Israel declares war on Hamas

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Which raises the question of whether there is a moral difference, or whether there should be a legal one (in terms of what gets you sent to the hague) between:
a) A military decision to fire a rocket at an apartment building because you have credible info that there are terrorists who attacked your country in there, despite either not knowing whether there are children in there or even being confident that there are and that those children will die; and
b) Deliberately targeting and murdering children as an end in itself, using hand-held weapons, as has been credibly alleged has happened repeatedly in the past week.

I do see a difference between those two things despite the fact that they both result in dead babies because I think the intention matters - others may disagree. Regardless, murdering babies for the sake of murdering babies is not a new thing in situations like this one, where an armed, semi-organized group of militants is attacking another group that they hate en masse largely on the basis of their identity - Rwanda is the obvious example, but here's another one. There's no real reason to suspect that anyone would need to make this sort of thing up - it's horrifying and yet not even terribly surprising given the context.

I agree there is a difference, but I don’t know. It’s really a case of whether you think “the ends justifies the means” and what you think the end is for each. Hamas’ goal was not simply to murder babies, that was just the horrific means they sought to complete their goal. If Hamas wanted to kill babies as an end, there are plenty of babies to kill in Gaza. Much like Israel’s goal is not to murder babies, it’s just an acceptable result to them. Is cutting off a baby’s head more barbaric than knowingly dropping a bomb on one? No. Not to me, at least.

At best, you can say Israel does not intend to kill children but it is prepared to do so and will do so to achieve its ends. That Hamas chooses to kill children and Israel makes choices that kill children. And, so long as the ends are good or can be justified, people will cheer them on.

Either way, I imagine a parent holding their dead infant and what that person would be going through, and I think it’s the same whether they are Israeli or Palestinian. It’s easy enough for us to talk about the “difference” here, but would anyone stand in front of two parents holding their dead child and tell them one was justified and the other wasn’t? One was barbaric, and the other wasn’t? One was for the greater good, and the other was for nothing? I don’t know.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yeah like I said, I've experienced the complete opposite. I lived in the UAE and Qatar as a kid. I traveled throughout the middle east later as an adult. I've never had to hide that I'm Palestinian. I've experience hugs and hand shakes in Egypt and Syria when they find out I'm palestinian. I had a customs official in Jordan saying "welcome home my brother.". I've had a random mechanic in Lebanon invite me to their house for coffee.

Even in Canada, my best friend is Iranian. I used to hang out with turks, lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, other Palestinians, Christians, Muslims and jews.

With that said, there is a "thing" between gulf arabs like Saudis and levantine arabs. But I always felt like it was a money and no culture vs culture and no money thing.



Thanks I appreciate it.

As my experience was in the 70's prior to Khomeini and Afghanistan when most Muslims in London were not in the least religious I wonder if that inflated the cultural and ethnic divisions,

[blankall]

It's not just an issue of morality, it's also an issue of responsibility.

Hamas has committed a series of war crimes via their actions after crossing into Israel. They've committed another series of war crimes upon crossing back into Gaza and hiding amongst civilians. No marked military installations. No uniforms. Those rules exist for a reason.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yeah like I said, I've experienced the complete opposite. I lived in the UAE and Qatar as a kid. I traveled throughout the middle east later as an adult. I've never had to hide that I'm Palestinian. I've experience hugs and hand shakes in Egypt and Syria when they find out I'm palestinian. I had a customs official in Jordan saying "welcome home my brother.". I've had a random mechanic in Lebanon invite me to their house for coffee.

Even in Canada, my best friend is Iranian. I used to hang out with turks, lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, other Palestinians, Christians, Muslims and jews.

With that said, there is a "thing" between gulf arabs like Saudis and levantine arabs. But I always felt like it was a money and no culture vs culture and no money thing.



Thanks I appreciate it.

To be fair there's generally "a thing" between the extremely wealthy and everyone else. To expect people to drop class divisions based solely on ethnic and religioius ties is optimistic at best.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I agree there is a difference, but I don’t know. It’s really a case of whether you think “the ends justifies the means” and what you think the end is for each.

The fact that an attack on a legitimate target may cause civilian casualties or damage to civilian objects does not necessarily make the attack unlawful under the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC). However, such collateral civilian damage must not be disproportionate to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack.

