Israel declares war on Hamas

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I also find it interesting that after days of explaining how the choice was easy in who to support between the terrorists and the liberal democracy, Israel’s actions are being justified by the likes of Pointman and blankall on the basis of them simply being better than the actions of terrorists.

An incredibly high bar we should hold all countries to.

Hamas are not merely terrorists. They are legitimately elected government. They are responsible for the whole Gaza

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Fine. I have a better question for you. What exactly prevents Hamas from releasing hostages? Or, in case they are all dead, admit it.

The hostages are the only card they have that Israel has any interest in.

Why would Hamas trust that giving the hostages back at this point has any actual effect to what Israel is going to do? They have no reason to think that Israel would give them enough water regardless of the hostage situation, because they've already been cutting off water when they feel like it.

That's besides the point anyway, and people keep arguing this from this weird moralistic position where the point WHO is is right or wrong here, which is stupid. They're all just people.

The question is WHAT makes sense, what actions serve a purpose.

Does the bombardment help get the hostages back? Ia it really helping to protect Israeli civilians at this point?.Does cutting the water actually help get the hostages back?

Probably not.

The only way to get the hostages back is to negotiate.

If Israel wants ro re-occupy Gaza, I'm not against that, despite the inevitable civilian casualties, because that would serve a purpose I can accept as reasonable.

Telling 1 million people to be birds and jump off a building to pack up and move in a day does not serve a purpose.

If you want to defend an action by either side, you have to be able to make the case that it serves a real purpose in a somewhat reasonable manner.

That's the opposite of idealism, it's simple utilitarism.

You can't defend doing something insane by saying "well the other people also did something insane". Yes they did. Being insane back at them will not stop them being insane in the future.

It's not about being nice, it's about not adding fuel to the fire.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I also find it interesting that after days of explaining how the choice was easy in who to support between the terrorists and the liberal democracy, Israel’s actions are being justified by the likes of Pointman and blankall on the basis of them simply being better than the actions of terrorists.

An incredibly high bar we should hold all countries to.

How do you explain the side that is behaving with some consideration for the lives of civilians drawing far more criticism in some quarters than the side with zero regard for civilians - including their own?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Itse

The hostages are the only card they have that Israel has any interest in.

Why would Hamas trust that giving the hostages back at this point has any actual effect to what Israel is going to do? They have no reason to think that Israel would give them enough water regardless of the hostage situation, because they've already been cutting off water when they feel like it.

That's besides the point anyway, and people keep arguing this from this weird moralistic position where the point WHO is is right or wrong here, which is stupid. They're all just people.

The question is WHAT makes sense, what actions seeve a purpose.

Does thw bombardment help get the hostages back? Does cutting the water actually help get the hostages back?

Probably not.

The only way to get the hostages back is to negotiate.

If Israel wants ro re-occupy Gaza, I'm not against that, despite the inevitable civilian casualties, because that would serve a purpose I can accept as reasonable.

Telling 1 million people to be birds and jump off a building to move in a day does not serve a purpose.

Ok. So Hamas doesn't believe that releasing hostages will bring back power&water. Does it in any way justify taking hostages? Guess not. So, they should release hostages regardless, whether they believe Israel or not, because holding hostages is a war crime and more importantly generally wrong. Once they are released, you can argue that cutting power and water entirely might be an overkill. But not until then.

And request to free north does make military sense, as explained above.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

The hostages are the only card they have that Israel has any interest in.

Why would Hamas trust that giving the hostages back at this point has any actual effect to what Israel is going to do? They have no reason to think that Israel would give them enough water regardless of the hostage situation, because they've already been cutting off water when they feel like it.

That's besides the point anyway, and people keep arguing this from this weird moralistic position where the point WHO is is right or wrong here, which is stupid. They're all just people.

The question is WHAT makes sense, what actions serve a purpose.

Does the bombardment help get the hostages back? Ia it really helping to protect Israeli civilians at this point?.Does cutting the water actually help get the hostages back?

Probably not.

The only way to get the hostages back is to negotiate.

If Israel wants ro re-occupy Gaza, I'm not against that, despite the inevitable civilian casualties, because that would serve a purpose I can accept as reasonable.

Telling 1 million people to be birds and jump off a building to pack up and move in a day does not serve a purpose.

If you want to defend an action by either side, you have to be able to make the case that it serves a real purpose in a somewhat reasonable manner.

That's the opposite of idealism, it's simple utilitarism.

You can't defend doing something insane by saying "well the other people also did something insane". Yes they did. Being insane back at them will not stop them being insane in the future.

It's not about being nice, it's about not adding fuel to the fire.

You understand that there is not a government in this world that would respond to an attack like Israel endured on Oct 7 with negotiation, right? Hamas has proven itself a lethal threat to Israel’s civilians. The elimination of that threat from Gaza is the baseline minimum response we can expect. And it’s the response you would see from any other country.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I have no problem with cutting off power until hostages are released. If no power means death to innocents - yes, it is horrible, and I never denied that overall situation is a nightmare. Still, the responsibility is on those who are holding hostages. Can you explain, why exactly they can't release them right now or admit they are dead if this is the case?

No I can't explain. I have no idea why but my best guess is they are already dead and/or little desire to release them.

I just wanted to ascertain that you were ok with the killing of innocents.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Pointman

So, you believe that Palestinians and Israelis should be held to different standards. Then you complain that people treat Palestinians and Israelis differently. Feels like you need to choose one or another.

