|
Of course, we'd disagree on some of them.
However, I find the international "community" to be dreadfully naive. The Sri Lankans set up a no-fire zone for civilians to move into to be safe. The presumption is that the zone wasn't set up to provide a sheltered base of operations for the Tigers, but it was intended as a demilitarized zone.
Instead, it became a militarized zone, the Tiger's last redoubt. Could we have expected them to say, "We will stand our ground here and die, rather than run into the safe area and live to fight another day for our honorable and worthy god ... er, leader ... er, cause!"? Of course not.
It's the same in Gaza and elsewhere--if there's a place of safety and your life and your cause (often the same thing) are at risk, you go there. International law be damned, if it requires you to sacrifice yourself. Hospitals? Schools? If it's a shield, use it. Worry about moral judgment and possible courts later, if you survive.
This makes them legitimate targets--the no-fire zone, the hospitals, etc., etc., etc. We may *wish* it to be otherwise, but then we're still being naive. This time instead of being naive about the Tigers, we're being naive about the Sri Lankans.
It's the same in Israel and elsewhere--if you're trying to root out an enemy who will merrily regroup and try to kill you, once you've got him pinned you're not going to simply sit and say, "Gee, I know he's there, but I value my life much less than I value international law. I'll respect the most morally pure interpretation of the letter of the law and not bomb the hospital that my enemy is taking shelter in, even if it means I die later." No, you shell the enemy, and go with the less pure and more literal interpretation--you use force proportional to the objection of the battle, and if that means using imprecise weapons or shelling hospitals, you do it. The enemy has justified your means.
The result is two-fold naivete. We just stomp our feet and know what the correct outcome is, even if there's no way that it's going to be achieved by means that we approve of. We've set up a game with rules such that nobody will play and so that the outcome is unachievable. I figure it's a way of imposing high-minded irrelevance on ourselves, if that's what we actually believe; it might also be a form of cowardice, since making hard choices is usually a dirty business, and requires not black-and-white thinking, but evaluating shades of grey. Of course, I suspect many are actually willing to compromise their high-mindedness for some means if it yields what they consider acceptable outcomes, but only admit it when it's advantageous: that's not naivete, by any means, but what it is shall go unnamed by me in this post.
|