Israel declares war on Hamas

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Not at all. I'm saying that holding the position that essentially no matter what Israel does, Gaza civilian deaths are Hamas' fault because they are the aggressor and are holding hostages is demonstrating ignorance of how conflicts and international relations work.

Responses need to be proportional. Israel will get latitude from western nations in killing some civilians, as long as it's perceived as largely unavoidable collateral damage in eliminating Hamas. But starving an entire population doesn't fit that bill and it's considered a crime against humanity for a reason. Even if Hamas doesn't release any hostages, blocking food and electricity access to 2 million people in Gaza is not viable in the long term, particularly for a country that relies so much on a foreign country to maintain its security.

The whole premise that the response needs to be proportional is way off. What "proportional response" means? Hamas killed a thousand of Israelis, is proportional response killing a thousand too?

The paradigm is different entirely. When United States destroyed ISIS, did they make the world a safer place? Yes. Were cities, such as Raqqe, devastated? Yes. Were innocent civilians killed? Yes. Was destroying ISIS a proportional or not proportional response to their actions? It doesn't matter. What matters is that ISIS needed to be eradicated.

Let me explain the fault of "proportional response" theory. Let's assume that all out war on Hamas is not proportional response to killing a thousand of civilians. It would be, however, a proportional response if they killed, for example, ten thousands civilians. So we can't eradicate Hamas now, we need to let them kill nine more thousands first. See, the "proportional response " logic only leads to more deaths.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I have an issue with killing civilians, I just think it's Hamas fault.

Imagine that exact statement from a Palestinian pov and substitute Hamas for Israel's.

[Bill Bumface]

This whole thing is a good reminder that maybe the solution to the formation of an ethnocratic state in the 30s and 40s that caused death and displacement of tens of millions of people wasn't to... form another ethnocratic state.

The people of Gaza and Israel today were put in a manufactured situation which was going to inevitably lead to mutual hate and violence. I think for true long lasting peace, the ethnocracy has to be dismantled, and the idea of Israel as a "home for the Jews" needs to die. It needs to be a place that is "home for people with Israeli values" minus the religious stuff.

It makes me wonder if the entire thing was borne out of antisemmitism. When there is war or famine in Ukraine, Ireland, etc., immigrants are welcomed with fairly open arms across the world. If displaced Jewish people were welcomed into other western nations after WWII, rather than what happened, how different does the world look?

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Pointman

The whole premise that the response needs to be proportional is way off. What "proportional response" means? Hamas killed a thousand of Israelis, is proportional response killing a thousand too?

The paradigm is different entirely. When United States destroyed ISIS, did they make the world a safer place? Yes. Were cities, such as Raqqe, devastated? Yes. Were innocent civilians killed? Yes. Was destroying ISIS a proportional or not proportional response to their actions? It doesn't matter. What matters is that ISIS needed to be eradicated.

Let me explain the fault of "proportional response" theory. Let's assume that all out war on Hamas is not proportional response to killing a thousand of civilians. It would be, however, a proportional response if they killed, for example, ten thousands civilians. So we can't eradicate Hamas now, we need to let them kill nine more thousands first. See, the "proportional response " logic only leads to more deaths.

You are missing the point - optically how the international community (especially the community who is supporting Israel) perceives your actions is all that matters in terms of ensuring you continue to get strategic support. If Israel were to cross the line too far, they risk everything. Imagine an Israel with no true military strength, the Middle East would have gobbled it up decades ago. It’s not about body count, it’s about the fact turning off electricity and water crossing the line to the detriment of the general population. It’s sentencing hundreds of thousands to death if it continues which is no where near close to collateral damage of missiles.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Imagine that exact statement from a Palestinian pov and substitute Hamas for Israel's.

Many people in this thread basically said that or at least danced around saying it but avoided being that direct.

And I don't agree with either, so not excusing the poster you're quoting but call it out both ways if you're going to.

[DoubleK]

Apologies if already posted, but found this pretty powerful.

https://x.com/speirin/status/1712970747457507810?s=20

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Imagine that exact statement from a Palestinian pov and substitute Hamas for Israel's.

I don't have to use my imagination. This is literally how Hamas justified all their murders. The difference here, though, is what sides need to do to stop it. Hamas needs to free hostages. Israel need to cease to exist.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Leondros

You are missing the point - optically how the international community (especially the community who is supporting Israel) perceives your actions is all that matters in terms of ensuring you continue to get strategic support. If Israel were to cross the line too far, they risk everything. Imagine an Israel with no true military strength, the Middle East would have gobbled it up decades ago. It’s not about body count, it’s about the fact turning off electricity and water crossing the line to the detriment of the general population. It’s sentencing hundreds of thousands to death if it continues which is no where near close to collateral damage of missiles.