No, I believe a democratic government that is viewed as positive and liberal as it is should be held to a higher standard than a terrorist organization. Though it’s on-brand that you believe “terrorist” is synonymous with “Palestinian.”

I feel like people should not choose one of the other, and should instead value innocent lives the same, Israeli or Palestinian.

Originally Posted by Pointman

Cool. Do you agree, that Israel is entitled to treat Palestinian civilians the same way Hamas treats Israeli civilians? That is, kill them without a warning?

No. In what world would I agree with that?

Originally Posted by Pointman

Hamas are not merely terrorists. They are legitimately elected government. They are responsible for the whole Gaza

Yeah, sure, they’re terrorists when people need to condemn anyone defending Palestinian civilians and an elected government when people need to criticize Palestinian civilians. I get it, you don’t need to quote the same post multiple times.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How do you explain the side that is behaving with some consideration for the lives of civilians drawing far more criticism in some quarters than the side with zero regard for civilians - including their own?

One is a terrorist organization, the other is a liberal democracy, no?

In simple terms, if a child and an adult act like children, who would receive more criticism?

We can’t insist on Israel being recognized as so much better while pretending they aren’t then subject to much higher standards. That’s how the world works. If they have carte blanche to act just a little bit better than a terrorist organization, then they should be treated that way. If we’re to treat that government better, then the expectations are higher.

And, because someone is going to say it, holding Hamas to a lower standard excuses or justifies nothing. It’s simply recognizing that they are a terrorist organization and will do what terrorist organizations do, which is horrific and expected.

[WCW Nitro]

I think the misconception of this conflict that some have, and that Israel presents, is that Israel offers either war or peace. In reality, the choice for the Palestinians is war/illegal settlements/blockade or just illegal settlements/blockade. Hamas can lay down all its weapons or be defeated but Israel will not stop building ilegal settlements or impose some sort of a blockade. That's why the question of "how should Israel respond?" is nonsense because it assumes Israel has been an innocent bystander

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bagor

No I can't explain. I have no idea why but my best guess is they are already dead and/or little desire to release them.

I just wanted to ascertain that you were ok with the killing of innocents.

If those people die it's because of Hamas.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, sure, they’re terrorists when people need to condemn anyone defending Palestinian civilians and an elected government when people need to criticize Palestinian civilians. I get it, you don’t need to quote the same post multiple times.

They are both obviously. They are a terrorist organization that was elected into government. You may feel like there's some kind of contradiction, but Gazans clearly don't.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I think the misconception of this conflict that some have, and that Israel presents, is that Israel offers either war or peace. In reality, the choice for the Palestinians is war/illegal settlements/blockade or just illegal settlements/blockade. Hamas can lay down all its weapons or be defeated but Israel will not stop building ilegal settlements or impose some sort of a blockade. That's why the question of "how should Israel respond?" is nonsense because it assumes Israel has been an innocent bystander

There are no illegal settlements in Gaza and Israel didn't blockade before terrorists were elected.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Pointman

There are no illegal settlements in Gaza and Israel didn't blockade before terrorists were elected.

That's the point, they are building illegal settlements in the West Bank where there is no Hamas.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

That's the point, they are building illegal settlements in the West Bank where there is no Hamas.

Yeah, and “no settlements now, and no blockade before Hamas” conveniently leaves out the occupation and settlements before Hamas.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

That's the point, they are building illegal settlements in the West Bank where there is no Hamas.

So Gazans had a choice of no settlements, no blockade, peace. But they elected the government whose goal is to go to war with Israel and got what they wanted.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, and “no settlements now, and no blockade before Hamas” conveniently leaves out the occupation and settlements before Hamas.

There was occupation and settlements before Hamas. Israel withdrew and look how it ended up.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by blankall

If those people die it's because of Hamas.

No. It's because of the actions of Israel continuing the cycle of violence.

That's like Hamas saying the people they killed died because of Israel.

And on and on we go.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Bagor

No. It's because of the actions of Israel continuing the cycle of violence.

That's like Hamas saying the people they killed died because of Israel.

And on and on we go.

You would be correct if Israel cut power out of revenge. But they did it to get hostages released, a condition that Hamas could easily satisfy and the thing they should have done regardless.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Pointman

There was occupation and settlements before Hamas. Israel withdrew and look how it ended up.

There was no gap between your definition of an occupation and a blockade. Israel maintained strict control of the borders (including the passage of goods, exports, and imports critical for economy prosperity), airspace, and water. They also destroyed much of what they left behind. So, look how that ended up.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

That's the point, they are building illegal settlements in the West Bank where there is no Hamas.

It's the other way around. Israel builds illegal settlements in West Bank, which is wrong in theory, but in practice it prevents West Bank from falling into hands of terrorists.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Pointman

You would be correct if Israel cut power out of revenge. But they did it to get hostages released, a condition that Hamas could easily satisfy and the thing they should have done regardless.

That's not how conflicts work. If Israel took this current path to its extreme conclusion and a million people starved to death, the rest of the world isn't going to say "oh well, it's still Hamas' fault". Israel will get blamed for those deaths. And for a country like Israel that largely relies on another country for its security, international reputation isn't something they can just ignore. If Israel lets fanatics drive their response, it will likely harm their security in the long term.