Israel declares war on Hamas

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Pointman

It's not just war crimes. He calls it genocide. For this to hold true, he must posit that the reason why Israel is bombing Gaza has nothing to do with revenge for Oct 7, but instead is because Israel wants to destroy Palestinians. So, according to him, it's just random coincidence that the bombing is happening after the terror attack and the bombing has nothing to do with Hamas, but strictly with nationality of Gaza's citizens.

This is neither true to the conditions that presuppose genocide nor an honest interpretation of his position. You can’t say “according to him” and then state a position he doesn’t hold. That’s lying. And the list is refutable enough that it does not require any dishonesty at all to refute. Though I notice you do that a lot.

[Fuzz]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/...997281?cmp=rss


CBC explains their, and other media organization's use of the word terrorism.

[CliffFletcher]

If you don’t think civilians should ever be killed in war, that’s a perfectly legitimate stance. You’re essentially a pacifist, since modern wars are not confined to battlefields, and haven’t been for around a century.

But anyone who is not a pacifist, and believes Israel’s behaviour is beyond the pale and constitutes genocide, needs to explain how they expect Israel to conduct this war. Some examples of recent wars that were fought justly would help clarify things.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is neither true to the conditions that presuppose genocide nor an honest interpretation of his position. You can’t say “according to him” and then state a position he doesn’t hold. That’s lying. And the list is refutable enough that it does not require any dishonesty at all to refute. Though I notice you do that a lot.

The list was a very weak argument from Palestinian side of debate. It should have never been posted at all. I didn't want to spend too much time giving it a more thoughtful rebuttal. I need to pump an airbed for my kids in case they will need to sleep in the shelter.

[Nage Waza]

Applying double standards to Israel by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is also a part of the IRHA definition of antisemitism.

This is the definition formally adopted in Canada.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Applying double standards to Israel by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is also a part of the IRHA definition of antisemitism.

This is the definition formally adopted in Canada.

Honestly I'm quite surprised to read some of the comments here. I've only read the last couple of pages but some people were their antisemitism openly and proudly like a crown on their head. Which is nothing more than a form of racism. It's fairly astounding.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Applying double standards to Israel by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is also a part of the IRHA definition of antisemitism.

This is the definition formally adopted in Canada.

Dude, everything isn't anti-semitism. You can disagree with Israel's tactics and not be anti-semetic. It's just a country. There isn't a country on this planet with whom I agree with everything they do, but it doesn't make me "anti' whatever the dominant religion in that country may be. That's crazy.

It seems we agree Hamas is a terrorist organization. Is that true? I mean, maybe not...I don't see people agreeing on much here...but for those who do see Hamas that way, then Israel has the hard and crappy job of rooting at the terrorists and not just decimating civilians and civilian infrastructure that inevitably leads to greater civilian suffering. Sounds like the Hamas leadership is spread around the world somewhat...very difficult and unenviable job for Israel to do properly. You can disagree with that take, but it has nothing to do with Judaism for me so I hardly consider myself an anti-Semite for saying that. I'm talking about how a sovereign nation should respond to an egregious terrorist attack.

I feel I'm being consistent. I was vehemently against the USA attacking Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11 as I didn't see a sledge-hammer response that disproportionately affected innocent civilians as an appropriate response to a terrorist attack. I mean, Bin Laden was found in Pakistan FFS, so the USA just killed a whole bunch of Afghanis and Iraqis for literally nothing.

I also remember wondering how people could war monger on one hand and say they "support the troops" on the other. Supporting the troops is not putting them in a war against a country for the actions of a terrorist group. In the same way here I don't see supporting Israel as being consistent with their current actions of making things exponentially worse in the area in which they live with this sledge-hammer response.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/...997281?cmp=rss


CBC explains their, and other media organization's use of the word terrorism.

The Beeb explains why they don't call Hamas terrorists.

Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson

Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people - they're all asking why the BBC doesn't say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.

The answer goes right back to the BBC's founding principles.

Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that's their business. We also run interviews with guests and quote contributors who describe Hamas as terrorists.

The key point is that we don't say it in our voice. Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds.

As it happens, of course, many of the people who've attacked us for not using the word terrorist have seen our pictures, heard our audio or read our stories, and made up their minds on the basis of our reporting, so it's not as though we're hiding the truth in any way - far from it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-67082444

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If you don’t think civilians should ever be killed in war, that’s a perfectly legitimate stance. You’re essentially a pacifist, since modern wars are not confined to battlefields, and haven’t been for around a century.

But anyone who is not a pacifist, and believes Israel’s behaviour is beyond the pale and constitutes genocide, needs to explain how they expect Israel to conduct this war. Some examples of recent wars that were fought justly would help clarify things.

