2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/01/08/killing-civilians-in-war-response-to-a-reader/
0
0

A reader who is, like me, a Muslim read my posts on the attacks of Muslims (mostly Arabs) in Europe against Jews (who have nothing whatsoever to do with anything Israel does other than that most Israelis are Jewish as well) and about civilian casualties caused by the war between Israel and Hamas, asked me why I think it permissible for Israel to carry out any strikes against Hamas targets that cause collateral damage (meaning, civilian casualties). If killing innocent civilians is wrong, why does Israel get a free pass for killing any civilians?

The answer to the question is quite simple, but should be published at the front page of this blog rather than in a comment section because the question has been asked by more people; seemingly, this question is on the mind of a great deal of people, most of whom fellow Muslims.

Before we get started, it has to be explained to non-Muslim readers that the Qur’an explicitly and clearly forbids the killing of innocent civilians, especially children. The Qur’an states that he who kills one innocent person is like someone who kills the whole of mankind. Since the Qur’an is so clear about this matter, should I not condemn Israel for each and every Palestinian who gets killed in the rather bloody (but not more bloody than most modern wars) battle between the IDF and Hamas?

Well, no. The reason is that one has to ask who is and who is not responsible for these deaths. If Israel takes care not to kill innocent civilians, but if civilians get killed nonetheless because Hamas attacks Israeli forces while hiding behind a human shield, is Israel or Hamas responsible for innocent deaths when Israel strikes back in self defense? Common sense brings me to the conclusion that the answer is Hamas, not Israel.

Every government on earth has the responsibility to protect its own people. Other peoples should be respected and treated humanely, but protecting them is not the responsibility of a foreign government. Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni’s main responsibility, then, is to protect the Israeli people against terrorist attacks from Hamas (and other organizations). They cannot possibly be expected to do so without fighting back when Hamas crosses the line and fires rockets at Israeli villages and towns; defending your people means, sadly, you may have to use force against enemies.

If the Israeli government would not respond to Hamas’ attacks, and would not attempt to destroy this terrorist organization (which oppresses its own people, adhering to a distorted even fascist interpretation of Islam), it would forsake its responsibility and duty towards its own people.

This means that Israel has to attack Hamas. Not because it wants war, but because not doing so would also result in suffering for innocent individuals, albeit not Palestinians but Israelis.

Having established that Israel has to respond with force, one has to look at how a war should be fought. The answer to this question is, again, simple (also see my earlier post on civilian casualties but also the other post mentioned): war should be waged in as humane a way as possible, one should not transgress the limits of a justifiable response (see Qur’an 2:190), and civilian casualties should, in principle, be prevented.

However, the circumstances on the ground do not allow Israel to strike against Hamas without causing any civilian casualties. The reason for this is that Hamas hides behind “a human shield” (in the words of a leader of this organization). Its members shoot at Israeli soldiers and fire rockets at Israel from normal neighborhoods, after which they quickly flee and hide in normal houses, mosques, hospitals, etc. In order to kill these Hamas terrorists, so as to remove the threat they pose to the Israeli people, the IDF uses force. Sadly, civilians get killed in this process.

But Israel is not to blame for this; Hamas is since it is purposefully hiding behind civilians, while knowing that Israel has no choice but to respond violently. Of course, Israel should attack in such a way that collateral damage is limited. But it cannot prevent it, for Hamas does not allow Israel to carry out any attacks without also killing Palestinian civilians.

If we look at what the prophet Muhammad said about war (Ahmad Diya’al-Din al-Kamushkhanawi, Ramuz al-Ahadith, Vol. 1, 84/8) we read the following: “Go to war in adherence to the religion of God. Never touch the elderly, women or children. Always improve their situation and be kind to them. God loves those who are sincere.” Who is, in this case, truly touching “the elderly, women and children”? Israel, or Hamas. Who is truly responsible for their suffering, Israel or Hamas? The answer is Hamas – Hamas who use them as a human shield and happily sacrifice the innocent.

