Israel declares war on Hamas

[WCW Nitro]

Pretty strong statements against Israel from France's Macron.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europ..._medium=social

Israel must stop killing babies and women in Gaza, French President Emmanuel Macron has told the BBC.

In an exclusive interview at the Élysée Palace, he said there was "no justification" for the bombing, saying a ceasefire would benefit Israel.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Macron is an antisemite. Amiright?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Macron is an antisemite. Amiright?

No his criticism is based on Israel's actions as opposed to the nature of what a Jew is and what rights they specifically deserve. Macron also condemned the October 7th attack and said Israel should continue to defend itself and has a right to exist. He just wants Israel to pull back the large scale bombings. Israel is likely pulling back the bombings anyways, as they are close to their objective of storming the main bunkers and taking out the leadership.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

No his criticism is based on Israel's actions as opposed to the nature of what a Jew is and what rights they specifically deserve. Macron also condemned the October 7th attack and said Israel should continue to defend itself and has a right to exist. He just wants Israel to pull back the large scale bombings. Israel is likely pulling back the bombings anyways, as they are close to their objective of storming the main bunkers and taking out the leadership.

Completely agree with everything you said. You can be critical of Israel and not be an antisemite. There are a few here that disagree with that sentiment and are willing to toss out the term at anyone who disagrees with anything Israel does. They can't separate the state of Israel from being a Jew, when they are different things.

[Pointman]

Do you think hostages support ceasefire?

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by blankall

No his criticism is based on Israel's actions as opposed to the nature of what a Jew is and what rights they specifically deserve. Macron also condemned the October 7th attack and said Israel should continue to defend itself and has a right to exist. He just wants Israel to pull back the large scale bombings. Israel is likely pulling back the bombings anyways, as they are close to their objective of storming the main bunkers and taking out the leadership.

I would say this is exactly what people are saying in this thread, yet anti-Semite gets thrown around every 2 pages….

Israel needs to stop bombing and killing civilians, period. It’s not helping them in how the world is perceiving them, its creating the next generation of terrorists, and its creating a humanity crisis that the world needs to deal with.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Do you think hostages support ceasefire?

Is there any evidence that the hostages are still alive? I'm not sure if there has been third party confirmation of anything that Hamas has said.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Do you think hostages support ceasefire?

Two completely different issues and pretty much unrelated. Do you think Israel gives a #### about hostages when their strategy is bombing the hell out of everything? Neither side gives a rip about hostages. Hostages are collateral damage at this point based on Israel's actions. Hama's bluff has been called at the point of a GBU.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Leondros

I would say this is exactly what people are saying in this thread, yet anti-Semite gets thrown around every 2 pages….

Israel needs to stop bombing and killing civilians, period. It’s not helping them in how the world is perceiving them, its creating the next generation of terrorists, and its creating a humanity crisis that the world needs to deal with.

Are there any cases where attacking enemies in cities is justified in warfare?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Dumb question is dumb. Look at any war or siege in the history of humankind. Justifications are for the winners to make.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Completely agree with everything you said. You can be critical of Israel and not be an antisemite. There are a few here that disagree with that sentiment and are willing to toss out the term at anyone who disagrees with anything Israel does. They can't separate the state of Israel from being a Jew, when they are different things.

There is a definition of antisemitism and there have been posts that crossed that threshold. Posts like yours are often used to shield antisemitism from criticism.

Earlier in this thread I was insulted for calling out some garbage and the user I quoted was mad at me since they didn’t know antisemitism is defined.

It isn’t that difficult.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Are there any cases where attacking enemies in cities is justified in warfare?

Ones where the attacking power takes significant steps to minimize civilian casualties can usually be justified. The US gave significant notice to residents before actually attacking Fallujah and even mid-battle, enacted a unilateral cease fire to allow humanitarian aid into the city and remaining people to leave. So while the city was mostly levelled, under 1.5K civilians were estimated to have been killed in the two battles.

Comparisons to WWII where peer nations were involved in total war to stop an existential threat to several allied nations aren't particularly relevant to the current situation. Israel holds all the military power in this situation and even if **** really hits the fan and other countries threaten to invade them, they have the US backing them up and they have nuclear weapons. There is no existential threat to the country.

This has much more in common with US involvement in the Middle East or Afghanistan fighting against irregular forces. And unless I'm missing something, I can't recall any situations where the US levelled whole neighborhoods with air strikes and killed over 10K people in a month. They normally took great pains to minimize civilian casualties because they recognized that even when you're the preeminent superpower in the world, reputation matters in ensuring your long-term security goals.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Are there any cases where attacking enemies in cities is justified in warfare?

Attacking enemies? Yes. Are you defining enemies as the whole Palestinian population? Killing innocent women and children? No.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Ones where the attacking power takes significant steps to minimize civilian casualties can usually be justified. The US gave significant notice to residents before actually attacking Fallujah and even mid-battle, enacted a unilateral cease fire to allow humanitarian aid into the city and remaining people to leave. So while the city was mostly levelled, under 1.5K civilians were estimated to have been killed in the two battles.

Comparisons to WWII where peer nations were involved in total war to stop an existential threat to several allied nations aren't particularly relevant to the current situation. Israel holds all the military power in this situation and even if **** really hits the fan and other countries threaten to invade them, they have the US backing them up and they have nuclear weapons. There is no existential threat to the country.