I'd like them for starters to allow diesel to the hospital and stop making ridiculous demands that hospitals should be evacuated.
If asking for some compassion towards the sick and the dying gains me a pacifist label. So be it.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If you don’t think civilians should ever be killed in war, that’s a perfectly legitimate stance. You’re essentially a pacifist, since modern wars are not confined to battlefields, and haven’t been for around a century.

But anyone who is not a pacifist, and believes Israel’s behaviour is beyond the pale and constitutes genocide, needs to explain how they expect Israel to conduct this war. Some examples of recent wars that were fought justly would help clarify things.

Neither of those apply to me, but that doesn't mean I don't think that Israel could do more to minimize civilian casualties.

As far as examples go, just a week into this and the civilian death count is pretty unfavorable when compared to other notable recent wars and seiges. Confirmed civilian causalities in Ukraine are about 9K dead and 17K wounded after 1.5 years of war. Gaza is already almost 1/3rd the way there for deaths and 1/2 way there for wounded within a week, and the ground invasion hasn't even begun.

The second Battle of Fallujah in 2004 resulted in less than 1,000 civilian deaths. The Battle of Mosul against ISIS saw about 8K civilian deaths.

And Azerbaijan, despite basically ethnically cleansing Nagorno-Karabakh (with the support of Israel, by the way), only killed a handful of Armenian civilians.

So why are people dying at a much faster rate in this one? To be fair to Israel, there are definitely factors working against them. Both because Hamas has no qualms about mixing weaponry in with civilian infrastructure (though neither did Iraq or ISIS) and because there isn't really anywhere for people to escape to. But doesn't that mean that Israel should also take that into account when deciding how to attack if their goal is to limit civilian casualties?

For instance, if movement out of Gaza City is slow and difficult for civilians, then why not delay things until any civilian who wants to leave is able to? With the 2nd Battle of Fallujah for instance, US forces gave civilians months of notice to leave, and as a result over 90% of the city was safely evacuated before hostilities started.

There's no real basis to argue that the way Israel is currently doing things is the only possible way. Other countries (including ones with far spottier human rights records than Israel) have managed to limit civilian casualties in wars, so it's certainly not impossible.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Bagor

The Beeb explains why they don't call Hamas terrorists.


https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-67082444

Interesting. I do get this point of view that using the term terrorism implies one side is bad and one is good. If you were to read the British media during the American Revolution, I'm sure they depicted the Continental Army as terrorist because they didn't follow the rules of War stand in straight lines and shoot, but instead hid behind trees and fought dirty.

Didn't the British refer to the Israelis fighting for an independent Jewish state before 1948 as terrorists? Or, I think Menachem Begin, who was Israel's Prime Minister during some high-profile PLO attacks, had been known as a terrorist.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by opendoor

There's no real basis to argue that the way Israel is currently doing things is the only possible way.

But this is really the crux of the problem regarding the current situation. What authority does anyone have here? Are there any military experts who have been in a war? Like how on earth are people able to say what actions Israel should or should not be taking without knowing the situation and problems on the ground? If Hamas is using hospitals as a staging ground for operations, isn't evacuating the only right decision? As an example.

We can all armchair quarterback these decision if we like but I see absolutes thrown around about how wrong or right something is. And don't see basis for it.

[WCW Nitro]

The dark comedy in all this is when people were trying to establish Israel, it was Jewish extremist groups committing terrorist acts on the British and the Arabs.

And the fact that some think this is still about Hamas when Israel has blocked food/water, bombed convoys of people leaving, depopulated two Palestinian villages in the West Bank in the last week, and their own government officials have said that they can build wherever they want is laughable. Like I said before,Israel could nuke Gaza and some will still be like oh but what choice does Israel have

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Saqe

But this is really the crux of the problem regarding the current situation. What authority does anyone have here? Are there any military experts who have been in a war? Like how on earth are people able to say what actions Israel should or should not be taking without knowing the situation and problems on the ground? If Hamas is using hospitals as a staging ground for operations, isn't evacuating the only right decision? As an example.

We can all armchair quarterback these decision if we like but I see absolutes thrown around about how wrong or right something is. And don't see basis for it.

People have repeatedly quoted organizations like the UN, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, international politicians, and Israeli and Palestinian people and groups directly and indirectly affected.

Who, in your eyes, is the appropriate person or group to believe in terms of how necessary or legal the actions of the Israeli government are? Should we simply ignore all of the opinions shared by the above and hold no opinion at all?

And why is stating that they shouldn’t do something like evacuate a hospital, which is a sentiment shared by the World Health Organization, “baseless,” while you feel free to make a baseless, general accusation of anti-semitism toward the people in this thread?

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

People have repeatedly quoted organizations like the UN, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, international politicians, and Israeli and Palestinian people and groups directly and indirectly affected.