I realize that emotions are likely to take over when one speaks about war and, especially, the death of innocents. However, I am very confident in the above explanation, believing it is a reasonable and rational view on the war and collateral damage. I urge Muslim readers to keep Qur’an 4:58 in mind when they read this post, and think about it: “God commands you to return to their owners the things you hold on trust and, when you judge between people, to judge with justice. How excellent is what God exhorts you to do! God is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.”

  1. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #81891
    C Stanley Very good explanation, Michael. I was thinking about this in context of an unrelated news article today about a child that was killed by SWAT team fire inadvertantly when a man held her hostage. While incredibly tragic, one would never say that police SWAT teams should never deal with hostage situations or that they should allow lawless individuals to threaten communities by using innocent children as human shields. Of course the police should do anything possible to avoid harm to the innocent people in that situation, and I assume that they almost always do. I don't see how that is any different from my presumption that the IDF assesses each situation to the best of its ability to avoid killing civilians. Even if they didn't have the moral compunction to do so (and I believe for the most part they do, though there certainly could be individuals who've become hardened and don't see their Palestinian enemies as humans worthy of that protection), it's quite obvious that it isn't in Israel's interest to risk worldwide condemnation when there are collateral casualties like that. Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni?s main responsibility, then, is to protect the Israeli people against terrorist attacks from Hamas (and other organizations). They cannot do possibly be expected to do so without fighting back when Hamas crosses the line and fires rockets at Israeli villages and towns; defending your people means, sadly, you may have to use force against enemies. Quite right, and one question I think the rest of the world should ask is whether there is any support for Israel's need for security in between the periods of conflict. Perhaps Israel would not have to resort to military incursions if the international community gave it other options.
  2. Posted by Bruno DeGourville
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #81901
    Bruno DeGourville Dear Michael: With all due respect Michael, i find this reasoning, circumventive and confusing. First, to avoid any misunderstanding with the readers, let it be known that i am the "reader" mentioned by Michael in this post's title. My question was regarding your post titled: "War in Gaza Causes Outbursts of Anti-Semitism in Europe" . In that post you rightfully condemn hateful and unjust attacks of violence perpetrated against innocent Jews in the streets of Europe, arguing that those are innocent Jewish citizens of Europe. But you approve of the IDF current tactic in Gaza. And my question again is: what makes the innocent Jew going about his life in London or Paris more deserving of restraint and compassion from British or French muslims than the Gazan trying to go about his life with no food no fuel no electricity? To me they are both innocent civilians. And killing an innocent is like killing the whole of mankind, remember? You still haven't convinced me of the moral political nor military justification -and the key word here is "just"-of the many civilian deaths in Gaza, what some coldly call :"collateral" damage. Neither you nor I are experts in Islamic theology. So i will not lose us nor the reader in theological argumentation for which i am not qualified. But again, as you mentioned, i also believe that he who kills one innocent person is like someone who kills the whole of mankind. So how can you share the same belief and at the next sentence be apologetic of Israel's actions in Gaza? What is the difference between an innocent Jew in Europe and an innocent Palestinian in Gaza? There is here a moral and spiritual dilemma that cannot be reconciled by just allocating blame on one party or an other. An innocent civilian is an innocent civilian, period. No matter what his creed, no matter what his color, no matter what his ethnicity, no matter what the circumstances. At least that's what i believe as a Muslim but also as a fellow human being who believes in life's sanctity the way we were taught by our Prophets. Furthermore, punishing civilians for the deeds of a few is called collective punishment. A blockade that leads to starvation, no electricity, no medicine is collective punishment. Knowingly targeting civilians is collective punishment (and in this case everyone knows that civilians will be hit en masse because of the population density in Gaza). The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions (not sure in the turmoil we face in Gaza what is the relationship between the people of Gaza and the armed faction of Hamas, and neither does anyone of us here i guess). In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. You prefer to focus on responsibility or guilt allocation and speak about collateral damage, i'd rather focus on people's humanity and sense or lack thereof, and view civilians killed in the cross fire as innocent victims of a few mad men. I wish, we the people as a whole remained in touch with our own humanity and tried to find solutions rather than try to find one main culprit which would conveniently help us to exonerate ourselves from the arduous task of recognizing the other party's own humanity and need of human dignity. Bruno.