So what? Well, a commander has to use the Proportionality Test in the selection of any target. That is, does the commander expect the attack to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination of the three (“collateral damage”), which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated? If the answer is “yes”, the commander must cancel or suspend the attack.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by _Q_

That's not going to happen.

I also have serious doubts that Israel is capable of defeating Hamas to be quite honest. Whether it's this war, or every other war against Hamas or Hezbollah, that has always been Israel's stated goal. Then they walk it back, say they achieved their objective a few weeks later and move on.

The short term solution? There is none for the next few weeks. Once both sides have killed enough of their enemies, the medium term solution is for israel to end the siege in Gaza and hand over the occupation to a neutral party like UAE, Turkey or Jordan. End all settlement activity, full stop. Dismantle some of the smaller settlements and exchange land in israel in exchange for the larger settlements.

I'm sure Turkey or UAE wouldn't want to occupy the westbank and gaza for long so the understanding is that they, along with the international community, help build palestine into a viable, independent country. Yes, when all is said and done, that includes full sovereignty over their entire territory and airspace and full military force. An arab country with a peace treaty with israel does not pose a security risk to Israel. This notion that a militarized palestine can't be trusted is bogus.

In the longer term, I would think that a friendly palestine and israel will become integrated economically, with open borders and opportunities for all citizens on both sides of the borders. At that point, maybe there could be an agreement that would allow palestinians to reside in Israel, close to their ancestral lands and for israelis in the West Bank, close to their holy sites.

So your ideal solution is to rely on other countries to step in and be responsible for a volatile nation state that could drag them into a conflict they don’t want and then hope that all historical grudges will magically be forgiven and forgot in Israel and Palestine? Ireland didn’t even achieve that with England and it also had no outside support.
Your solution sounds great as an ideal but who has the political will to carry Palestine while they wait for Hamas and their ideals to fade.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I agree there is a difference, but I don’t know. It’s really a case of whether you think “the ends justifies the means” and what you think the end is for each. Hamas’ goal was not simply to murder babies, that was just the horrific means they sought to complete their goal. If Hamas wanted to kill babies as an end, there are plenty of babies to kill in Gaza. Much like Israel’s goal is not to murder babies, it’s just an acceptable result to them. Is cutting off a baby’s head more barbaric than knowingly dropping a bomb on one? No. Not to me, at least.

At best, you can say Israel does not intend to kill children but it is prepared to do so and will do so to achieve its ends. That Hamas chooses to kill children and Israel makes choices that kill children. And, so long as the ends are good or can be justified, people will cheer them on.

Either way, I imagine a parent holding their dead infant and what that person would be going through, and I think it’s the same whether they are Israeli or Palestinian. It’s easy enough for us to talk about the “difference” here, but would anyone stand in front of two parents holding their dead child and tell them one was justified and the other wasn’t? One was barbaric, and the other wasn’t? One was for the greater good, and the other was for nothing? I don’t know.

A gang walks into my house and beheads my kids. Then they retreat to their own house. Police feels it's too risky to storm their house and instead bombs it from distance, knowing that gangsters kids will get hurt, maybe killed. Both my kids and gangster's kids are dead. Yet there's clear difference.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I agree there is a difference, but I don’t know. It’s really a case of whether you think “the ends justifies the means” and what you think the end is for each. Hamas’ goal was not simply to murder babies, that was just the horrific means they sought to complete their goal. If Hamas wanted to kill babies as an end, there are plenty of babies to kill in Gaza.

I don't agree - I think Hamas's goal was to murder babies. The difference I'm talking about is, "we're going to kill enemy terrorists and if it means killing innocents and children as well, that's not going to stop us", versus, "we're going to kill innocents and children because we think they should die". I'm not sure what other "goal" you mean that would be specific to the beheading of civilians.

At best, you can say Israel does not intend to kill children but it is prepared to do so and will do so to achieve its ends. That Hamas chooses to kill children and Israel makes choices that kill children.

I think this is a fair characterization, yes.

Either way, I imagine a parent holding their dead infant and what that person would be going through, and I think it’s the same whether they are Israeli or Palestinian. It’s easy enough for us to talk about the “difference” here, but would anyone stand in front of two parents holding their dead child and tell them one was justified and the other wasn’t? One was barbaric, and the other wasn’t? One was for the greater good, and the other was for nothing? I don’t know.

