10 Israeli Children Killed in Missile Attack, 30 Injured – Running Thread (closed)

13 Comments / 13 Comments

1. Hi, Peloni

   On the contrary, if one were to use logic in face of commonly known facts, the meaning should be clear enough that Hezbollah is behind the strikes and the West have been funding Hezbollah,

   No “au contraire” needed here. You are indeed claiming that Hizbullah is pat of the West (the “Western” or “American” Bloc) — as an American proxy. There is some truth to this.

   In the present case, as in the case of the Russians and Ukrainians, you seem to be conflating rather ephemeral, tactical alliances with historical groups. Ukraine is very tenuously tied to the Biden Administration and much of NATO; Hungary and Slovakia are very tenuously tied to Russia, Kurdistan to Turkey, Israel to Azerbaizan, etc. This situation is in continual flux; but “the West” has been the same for thousands of years. Different people have defihed it in various ways, but it hasn’t essentially changed:

   Is “the East” centered in China? Then the “The West” is centered in the Fertile Crescent. Is Russia ithe center of “the East”? Then NATO represents “The West”. Does “the East” focus on Iran? then “the West” focuses on Israel or Rome. The Medes and Persians have morphed into the Parthians, to the Sassanids, etc; and the Romans into the HRE, Congress Europe, etc., depending on criteria one chooses; but they are unmoved by the ephemeral connections you seem to emphasize. Nevertheless, when viewed through your point of view, there may be a certain coherence to your thinking.

2. @Michael

   What you are saying, if logic is appealed to, is that Hizbullah is behind the strikes. Is Hizbullah part of “The West”??

   On the contrary, if one were to use logic in face of commonly known facts, the meaning should be clear enough that Hezbollah is behind the strikes and the West have been funding Hezbollah, directly thru billions of dollars in aid to Lebanon and indirectly thru the release of billions of dollars to Iran. In the same moment, they are preventing Israel from ending the conflict in the North by withholding the arms needed in that war.

   It is a sad and terrible reality that this is ongoing and has been for decades, and that even under Trump, the policy of US Aid to Lebanon went quietly unabated, even after significant initial debate – this being the single point of foreign policy failure under the Trump administration in the Middle East, IMO. So, this was the intent of my comment, and I stand by it, because I believe it to be a fair and honest criticism of the West’s pronounced state sponsorship of terror, for which Israel is just the most obvious victim, though easily not the only victim.

3. Adam, concerning your exchange with Sebastien,

   The issue of “proportionality” is discussed at

   https://aquinasonline.com/just-war/

   “Proportionality: the good to be achieved outweighs the evil of war.”

   ” Proportionality: the good to be achieved outweighs the evil of war.
   a. One cannot war justly over a slight cause.
   (i. War is a last resort.)
   (ii. There must be a reasonable hope of success; one cannot engage in justified, but hopeless actions.)
   b. One may only use the minimal force necessary to achieve just ends.

   Updated 3/7/22

   None of the above is my teaching, nor the Bible’s teaching — it is the commentator’s and translator’s take, I suppose, of Thomas’ teaching. I do not identify with it.

   “Military Law”, in the US, is covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

   https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/UCMJ%20-%2020December2019.pdf

   This is the law I was subject to while in the US Army. It functions as a form of English Common Law; i.e., according to precedent. A soldier wishing to claim Conscientious Objector status must claim his objection to ALL war, and not just a particular war (such as the Vietnam Conflict of the 1960s and 70s). This appears to exceed the limits of Thomas Aquinas.

4. Peloni, your posts here are confusing:

   1. Peloni: These children lie dead today as victims of an oppressive West,

   2. Hezbollah lies and says it didn’t launch the rocket that killed Druze kids playing soccer.

   What you are saying, if logic is appealed to, is that Hizbullah is behind the strikes. Is Hizbullah part of “The West”??

5. Sebastien–I got so involved with discussing Thomas D’quino that I forgot all about my original question. What military law are we talking about? I assume American military law, but I don’t that that is what you were talkin about. My impression is that each country in what is more or less the “civilized” world has its own code of military law, and they are not necessarily identical, except perhaps concerning the general principal that the conduct of soldiers is governed by a legal code, and subject to the rule of law. To return to my original question–are we talking about American military law?

6. https://aquinasonline.com/just-war/#:~:text=The%20violence%20inherent%20in%20war%20is%20the%20tolerated,to%20be%20achieved%20outweighs%20the%20evil%20of%20war.