  3. Posted by Bruno DeGourville
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #81903
    Bruno DeGourville Dear C Stanley: I share your concern for the security of people in Israel not only in time of conflict but also a permanent lasting peace. I wish Israel had accepted the intervention of a UN peacekeeping force to enforce peace when the UN was in its heydays and it had clout and power. Now unfortunately, few powers have enough leverage with both parties and willing to use it to force some sort of compromise on them. There are today though plenty of good willing parties in the arab and muslim world to reach some agreement in good faith.(Saudi Arabia for example is one of the most active arab/muslim countries trying to broker peace in the Middle East that is hardly ever acknowledged nor commanded in the media for its efforts. It is so convenient to fall back on old stereotypes of the ugly conservative extremist Kingdom!) But again i am still not convinced that what Israel is doing is justified nor efficient at rooting out the problem. Yesterday it was the PLO, today it is Hamas, tomorrow it will be an other organization. But the headlines in the news i'm afraid will again be the same. Civilians will be coldly killed and we will read the same gut wrenching articles about their suffering as we did Thursday, January 8, 2009 in the Washington Post: Red Cross Reports Grisly Find in Gaza . No Michael you will not convince me that either Hamas' or Israel's action justify such suffering.
  4. Posted by velda
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #81916
    velda > what makes the innocent Jew going about his life in London or Paris more deserving of restraint and compassion from British or French muslims than the Gazan trying to go about his life with no food no fuel no electricity? To me they are both innocent civilians. And killing an innocent is like killing the whole of mankind, remember? As far as I can tell, the difference is that Gaza is in a war it brought upon itself by lobbing rockets at innocent people. If you think someone's out to kill innocent people, I'd say there's a more obvious suspect than Israel. I do hope that those innocents can get away from the fighting. Perhaps they could even work together to stop those among them who are out to provoke a fight.
  5. Posted by Bruno DeGourville
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #81946
    Bruno DeGourville Velda: For some reason some of us refuse to recognize the moral component of the discussion. I am amazed and distraugh at the persistence with which some humans on this planet want to assign degrees of innocent just because the external physical environment changes. If i follow your reasoning, an innocent victim in a combat zone is less deserving of your compassion and consideration than the one in a country at peace? Where is the moral , political or intellectual ground for such a mind set? An innocent victim is innocent period, be it in a war zone or not. The innocent victim of a rape is an innocent victim, no matter if he/she was raped in a war zone or in the streets of Saint Petersburg or Paris! Again Velda, contrary to you, I stay clear from assigning responsability or passing quick judgement. First because i have the humility to recognize that i am no expert in foreign policy nor do i have all the elements to do so. It is easy to deny one's humanity and innocence so you could see in your enemy someone less than a human and close your eyes on his suffering and the injustices committed towards him. You seem bent on disliking palestinians be they innocent or not. You have every right. I am not here on a PR campaign for the Palestinians. But with all due respect Velda, you have no right to rewrite the definition of innocence. Respectfully, Bruno.
  6. Posted by Lou Knee
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #82029
    Lou Knee Hamas have said they want to take over Rome and they are not stopping there.They have said they want to take over the world. This conflict has nothing to do with Muslims versus Jews.There is nothing wrong with Muslims,Arabs,Jews or anyone really.There are wild and crazy people all over the world who will try to hijack causes,religions and whatever in order to promote a wild and crazy agenda.Only the craziest of Muslims support Hamas the Taliban or any of these crazy groups.The huge and vast majority of Jews Arabs Muslims Christians and what have you can all live together like black and white keys on a piano.Christians are now suffering in many Muslim countries and many Arabs in Israel are cheering the Israeli onslaught against the Hamas madmen.They know that Israel offers them democracy in a sea of despotic regimes and hardly want to be part of the Hamastan zoo.
  7. Posted by Gymnast Hunk
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #82059
    Gymnast Hunk Over 60% of the Israelis support the war on Gaza, but only 30% think it will achieve its intended goal!! So although most of Israelis are aware this military offensive is useless they still support the offensive with its many civilian victims! So basically: "we know it's not going to work but let's give them a lesson and kill as many as possible Hamas fighters or civilians, it's not our problem!"