I don't think you'd tell that to a grieving parent because it would be monstrous and serve no purpose. I do actually believe, however, that some acts that result in the death of children are MORE justifiable than some other acts, and allow for the possibility that a military action like bombing a building that results in dead children can nonetheless be "for the greater good" in some sense. I have a much harder time dreaming up any scenario, hypothetical or otherwise, where I would be able to say the same about decapitating a toddler.

So, summing up, I still think there is a big difference and that the two are not equivalent, and I also don't think you have to endorse any of Israel's military tactics in any particular case (e.g. the scenario I've been using about blowing up apartment buildings) to think that random murder and mutilation for the sake of nothing is a lot worse.

[CliffFletcher]

It’s true that since we’ve come to rely on air power to win wars, the West have understated the moral culpability of bombing targets proximate to civilians. Planners know when they assign these missions that innocent people will be killed. And a child killed by a falling bomb is as dead as a child shot in the head.

However, I don’t think that makes the IDF equivalent to Hamas in its treatment of civilians.

* When Israel bombs Gaza it isn’t because an IDF general has decided this would be a good time to kill a bunch of Palestinians. It’s typically in response to rocket attacks launched from Gaza, and the targets are the launch locations.

* Israel makes efforts to minimize civilian casualties in its attacks. They drop a ‘door-knock’ shell on the target to warn any occupants of what’s coming next. Of course that doesn’t mean no civilians will be killed. But it does show that Israel would prefer fewer civilian deaths.

* In contravention of the International Criminal Court, Hamas uses human shields. They make no efforts to site their rocket launches away from civilian structures. Provoking Palestinian civilians deaths that can be broadcast to the world is part of their political strategy.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfi...an_shields.pdf

* Hamas deliberately target civilians, with the goal of maximizing the number they kill. An attack that kills 50 civilians is better than one that kills 10, and an attack that kills 500 is better still. No dead Jew is collateral damage - every one is a victory.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I agree there is a difference, but I don’t know. It’s really a case of whether you think “the ends justifies the means” and what you think the end is for each. Hamas’ goal was not simply to murder babies, that was just the horrific means they sought to complete their goal. If Hamas wanted to kill babies as an end, there are plenty of babies to kill in Gaza. Much like Israel’s goal is not to murder babies, it’s just an acceptable result to them. Is cutting off a baby’s head more barbaric than knowingly dropping a bomb on one? No. Not to me, at least.

At best, you can say Israel does not intend to kill children but it is prepared to do so and will do so to achieve its ends. That Hamas chooses to kill children and Israel makes choices that kill children. And, so long as the ends are good or can be justified, people will cheer them on.

Either way, I imagine a parent holding their dead infant and what that person would be going through, and I think it’s the same whether they are Israeli or Palestinian. It’s easy enough for us to talk about the “difference” here, but would anyone stand in front of two parents holding their dead child and tell them one was justified and the other wasn’t? One was barbaric, and the other wasn’t? One was for the greater good, and the other was for nothing? I don’t know.

On a high level the loss of life is the same and terrible but there is a difference between collateral damage and intentional targeting of innocent infants directly. When Israel resorts to chemical and biological weapons that specifically target civilians than your argument will hold more weight.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Pointman

A gang walks into my house and beheads my kids. Then they retreat to their own house. Police feels it's too risky to storm their house and instead bombs it from distance, knowing that gangsters kids will get hurt, maybe killed. Both my kids and gangster's kids are dead. Yet there's clear difference.

I think if the police are bombing houses in the neighborhood, you need to move tf out of that neighborhood.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by blankall

Firstly, Egypt has already closed the crossings into Egypt:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...ls-2023-10-10/

Israel's initial stance was, indeed, that Palestinians should flee to Egypt. They backed off after Egypt gave a hard no.

Israel also didn't directly bomb the crossing, they've been bombing smuggling tunnels around the crossing, as that's how Hamas gets all of their weapons. So strikes on the area are likely to continue indefinitely. A moot point, as the border is fully shut, as per Egyptian orders.

As Hamas positions itself within civilian centers, what other solution does Israel have to stop them? As for whether Israel targets civilians, if that were the case the death tole in Gaza would be in the tens of thousands, not hundreds.

Israel media reports that negotiations between US, Egypt and Israel are underway regarding a safe corridor from Gaza to Egypt. Obviously, Egypt wants nothing to do with 2 millions of refugees. On top of this, Hamas members, knowing that this is their last chance to survive, will do everything to pass as "civilians". So, US and Israel are basically trying to pay Egypt to take them, but no luck so far

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Pointman

A gang walks into my house and beheads my kids. Then they retreat to their own house. Police feels it's too risky to storm their house and instead bombs it from distance, knowing that gangsters kids will get hurt, maybe killed. Both my kids and gangster's kids are dead. Yet there's clear difference.