   Sebastien–this site gives an excellent summary of Aquinas’s views about war and peace.. It pretty much agrees with what I remember from my youth. There must be a just cause to wage war, although Acqinas seems a little vague, at least to me, about a just cause would be. Those waging must have a right intention, meaning they are seeking the good of the people of their own country, the godd of the country they are invading, and in some cases the good of third countries not directly involved in the conflict. It is illegitimate for a ruler to wage war to enrich himself or his associates. They must make every effort to minimize and if possible avoid civilian casualties. But it is OK to attack legitimate military targets, The good that may be achieved by waging the war must be more than the harm that the war causes innocent people This is the principal of prrportunality. The nation initiating the war should be open to a negotiate a peaceceful settlement of the war if a the enemy ruler gives signs that he is willing to negotiate in good faith with the objective of restoring peace to his country, since peace is always a great good, while war is at best a necessary evil, How one can tell whether or not the enemy intends to negotiatiate in good faith is not clarified. A war is only justifiable if there is a realistic prospect of achieving the war’s goal. Even if the country initiating the war has a just cause, if it lacks the soldiers and other resources to win the war, it is still an unjust war. War can only be justly waged by a sovereign state. Efforts by private citizens or non-state actors to wage war on their own , without authorization by the sovereign, is illegitimate.

   This is a summary of what it says in this article on a site that seeks to summarize and explain Aquinas’s views about war and peace.

   There is also an interesting biography of Aquinas on Wikipedia. But it does not discuss his views on war and peace, It does contain some discussion of his views on the use of reason to increase knowledge and solve problems.

   The” Catholic Church did eventually “canonize” him. But it was only after 200 years after his death, since his views remained controversial in Catholic academic circles for years even after his death.

   I think it is fair to describe Aquinas, despite his many shortcomings which all of us have , as “a great and good man” whose philosophical writings encouraged fscientific research and even geographic exploration, thereby helping to create the modern, post-medieval world.

7. @Adam

   Sebastien-whose military law are you referring to?

   Seemingly. everybody’s. The left is lying. Google proportionality. I just did.

8. @ Sebastien. I have also found summariizes of Thomas’ views on recent podcasts on Youtube over the past few months, that reinforced my early memories on this subject. dating from when I was in my twenties. I will try to locate these podcasts and send them to you via Israpundit. I will have to conduct a search for these podcasts that discussed Thomas views about war, as well as his views about :reaon,.” and why iyt was not heresy to make use of reason to discover facts. This latter contribution of Thomas, which he somehow persuaded the rieigning pope at the time to accept, are believed by some historians to be the starting point for science in Western world, without which major scientific breakthroughs might never have been made. In Catholic tradion he is called “the angelic doctor.” Of cxourse he had a doctorate in philosophy and theology).

9. Sebastien-whose military law are you referring to? My impression is that each country has its own military laws. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Is this American military law? Whoever’s military law it is, I think it is inappropriate to apply it to either 20th and 2ist century wars. In particular, I don’t think that the Allies could have won either World War I and World War II if they had observed this principle of proportionality. Under the conditions of modern warfare, I don’t see how a nation at war can avoid attacking legitimate military targets that the enemy relies on to provide it with weapons, or even food or other supplies that its armies rely on to fight the war. The Allies heavily bombed German cities with large civilian populations in both the European and Pacific theaters of the war. This was a cruel tactic (so-called “strategic bombing,” a very misleading euphemism for terror bombing) but it isn’t clear that the war could have been won without these very severe, even cruel, measures.

   Concerning what Thomas D’aguino wrote about proportionality in war, this is a much more difficult question for me to answer, When my mother was a techer at a Catholic college, she invited one of her fellow professors, a priest like many of the professor’s there, discussed Thomas’s views about war to Mom’s “peace studies” class. Mom had always believed, and had taught her class, that the casualties inflicted in a war on civilians and even soldiers had to be proportionate to whatever positive goals could be achieved in the war. She believed that there were very few wars that were so necessary that they could justifiy the terrible loss of life that a war, especially a war in which nuclear weapons might be used. She was excited by her colleagues presentation, and asked if he could provide her with a copy of his artlicle summarizing Thomas’s views, with many quotations from Thomas’s original essay. She asked me, who was a lowly “adjunct instructor,” to read it with her and give her my opinion as to whether it gave significant support her views. She was excited that a Catholic saint who died hundreds of years ago agreed completely with her point of view. It increased her felling of being legitimized.

   Unfortunately, I was forced to throw out all of my mother’s papers when I was compelled to sell our family home after both my parents and my older brother had all passed away. So I don’t have this key article by a “Thomist” scholar, that is one of the main sources for what I believe to have been Thomas’s views about proportionality in war, although I can still remember the article vividly. More later.

10. @Adam In military law, proportionality simply means that anticipated collateral damage should be proportional to the military value of the target. What did d’Aquino say and is that where the left, which loves to redefine words, got it?

11. Israel needs to ignore “Uncles'” demand for a “proportionate” response. And Israel has at some point to point out that the entirel concept of proportionality in war was developed vy a 13th century Italian priest, Thomas d’Aquino, aimed at addressing the problems caused by war to the people of his era. It has nothing to do with the entirely different nature of war in the 21st century. I assume that Israel is reluctant to do this because it would lead to a dilemma with the Catholic Church, with which the Israeli government strives to maintain friendly relations, However, I believe that is not a good enough reason for Israel to refrain from critiquing the “proportionality” concept.

12. Leonard Grunstein is now reporting that the death toll has risen to 14.

13. Appalling. Israel needs to occupy southern Lebanaon up to the Hiesbani river, rvrn if Washington says “no.”