link

W/r/t 37, it’s both absurd and uncivil to brand Joan Lowenstein as an apologist for war crimes when there has been no adjudication. If you believe in the idea of war crimes, you must also believe in the concept of adjudication, i.e. it’s not a crime until it has been adjudicated. At worst, she’s arguing the case for the defense, which is a fundamental element of fair jurisprudence.

As for the question of war crimes, I would agree that, if there were a supranational government, there might be a plausible case against Israel (as there undoubtedly would be a plausible case against Hamas, Syria, and Iran, the United States, North Vietnam, Argentina, and the UK, to name only a few modern offenders). Until there is a world government, the concept of war crimes is merely emotive finger pointing.

As one commentator noted in the NYRB in a 1993 discussion of a review of Taylor’s memoir, *The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials*:

“The terror bombings of civilian targets such as Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima arguably all constituted ‘devastation not justified by military necessity.’ Not only did they violate the customary maxim against targeting noncombatants, these bombings also failed to achieve their advertised utilitarian objectives—German morale did not crumble immediately after Hamburg and the Japanese did not surrender on account of Hiroshima. The devastation was indeed violative of ius in bello, that is, the principles of just combat.”

Likewise, Israel’s attack on Gaza is criminal and it will fail to break the morale of Palestinians. Further, even Lowenstein inadvertantly admits that Israel’s attacks are terrorist attacks not aimed at a military objective but rather to use “massive destruction” to “convince” Hamas and/or “the residents of Gaza”–to teach them some lesson. It’s a “show,” as Lowenstein admits, a bloody, criminal “show” but a show nonetheless. Let us all work to bring the criminals that Lowenstein defends to the bar of justice and to hasten the impending demise of Apartheid Israel.

Now there’s a serious demonstration of lack of imagination. ‘Hmm, how do we convince them that their attacks are futile?… I know! Let’s attack them! Brilliant!’

So it’s not self defense, it’s ‘sending a message’? And that’s not terrorism?

Anger and sadness are rooted in fear. Fear arises from confusion. There’s a whole lot of confusion going on.

How do we overcome confusion? Practice inquiry. Examine reality. Do The Work that Byron Katie developed.

“The only reason more Israelis have not been killed by missiles is because the Israeli government mandates safe rooms in homes and bomb shelters in all public buildings. When a siren sounds, children, old people, handicapped people — everyone — have 15 seconds to take cover. Contrast this to those who occupy Gaza — Hamas. They have booby-trapped homes, stockpiled weapons in mosques, and located their military command center under a wing of Shifa Hospital, Gaza’s largest hospital.”

The more direct contrast would be to recognize that the people in Gaza don’t have those safeguards in place, in which case the bombing of their neighborhoods is an even less defensible act. Note that I wrote “even less defensible”–I don’t believe that the missile launches from the other side are defensible either. I wonder how it feels to rationalize mass killing within one’s mind. Must be painful.