If this were an accurate hypothetical, the bomb also decimates the surrounding 3 houses and kills the people in those houses.

So, now your kids are dead, and the gangster’s kids are dead, and the neighbours of the gangsters kids are dead. But, they killed the gangsters, so it was justified.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't agree - I think Hamas's goal was to murder babies. The difference I'm talking about is, "we're going to kill enemy terrorists and if it means killing innocents and children as well, that's not going to stop us", versus, "we're going to kill innocents and children because we think they should die". I'm not sure what other "goal" you mean that would be specific to the beheading of civilians.

I think this is a fair characterization, yes.

I don't think you'd tell that to a grieving parent because it would be monstrous and serve no purpose. I do actually believe, however, that some acts that result in the death of children are MORE justifiable than some other acts, and allow for the possibility that a military action like bombing a building that results in dead children can nonetheless be "for the greater good" in some sense. I have a much harder time dreaming up any scenario, hypothetical or otherwise, where I would be able to say the same about decapitating a toddler.

So, summing up, I still think there is a big difference and that the two are not equivalent, and I also don't think you have to endorse any of Israel's military tactics in any particular case (e.g. the scenario I've been using about blowing up apartment buildings) to think that random murder and mutilation for the sake of nothing is a lot worse.

I still think my original point holds, which is that while you can disagree with the justification for such a thing, and you can label it horrible (which is always is), you can hardly feign surprise that the imaginary line of “cheering on the killing of children” has been crossed, when it is crossed all the time, and the justification or what constitutes “the greater good” is a fairly subjective concept that you or I might agree on, but which someone living under occupation might not.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Pointman

A gang walks into my house and beheads my kids. Then they retreat to their own house. Police feels it's too risky to storm their house and instead bombs it from distance, knowing that gangsters kids will get hurt, maybe killed. Both my kids and gangster's kids are dead. Yet there's clear difference.

Did you previously put a fence around the gangsters house limiting what can go in and out causing kids to die in that house and did you start building stuff on that house's lawns and claiming it as your own?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bonded

On a high level the loss of life is the same and terrible but there is a difference between collateral damage and intentional targeting of innocent infants directly. When Israel resorts to chemical and biological weapons that specifically target civilians than your argument will hold more weight.

It’s a slim difference though, right?

To us, sure.

To the parents of those children or to their community? Probably not.

Let’s say Canada attacks the US for no reason, the US responds by bombing the #### out of us. One of those targets happens to be close to you, and your family and friends are seriously affected. Are you going to say “yeah, it was justified, and they got who they were after, so I have no good argument against it.” It might not be your fault, but you were on the wrong side of it whether you like it or not, so you have to deal.

It gets harder the closer you put yourself to the situation. Pretty easy from far away.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Israel media reports that negotiations between US, Egypt and Israel are underway regarding a safe corridor from Gaza to Egypt. Obviously, Egypt wants nothing to do with 2 millions of refugees. On top of this, Hamas members, knowing that this is their last chance to survive, will do everything to pass as "civilians". So, US and Israel are basically trying to pay Egypt to take them, but no luck so far

I think the Palestinians have seen this song and dance before and won't budge. Most would rather die in Gaza than voluntarily partake in Nakba 2.0

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Did you previously put a fence around the gangsters house limiting what can go in and out causing kids to die in that house and did you start building stuff on that house's lawns and claiming it as your own?

Are you planning to answer the question earlier about why you said that there were no confirmed reports about children having been killed?

[Geraldsh]

“There are no innocent civilians “ Napoleon Bonaparte

Civilians, and babies, are killed in every war and still the war never stops until one side is defeated. Best practice is to focus on extreme prejudice and kill everyone in hopes of winning sooner thus resulting in fewer babies killed.

Trying to get humanitarian aid in before the killing is done just drags out the conflict and prolongs the suffering.

When things get bad enough in that area the big guy will step in, anyone else remember the flood?

[Blaster86]

Wat

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Are you planning to answer the question earlier about why you said that there were no confirmed reports about children having been killed?

That's not what I said, the story was about 40 babies being beheaded and that article was referring to how that story is not confirmed and that some Israeli military officials have not heard about it