more efficient in some ways (ie, not everyone is ready to go Inigo Montoya for their relatives, nor is it efficient for every crime victim to learn to be Batman) it began (in the author's view) a negative trend toward ignoring the needs of victims and failing to adequately punish criminals.

6. The modern American court system relegates victims to the status of mere witnesses to the crimes committed against them, and takes little note of their needs: to have their losses recognized and their dignity restored.

7. American justice would better serve victims by including them earlier and more completely in the judicial process, most significantly by allowing them to approve or disapprove of plea agreements, which, per the author, end 90% of cases before they can go to trial--thereby depriving the victim of his or her "day in court" and often reducing the malfeasor's sentence significantly.

Rosenbaum has a knack for quotable prose; I spent much of the first hundred pages jotting down pithy observations on revenge. His arguments, though, tend to cover and recover the same ground, leading me to wonder if I couldn't have read a much better book in 150 pages instead of 280. More problematic than the skim-inducing repetition, though, is a systematic tendency to treat the Western experience as universal and to treat "honor" and "revenge" as primarily male subjects.

Rosenbaum's arguments in favor of revenge and vengeance rest squarely on the (Biblical/Western) concept of lex talionis, and the idea that it was at one time universally accepted as the rule of the land. I would have been more inclined to accept this as an acceptable thesis if Rosenbaum had identified a culture--any culture--which didn't base its law on lex talionis or its local equivalent; that Rosenbaum didn't locate any counter-examples suggests to me that he didn't look far. I would have been fine with this bias if Rosenbaum had identified it, but throughout the book, he insists that the desire for revenge and the "eye for an eye" system of judgement is universally human.

The other reason I read this book with my teeth clenched half the time is Rosenbaum's male-centric viewpoint. Frequent are the citations of fathers, husbands, and brothers avenging their male and female relatives or injuries to themselves; both in general and in specific examples, women are only rarely mentioned as avengers, and these are often fictional, ie, in True Grit and The Brave One. I believe one case of a mother avenging her child's death was cited, along with a few cases of women who killed abusive husbands. Historically, revenge and honor have both been male provinces; to speak continually and glowingly of how vengeance was great for "human dignity" and "honor" ignores half the population. Rosenbaum makes a half-hearted attempt to distance his noble ideas of revenge from the horrifying honor killings taking place in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and in other communities around the world (including the US), but his objection to this variety of revenge is mainly that it's "disproportionate"--not that, like many of his western examples, it's predicated on the idea that women are the property of their husbands, fathers, and brothers, and that injuries to women are injuries not to them and their human dignity, but to the honor of their male relatives.

While Payback was an interesting read, it was deeply flawed: both in form (circular writing) and in content (inattention to Western-centric bias and underlying misogyny). Read with caution
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15999516-payback
 
As I posted in the main thread, I actually agree with most of what the writer posted here. But this:

On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.

It also calls your parenting skills into serious question. In the U.S. if a parent is found to have locked his or her child in a parked car on a summer day with the windows closed, a social worker takes the children away from the demonstrably unfit parent. In Gaza, parents who place their children in the direct line of fire are rewarded with an interview on MSNBC where they can call Israel a genocidal murderer.

Simply goes too far. I believe that Hamas is deliberately hiding amongst their civilian population, both to minimize their losses (if they had explicit bases and ammo depots, Israel would simply bomb them and be done with it), and to increase moral support for their cause.

However, I see the civilian Gazans as hostages, not active participants. They are being held at gunpoint, and Israel is going all Keanu Reeves and shooting the hostage to get to the terrorists. Israel has made it explicitly clear that they won't hold back if Hamas hides in civilian areas, so Hamas continuing to do so implies deliberate endangerment of the people they were elected to protect.
 
Good grief.

If it's not a professor advocating the rape of women in Gaza, it's one advocating other war crimes and collective punishment.

The crazies are out in force today.
 

Mesousa

Banned
NYU charges 22k a semester. Of course a professor there could defend war criminals. He's borderline one himself.
 
HOW THE FUCK DID THIS GET PUBLISHED.

Sorry for all caps but wow. WOW.

How is this any different than Bin Laden saying us USA citizens are open game for killing because we pay taxes and oblige with our government.
 
HOW THE FUCK DID THIS GET PUBLISHED.

Sorry for all caps but wow. WOW.

How is this any different than Bin Laden saying us USA citizens are open game for killing because we pay taxes and oblige with our government.

If you read the comments, it's almost unanimous support.

It gets published because lots of people actually think this way.
 
