Replying to the Saletan piece cited. Soooo disappointing:
"I have to say, I was underwhelmed by this piece. I find this hard to say, but given that Saletan is literally the only person on the Bulwark staff that has any appreciation of the value of Palestinian civilian lives, this piece frankly struck me as a half-assed effort to make a pe…
Replying to the Saletan piece cited. Soooo disappointing:
"I have to say, I was underwhelmed by this piece. I find this hard to say, but given that Saletan is literally the only person on the Bulwark staff that has any appreciation of the value of Palestinian civilian lives, this piece frankly struck me as a half-assed effort to make a persuasive comment to the contrary.
Saletan provides no facts, no data, and really no tangible legal or moral argument beyond some version of, “That's clearly fucked up, am I right‽”
I'll help Saletan out:
1. No restriction should be imposed on a U.S. ally.
Unbelievably, Saletan didn't even bother to provide an argument against this. It goes without saying that, duh, legal standards need to be consistent if the concept of the rule of law is to have any meaning.
But brother, even your fellow Bulwark contributors don't accept this idea, what chance is there you'd persuade anyone else of their ilk if you don't bother to provide ANY argument.
How about just starting by mentioning that:
i) Geneva Conventions apply to every single country, as much as Israel & the U.S. pretend they do not.
ii) Domestic laws, specifically the Leahy Laws, make it illegal to provide weapons to a foreign nation, ally or not, that are being used to commit gross violations of human rights.
2. No limit should be imposed on civilian casualties.
No argument provided by Saletan to rebut this awful claim.
See #1 for a proper response + how about pointing out that disproportionately killing civilians vis-a-vis the military objective at hand = a war crime?
3. Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths, since Hamas started the war.
Again not a single argument provided by Saletan here, aside from pointing out that said argument absolves Israel of any responsibility.
No shit, Captain Obvious.
How about pointing out:
i) As an occupying force, Israel has an obligation under international law to ensure the residents of the subjugated area have their basic necessities met.
ii) Under the Geneva Conventions it's a war crime to disproportionately kill civilians vis-a-vis the military importance of the mission.
4. Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths, since Hamas uses human shields.
Once again, not a single argument from Saletan other than pointing out the obvious fact that this position gives Israel a blank check.
See#3 for an ACTUAL response.
5. Hamas’ use of human shields makes casualty mitigation impossible.
Again, no argument provided aside from a rather inflammatory assertion that Israel does in fact already take steps to avoid unnecessary civilian deaths, which is just inaccurate.
It would have certainly helped to point out that under international law, one war crime violation by Hamas doesn't justify another by the IDF.
And sorry but the assertion that Israel is already trying to mitigate civilian casualties is hard to reconcile with the outcome of their actions so far, nor does it reconcile with the statements made by senior Israeli war cabinet members at the start of the conflict proudly declaring that there were no restraints on IDF soldiers. These Ministers repeatedly referred to Gazans as subhuman vermin, and Netanyahu himself evoked the biblical story of Amelek where Yahweh apparently instructed Jews to commit genocide on the people of Amelek, and even their livestock.
Saletan on this stuff? Silent.
6. Civilian deaths in Gaza are acceptable because most Gazans support Hamas.
Yet another point that had absolutely no argument in response from Saletan.
This is actually the second most egregious instance of Saletan's negligence in this piece.
This point isn't even that difficult to refute, even for a lounge chair correspondent who apparently does no primary research--stuff I can in fact refute in 10 minutes of web-based legal research. Or really just basic fucking math.
The last election held in Gaza was in 2006, this in an area where 1/2 of the population is under the age of 18 (thus can't vote).
Even then, Hamas only secured 44% of the vote in 2006.
When I did the basic math, even assuming that every single adult in 2006 voted for Hamas, only 20% of those folks would still have been alive as of October 7, 2023.
That figure gets closer to 10% if you apply the voting patterns for Hamas vs other options.
