Zim wrote: > >> *If* there is anything as a just war - which >> I don't say the 1967 [[**]] war was - then it makes sense to use all valid ways >> to make it an easier win.
[[**]] Oops. A typo. 1973. > > But in fact most countries even in war follow certain rules. > Which is not this case, is it? The atrocious thing was attacking Israel for the purpose of pushing the "Zionist invaders" to the Sea. A military victory would be immediately followed by a huge progrom against non-combatants. > Attacking when every one is drunk celebrating is one thing; > attacking on a solemn holy day is another. There are lines > that are drawn even in war and this was over that line. > Question: is it in the Geneva convention anything about attacking in a solemn holy day? OTOH, AFAIK there never *ceased* to exist a state of war between Israel and Egypt, Syria, Jordania and Lebannon, so the attack can be "justified" as just a new troop movement in a war that started in 1948 and didn't stop until then, with bursts of extra activity in 1948, 1956, and 1967. > I have stayed out of most of this debate but I think it is important > to understand war for what it is and what it is not. It the destruction > of individuals not of your tribe for the advantage of your tribe. > In Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_, war is defined as the use of force by one g*vernment to impose its will over another g*vernment. > But it is not total destruction. > But in that case, the purpose of the Arab attackers *was* total destruction! > I think rules exist precisely because war is part of our species > history and our social structure. Wars come and go and if there > are no rules than life becomes intolerable because the next > war is more attrocious. > Rules exist because humans have a hypocrite mind. The only reasonable rule for war should be: "don't". Alberto Monteiro