This has much more in common with US involvement in the Middle East or Afghanistan fighting against irregular forces. And unless I'm missing something, I can't recall any situations where the US levelled whole neighborhoods with air strikes and killed over 10K people in a month. They normally took great pains to minimize civilian casualties because they recognized that even when you're the preeminent superpower in the world, reputation matters in ensuring your long-term security goals.

I would suggest the present war in Israel is one of a kind. Where has a war been fought where the enemy is underground to this degree? I think this is the main reason for the excessive number of civilian casualties, where extra heavy bombs are required to collapse the tunnels.

Israel has warned the people to move south, and one must ask why a great many stayed put. I think it has been mentioned that Hamas have played a part in this, in order to solicit worldwide condemnation of the bombing and casualties. If Hamas is willing to sacrifice the very people they have been elected to serve, how can we believe anything they say?

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I would suggest the present war in Israel is one of a kind. Where has a war been fought where the enemy is underground? I think this is the main reason for the excessive number of civilian casualties, where extra heavy bombs are required to collapse the tunnels.

Israel has warned the people to move south, and one must ask why a great many stayed put. I think it has been mentioned that Hamas have played a part in this, in order to solicit worldwide condemnation of the bombing and casualties. If Hamas is willing to sacrifice the very people they have been elected to serve, how can we believe anything they say?

We have been over this, the amount of the bombing in the south is the same if not more than the north….

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Attacking enemies? Yes. Are you defining enemies as the whole Palestinian population? Killing innocent women and children? No.

It’s impossible to attack an enemy hiding amongst its civilian population without killing civilians. There’s scope for debating how much effort the IDF should and are making to reduce civilians casualties in Gaza. But innocent women and children being killed is part of every war fought for decades now (including the dozen or so ongoing wars around the globe that nobody pays much attention to). This war is no different in that respect.

This isn’t a police action against terrorists. Israel regards itself in a state of open warfare with the government of Gaza.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Leondros

We have been over this, the amount of the bombing in the south is the same if not more than the north….

Do you believe Israel is deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians with the aim of killing lots of them?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Ones where the attacking power takes significant steps to minimize civilian casualties can usually be justified. The US gave significant notice to residents before actually attacking Fallujah and even mid-battle, enacted a unilateral cease fire to allow humanitarian aid into the city and remaining people to leave. So while the city was mostly levelled, under 1.5K civilians were estimated to have been killed in the two battles.

How much of a threat did Fallujah pose to Americans at the time?

Originally Posted by opendoor

Comparisons to WWII where peer nations were involved in total war to stop an existential threat to several allied nations aren't particularly relevant to the current situation. Israel holds all the military power in this situation and even if **** really hits the fan and other countries threaten to invade them, they have the US backing them up and they have nuclear weapons. There is no existential threat to the country.

After Oct 7, Israelis have reason to believe a Gaza in hostile hands poses a unacceptable threat to its population. It may not be existential*, but when a significant portion of you population is vulnerable to mass murder in a matter of hours from a neighbour who wants them all dead, that’s a persistent threat no state would tolerate.

Originally Posted by opendoor

This has much more in common with US involvement in the Middle East or Afghanistan fighting against irregular forces. And unless I'm missing something, I can't recall any situations where the US levelled whole neighborhoods with air strikes and killed over 10K people in a month. They normally took great pains to minimize civilian casualties because they recognized that even when you're the preeminent superpower in the world, reputation matters in ensuring your long-term security goals.

Did the enemies of the U.S. ever dig into a position as densely populated as Gaza?

I would think the closest comparison is the battle of Mosul, which left 10k civilians dead and almost 1 million displaced. That took place over 9 months, so civilians are being killed at a much faster rate in Gaza.

What does a slow and careful campaign against Hamas look like, when Egypt won’t accept refugees? Probably more Palestinians dying more slowly. This conflict won’t be over until Hamas is ousted, and the faster that happens the better for Palestinians.

Third parties who want to minimize civilians casualties in Gaza should be throwing fistfulls of cash at Egypt to open is borders to Palestinians civilians. The best way to make them safe is to get them out of Gaza, to evacuate them the same way the civilians of Fallujah and Mosul were evacuated.

* It’s doubtful Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ever posed existential threats to the U.S. Philip K Dick science-fiction aside, they did not have the capability to invade and conquer the U.S. Only to make the wider world hostile to American commerce, values, and interests. Even the threat to the UK was over by 1942. And yet the overwhelming proportion of civilians killed by the Allies in WW2 died in the final 18 months of the war, when the outcome was no longer in any doubt.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you believe Israel is deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians with the aim of killing lots of them?

Yes.

[Azure]

Fascinating to read the different perspectives on this conflict & the Ukraine War.

Ukraine should not negotiate with Russia for any reason even if hundreds of thousands more will continue to die.

&

Israel should lay down their arms and be be more peaceful.

The different outlook is amazing.

"Israel is intentionally targeting Palestinian civilians to kill them all."

but, Israel is letting trucks with aid into Gaza.

Something doesn't make sense.
But then again when your views line up with the same people who carry ISIS flags on the streets of Canada and openly scream and yell 'death to Jews', you know something is wrong.

But hey, Israel is the problem, amirite?
Pathetic.