It certainly wouldn't hurt to also mention that under international law, civilian voting patterns are completely irrelevant to a consideration of whether murdering said unarmed civilians is legal under international law.
What is most ironic about this imbecilic argument is that its reasoning means that it's perfectly acceptable to target both Israeli AND American civilians for violence, given that the citizens of both countries actually get to vote for their representatives on a regular basis.
It's EXTRA ironic that Netanyahu only received 23.4% of the popular vote in 2022 yet got to set Israeli policy for the year leading up to the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas.
Under GOP's reasoning, this also makes any Israeli civilian a valid target of military/terrorist violence.
Talk about an unforced error.
8. Israel should do to Gaza what the United States did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Again, Saletan provides no argument or facts to refute this idiotic argument aside from what amounts to a 16-year old beauty pageant contestant's answer that this line of thinking is fucked up.
Ummm, how about pointing out the LEGAL fact that the Geneva Conventions were updated after WWII to make such mass killings of civilians a war crime?
I mean, I get where Saletan is coming from as an American: the United States has never given a flying shit about abiding by international laws. I'm just very disappointed that Saletan is apparently ignorant about these basic legal standards (Americans are typically too self-centered and arrogant to even CONSIDER that international law even exists).
Overall this piece was just embarrassing for Saletan.
The qualitative impression I got from the incredibly lazy approach in this piece, is that it was written by a reasonably intelligent Iowa high-school senior student who woke up to the realization s/he forgot to submit a paper on the date it was due and punched out an inadequate response out of desperation in less than an hour prior to going to class. I sure as fuck could have written this piece in 20 minutes given the scant research done in advance.
Saletan, shame on you. We both know you can do better."
I think Saletan had no response because he considers them as self-evidently unjustifiable. I say that as someone who thinks that Hamas' entire force-protection strategy is based on eliminating Israel's ability to hit Hamas's forces without harming the human shields resulting in international "righteous" anger against the harms done to the human shields. Thus, penalizing Israel's refusal to have zero tolerance for Hamas's human shields rewards Hamas's perfidy.
Replying to the Saletan piece cited. Soooo disappointing:
"I have to say, I was underwhelmed by this piece. I find this hard to say, but given that Saletan is literally the only person on the Bulwark staff that has any appreciation of the value of Palestinian civilian lives, this piece frankly struck me as a half-assed effort to make a persuasive comment to the contrary.
Saletan provides no facts, no data, and really no tangible legal or moral argument beyond some version of, “That's clearly fucked up, am I right‽”
I'll help Saletan out:
1. No restriction should be imposed on a U.S. ally.
Unbelievably, Saletan didn't even bother to provide an argument against this. It goes without saying that, duh, legal standards need to be consistent if the concept of the rule of law is to have any meaning.
But brother, even your fellow Bulwark contributors don't accept this idea, what chance is there you'd persuade anyone else of their ilk if you don't bother to provide ANY argument.
How about just starting by mentioning that:
i) Geneva Conventions apply to every single country, as much as Israel & the U.S. pretend they do not.
ii) Domestic laws, specifically the Leahy Laws, make it illegal to provide weapons to a foreign nation, ally or not, that are being used to commit gross violations of human rights.
2. No limit should be imposed on civilian casualties.
No argument provided by Saletan to rebut this awful claim.
See #1 for a proper response + how about pointing out that disproportionately killing civilians vis-a-vis the military objective at hand = a war crime?
3. Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths, since Hamas started the war.
Again not a single argument provided by Saletan here, aside from pointing out that said argument absolves Israel of any responsibility.
No shit, Captain Obvious.
How about pointing out:
i) As an occupying force, Israel has an obligation under international law to ensure the residents of the subjugated area have their basic necessities met.
ii) Under the Geneva Conventions it's a war crime to disproportionately kill civilians vis-a-vis the military importance of the mission.
4. Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths, since Hamas uses human shields.
Once again, not a single argument from Saletan other than pointing out the obvious fact that this position gives Israel a blank check.
See#3 for an ACTUAL response.
5. Hamas’ use of human shields makes casualty mitigation impossible.
Again, no argument provided aside from a rather inflammatory assertion that Israel does in fact already take steps to avoid unnecessary civilian deaths, which is just inaccurate.
It would have certainly helped to point out that under international law, one war crime violation by Hamas doesn't justify another by the IDF.
And sorry but the assertion that Israel is already trying to mitigate civilian casualties is hard to reconcile with the outcome of their actions so far, nor does it reconcile with the statements made by senior Israeli war cabinet members at the start of the conflict proudly declaring that there were no restraints on IDF soldiers. These Ministers repeatedly referred to Gazans as subhuman vermin, and Netanyahu himself evoked the biblical story of Amelek where Yahweh apparently instructed Jews to commit genocide on the people of Amelek, and even their livestock.
Saletan on this stuff? Silent.
6. Civilian deaths in Gaza are acceptable because most Gazans support Hamas.
Yet another point that had absolutely no argument in response from Saletan.
This is actually the second most egregious instance of Saletan's negligence in this piece.
This point isn't even that difficult to refute, even for a lounge chair correspondent who apparently does no primary research--stuff I can in fact refute in 10 minutes of web-based legal research. Or really just basic fucking math.
The last election held in Gaza was in 2006, this in an area where 1/2 of the population is under the age of 18 (thus can't vote).
Even then, Hamas only secured 44% of the vote in 2006.
When I did the basic math, even assuming that every single adult in 2006 voted for Hamas, only 20% of those folks would still have been alive as of October 7, 2023.
That figure gets closer to 10% if you apply the voting patterns for Hamas vs other options.
It certainly wouldn't hurt to also mention that under international law, civilian voting patterns are completely irrelevant to a consideration of whether murdering said unarmed civilians is legal under international law.
What is most ironic about this imbecilic argument is that its reasoning means that it's perfectly acceptable to target both Israeli AND American civilians for violence, given that the citizens of both countries actually get to vote for their representatives on a regular basis.
It's EXTRA ironic that Netanyahu only received 23.4% of the popular vote in 2022 yet got to set Israeli policy for the year leading up to the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas.
Under GOP's reasoning, this also makes any Israeli civilian a valid target of military/terrorist violence.
Talk about an unforced error.
8. Israel should do to Gaza what the United States did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Again, Saletan provides no argument or facts to refute this idiotic argument aside from what amounts to a 16-year old beauty pageant contestant's answer that this line of thinking is fucked up.
Ummm, how about pointing out the LEGAL fact that the Geneva Conventions were updated after WWII to make such mass killings of civilians a war crime?
I mean, I get where Saletan is coming from as an American: the United States has never given a flying shit about abiding by international laws. I'm just very disappointed that Saletan is apparently ignorant about these basic legal standards (Americans are typically too self-centered and arrogant to even CONSIDER that international law even exists).
------------------------------------------------------------
Overall this piece was just embarrassing for Saletan.
The qualitative impression I got from the incredibly lazy approach in this piece, is that it was written by a reasonably intelligent Iowa high-school senior student who woke up to the realization s/he forgot to submit a paper on the date it was due and punched out an inadequate response out of desperation in less than an hour prior to going to class. I sure as fuck could have written this piece in 20 minutes given the scant research done in advance.
Saletan, shame on you. We both know you can do better."
I think Saletan had no response because he considers them as self-evidently unjustifiable. I say that as someone who thinks that Hamas' entire force-protection strategy is based on eliminating Israel's ability to hit Hamas's forces without harming the human shields resulting in international "righteous" anger against the harms done to the human shields. Thus, penalizing Israel's refusal to have zero tolerance for Hamas's human shields rewards Hamas's perfidy.