You think the UN, Amnesty International, the Red Cross or international politicians know what the operational situation is on the ground right now? And I don't think I'm going on a limb saying that we can't trust neither the Palestinians or Israelis to give a non-biased account of the situation.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Who, in your eyes, is the appropriate person or group to believe in terms of how necessary or legal the actions of the Israeli government are? Should we simply ignore all of the opinions shared by the above and hold no opinion at all?

I said absolutes, not opinions. There are a lot of different opinions out there. But when people claim to absolutely know something or condemn something, that's a problem. History, like usually, will probably tell us ultimately the most complete story.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And why is stating that they shouldn’t do something like evacuate a hospital, which is a sentiment shared by the World Health Organization, “baseless,” while you feel free to make a baseless, general accusation of anti-semitism toward the people in this thread?

You think the WHO knows anything about Hamas activity in a hospital?

And yes, I think comparing the Jews to the Nazis qualifies as anti-semitism. You don't think so?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Saqe

But this is really the crux of the problem regarding the current situation. What authority does anyone have here? Are there any military experts who have been in a war? Like how on earth are people able to say what actions Israel should or should not be taking without knowing the situation and problems on the ground? If Hamas is using hospitals as a staging ground for operations, isn't evacuating the only right decision? As an example.

We can all armchair quarterback these decision if we like but I see absolutes thrown around about how wrong or right something is. And don't see basis for it.

Well to use the hospitals as an example. Even if we accept that it must be evacuated (which is probably true if there's going to be a ground invasion), there are still different ways that can happen that can have varying humanitarian impacts. On the one hand, you can cut electricity and water, prevent fuel from getting in, and then give them 24 hours to evacuate an entire hospital while transiting patients through an active war zone.

On the other end of the spectrum, would be something like longer timeframes for evacuation, a short-term unilateral ceasefire that would allow patients to be safely evacuated without worrying about bombs dropping near them, and potentially allowing aid organizations into the southern part of Gaza to handle the influx of patients.

The latter are all things the US forces did when fighting irregular forces and insurgencies in the Middle East to minimize civilian casualties, as well as that of their own forces. And that last point is important. Getting civilians out of there not only limits humanitarian damage, but it also offers tactical advantages for Israel. An empty city is a lot easier and safer to invade than a full one is.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Well to use the hospitals as an example. Even if we accept that it must be evacuated (which is probably true if there's going to be a ground invasion), there are still different ways that can happen that can have varying humanitarian impacts. On the one hand, you can cut electricity and water, prevent fuel from getting in, and then give them 24 hours to evacuate an entire hospital while transiting patients through an active war zone.

On the other end of the spectrum, would be something like longer timeframes for evacuation, a short-term unilateral ceasefire that would allow patients to be safely evacuated without worrying about bombs dropping near them, and potentially allowing aid organizations into the southern part of Gaza to handle the influx of patients.

The latter are all things the US forces did when fighting irregular forces and insurgencies in the Middle East to minimize civilian casualties, as well as that of their own forces. And that last point is important. Getting civilians out of there not only limits humanitarian damage, but it also offers tactical advantages for Israel. An empty city is a lot easier and safer to invade than a full one is.

I don't disagree with what you said. But we simply don't know if any of the measures you listed are possible and I have a hard time seeing for example Hamas complying with a unilateral ceasefire. Again, we can speculate about what should be done but if you listen any of the war veterans, they all say war is an absolute mess, chaos and mayhem. I just don't see how realistic these options are. Especially when fighting a terrorist organization like Hamas.

[Delthefunky]

^^ Especially urban warfare against a military willing to hide behind their own population

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Saqe

I don't disagree with what you said. But we simply don't know if any of the measures you listed are possible and I have a hard time seeing for example Hamas complying with a unilateral ceasefire. Again, we can speculate about what should be done but if you listen any of the war veterans, they all say war is an absolute mess, chaos and mayhem. I just don't see how realistic these options are. Especially when fighting a terrorist organization like Hamas.

I am also wondering if the extremely short timeline for civilians to evacuate was because Israel didn’t want to give Hamas time to relocate weapons. So many factors in play, and lots of moving parts that we have no idea about. It would be very interesting to be a fly on the wall of both Hamas and Israel strategy meetings.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I am also wondering if the extremely short timeline for civilians to evacuate was because Israel didn’t want to give Hamas time to relocate weapons. So many factors in play, and lots of moving parts that we have no idea about. It would be very interesting to be a fly on the wall of both Hamas and Israel strategy meetings.

I know we're totally armchair quarterbacking here. But it's the same with any resources sent to Gaza, the primary beneficiary will be Hamas. It helps them and they are in control, maybe even use any supplies sent as a coercion method against it's own people to make them stay in their homes and not leave the area. Maybe the whole idea of cutting off water, electricity and fuel was to force a mass evacuation so that Israel can go after Hamas and avoid more civilian casualties.