Simply goes too far. I believe that Hamas is deliberately hiding amongst their civilian population, both to minimize their losses (if they had explicit bases and ammo depots, Israel would simply bomb them and be done with it), and to increase moral support for their cause.
But Amnesty International did not find any case of Hamas using civilian shields in a much bigger military operation with higher casualties in 2009. There is no evidence to support these claims.

"found no evidence that Hamas or other fighters di rected the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks."

"By contrast, Amnesty International did find that Israeli forces on several occasions during Operation “Cast Lead” forced Palestinian civilians to serve as “human shields”. In any event, international humanitarian law makes clear that use of “human shields” by one party does not release the attacking party from its legal obligations with respect to civilians. "
Here is the link.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf
 
So if a country elects a government that wages war, all the civilians in the country forfeit their lives? I sure hope this guy isn't an American citizen or he might not like the implication....
 
So if a country elects a government that wages war, all the civilians in the country forfeit their lives? I sure hope this guy isn't an American citizen or he might not like the implication....
I wouldnt be surprised if I found similar claims in Al Qaida magazines.
 

Antagon

Member
It's scary that dead Palestinian civilians are now used as propaganda not only by Hamas but Israel as well. How much worse can it get for people living there?
 
But Amnesty International did not find any case of Hamas using civilian shields in a much bigger military operation with higher casualties in 2009. There is no evidence to support these claims.


Here is the link.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf

Not redirecting civilians does not mean that they weren't simply camping out in civilian areas. From section 4.2, the same section you quoted:

Hamas and other armed groups also endangered Palestinian civilians by failing to take all
feasible precautions in the conduct of their military activities, notably by firing rockets from
residential areas and storing weapons, explosives and ammunition in them. They also mixed
with the civilian population, although this would be difficult to avoid in the small and
overcrowded Gaza Strip, and there is no evidence that they did so with the intent of shielding
themselves. The extremely high population density in Gaza, a small territory and one of the
most densely populated places in the world, entails additional challenges for all the parties
involved in conflict or armed confrontations.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, Hamas and other armed groups have an obligation to
avoid conduct which, by intent or through recklessness, exposes the civilian population to
danger, and have an obligation not to use the civilian population as a cover for their military
activities. Intentionally using civilians to shield a military objective – often referred to as
using “human shields” – is a war crime (see Chapter 5).

4.2.1 ROCKET LAUNCHING, FIGHTING AND WEAPONS STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Hamas and other Palestinian groups endangered civilians by firing rockets from populated
residential neighbourhoods.

Hamas and other groups generally store weapons in civilian areas and there is no reason to
believe that it was any different during Operation “Cast Lead”. By doing so, it rendered such
locations possible targets of attack and therefore exposed civilians who may have been
present to risk. However, fighting in urban areas per se is not a violation of international
humanitarian law, but the parties involved in the conduct of hostilities in an urban setting
have an obligation to distinguish, and to ensure to the best of their ability, that their attacks
only target military objects. Israeli forces have at their disposal a range of high-precision
weapons capable of pinpoint targeting – within a metre – and recklessly attacking civilians or
civilian objects simply because they are in the vicinity of fighters or other military targets
cannot be justified.

The placing of combatants and a variety of weapons within towns and villages by Hamas and
Israel, while not in itself of evidence of using “human shields”, does amount to a violation of
their obligation to take the necessary precautions to protect civilians under its control from
the dangers of military operations “to the maximum extent feasible”, and in particular
“avoiding locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas”.

The situation is muddy at best, with neither party taking nearly the precautions necessary to remove innocents from the equation. The bottom line is: Israel doesn't care. Hamas should care. There is very little evidence that they do.
 
HOW THE FUCK DID THIS GET PUBLISHED.

Sorry for all caps but wow. WOW.

How is this any different than Bin Laden saying us USA citizens are open game for killing because we pay taxes and oblige with our government.

Some people want their bloodlust justified by academia, and he is more than cooperative on that front.
 

E92 M3

Member
This war isn't so black and white. Hamas is purposely mixing with civilians and Israel is trying to exterminate the terrorists at all costs. It's very unfortunate about what's happening right now. My sister is supposed to got Israel to study there in September, but I am not sure if I am going to let her go.
 
I would certainly hate to be punished for the transgressions of somebody else. Thus I don't support collective punishment. Though it is possible had I been raised differently I wouldn't be ideologically opposited to it.
 

Toxi

Banned
This war isn't so black and white. Hamas is purposely mixing with civilians and Israel is trying to exterminate the terrorists at all costs. It's very unfortunate about what's happening right now. My sister is supposed to got Israel to study there in September, but I am not sure if I am going to let her go.
Even though Hamas are scumbags, you can't blame them for that.