I get your point. You mean that Israel went too far and because of it is in danger if losing support of USA, as well as other allies. And once this support is lost, Israel risks losing military supremacy, which in turn put its whole existence in danger. I get this line of thinking. That's the risk Israel is willing to take. Because not showing a very tough response would mean showing weakness and would look like an invitation for others, such as Hezbollah, to attack.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Imagine that exact statement from a Palestinian pov and substitute Hamas for Israel's.

Palestinian's are brainwashed, they dance in the streets over the body's of Israeli civilians like savages, they are taught from 5 years old that all Jews must die. Hamas is ISIS pt2 and need to be eliminated from the face of the earth, if not there will be pt3,pt4 etc.

Islam needs to remove the small but loud hateful part of their religion before acceptance and peace around the world can happen. If the crazy Christians can do it so can they.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Many people in this thread basically said that or at least danced around saying it but avoided being that direct.

And I don't agree with either, so not excusing the poster you're quoting but call it out both ways if you're going to.

Sorry?
I'm simply saying that one side is no better than the other.
I believe you're the one denying that Israel is targeting citizens.

Take your own advice and call it both ways.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I don't have to use my imagination. This is literally how Hamas justified all their murders.

No difference.
This is how you justify the killing of innocents in your head.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Bagor

No difference.
This is how you justify the killing of innocents in your head.

You just cut off the part of my post where I explained the difference.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Bagor

No difference.
This is how you justify the killing of innocents in your head.

Big difference pal.

- One side murders innocents at parties, in their cars and in their beds and then parade their body's around like trophys.

- Other side targets these murderers hiding behind innocents.

If you can't see the difference there's no help for you

[Language]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The contrast between how people speak about Israeli deaths and Palestinian deaths, as seen here, is always startling, and probably why the innocence of the Israeli side is hard to believe.

Once again, your response here is very idealistic and virtuous. No one is saying that innocent Palestinians deserve to die. It’s tragic the situation they are in.

Let’s play it out differently. Maybe Israel, as the democratic and moral army, should announce exactly where they are entering Gaza street by street. Maybe the leaflets they are dropping warning Gazans to flee, should instead let Hamas know exactly where the IDF plans to sweep through in their search for terrorists. Many many more IDF soldiers will die, but at least they’re giving Hamas the benefit of the doubt. They deserve it after killing nearly 1500 Israelis in a cold blooded terrorist attack.

Forget about the fact that Hamas itself is not letting Gazans flee south. Yet somehow Israel is the one to blame here.

Where was the moral outrage during the battle of Mosul when thousands of civilians were being killed in the quest to get rid of ISIS?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Big difference pal.

- One side murders innocents at parties, in their cars and in their beds and then parade their body's around like trophys.

- Other side targets these murderers hiding behind innocents.

If you can't see the difference there's no help for you

https://theintercept.com/2023/10/13/...ans-west-bank/

Warning, story has a video clip of the shooting of a man.

ISRAELI SETTLERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF GAZA CHAOS TO ATTACK PALESTINIANS IN WEST BANK
Settlers and soldiers have killed 51 Palestinians in the West Bank since Saturday. At least two Palestinian villages have been entirely depopulated.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Itse

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


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.

Arabian source Al Jazeera breaks down the point of evacuation orders. Briefly, they are intended to seed chaos, panic, make people block roads, block Hamas maneuvers. Al Jazeera itself admits, it was a successful military move

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/...ogical-warfare

[activeStick]

Al Jazeera stats I just saw on TV: 2,215 Palestinians killed, 725 children

Disgusting.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

https://theintercept.com/2023/10/13/...ans-west-bank/

Warning, story has a video clip of the shooting of a man.

You do realize, West Bank and Gaza are two different factions, who hate each other?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Sorry?
I'm simply saying that one side is no better than the other.
I believe you're the one denying that Israel is targeting citizens.

Take your own advice and call it both ways.

I denied Isreal targeting citizens?
Where'd you get that from?

[Manhattanboy]

19 year old Majed Ibrahim died of his wounds from a Hamas rocket that landed in Abu Ghosh earlier this week near Jerusalem. Apparently a mosque was also damaged.