"Hamas, come out where we can see you and kill you. Otherwise we'll just kill everyone to get to you."
 

E92 M3

Member
Even though Hamas are scumbags, you can't blame them for that.

"Hamas, come out where we can see you and kill you. Otherwise we'll just kill everyone to get to you."

Civilians should turn against Hamas; that is what should happen.
 

Mentok

Banned
What a beautiful and eloquent defense of the concept of ethnic cleansing.

This is exactly how I interpreted it. It's shocking that someone who's supposed to be an academic in this field showcased very little insight to the issues at hand. Sorry Dr.Willy Wonka, but you have generalized a complex situation in the most absurd way I've ever heard.
 

Damaniel

Banned
This war isn't so black and white. Hamas is purposely mixing with civilians and Israel is trying to exterminate the terrorists at all costs. It's very unfortunate about what's happening right now. My sister is supposed to got Israel to study there in September, but I am not sure if I am going to let her go.

This is the exact problem. It's not a black and white war, and both sides have committed more than their fair share of atrocities - it's just that one side does it with the full support of the United States of America. And to top it off, people like me are considered anti-Semitic for daring to consider the Palestinians on the other side of the conflict anything less than subhuman scum, all terrorists from the womb (who are summarily issued Hamas membership cards at birth, or something like that), and all deserving of nothing less than a lifetime of imprisonment (and the occasional bit of target practice by their captors). There's plenty of 'normal' people in Gaza (the majority, in fact) whose lives are fucked up by Israeli policy on a daily basis.

Sure, you have the right to defend yourself, as Israel likes to so strongly reiterate, but they left the realm of self defense long, long ago. Ongoing disproportional response by a vastly superior military force isn't self-defense; it's just bullying.
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
There is so much wrong with what he is saying...

I mean, you could approach it from the humanitarian perspective. It's not nice, straight up.

You could look at it from the practical perspective - rehabilitation works better than punishment, and all that.

You could approach it from the position of irony. Because it basically means that because Israel has been occupying Gaza for decades, any actions taken against Israeli people is justified because they elected the people in charge of said occupation.

In every conceivable way, what this man is saying is either poison, idiocy, or both. Actually... always both.
 
There is so much wrong with what he is saying...

I mean, you could approach it from the humanitarian perspective. It's not nice, straight up.

You could look at it from the practical perspective - rehabilitation works better than punishment, and all that.

You could approach it from the position of irony. Because it basically means that because Israel has been occupying Gaza for decades, any actions taken against Israeli people is justified because they elected the people in charge of said occupation.

In every conceivable way, what this man is saying is either poison, idiocy, or both. Actually... always both.

But the naturalistic fallacy!
 
Civilians should turn against Hamas; that is what should happen.

Is this a joke? Seems the only options for Gaza civilians is to run into the arms of whatever is going to kill them the fastest, the guns of Hamas, the missiles of Israel or do nothing and get starved to death by the blockade.
 

DrMungo

Member
This is the most intellectually dishonest Sophistry ever. There's 1.8 million civilians in Gaza, and not all are Arab. He advocates for killing them all?

Edit: this was an opinion in the Wall Street Journal. Nuff said.
 

nib95

Banned
Civilians should turn against Hamas; that is what should happen.

Yes. Of course.

Tell the only resistance that is actually fighting for them to piss off, and just let Israel continue to bulldoze their houses, displace, arrest, brutalise and murder their people week in week out, whilst their entire country is being wiped off the map (literally by the way, not just figuratively speaking), without any kind of retaliatory organisation or resistance at all. Of course. Silly Palestinian's, why didn't they think of that earlier?!
 

werks

Banned
Civilians should turn against Hamas; that is what should happen.

Yes, the only logical answer is to fight the people who aren't killing your family and destroying your homes.

By the same token, maybe the israeli's should turn against the IDF.
 

E92 M3

Member
Yes. Of course.

Tell the only resistance that is actually fighting for them to piss off, and just let Israel continue to bulldoze their houses, displace, arrest, brutalise and murder their people week in week out, whilst their entire country is being wiped off the map (literally by the way, not just figuratively speaking), without any kind of retaliatory organisation or resistance at all. Of course. Silly Palestinian's, why didn't they think of that earlier?!

You portray the Israelis as such savages. Hamas are a terrorist group that the world would be better off without.

I am pro Israel, but the decimation of innocent life is disheartening on both sides.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom