Israel declares war on Hamas

[WCW Nitro]

Horrible.

"Two Jewish schools in north London have been vandalised with red paint in what has been called “a disgraceful attempt to intimidate and harass” the community."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2430603.html

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Israel is asking for hospitals to be evacuated because their opponent isn't above using the occupants as human shields. This is urban guerilla warfare, traditional rules of war don't really apply.

If Palestinians civilians don't leave Gaza, I suspect they will be deemed combatants if/when the ground assault begins.

I don’t think I’ve noticed you on the forum before.

This post sure changed that.

[Delthefunky]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

It's weird that people are complaining about a double standard when it comes to how Israel wants to fight this war.

You're fighting a terrorist organization who use terrorism, and you want to get rid of those terrorists. Fair enough.

But you are arguing that it's ok to act like said terrorists just this once in response because that's the only way to do things here?

You're just going to come off that moral high ground for a bit, kill a bunch of people, and then jump back up there later on when you're done?

That seems ridiculous to me.

So let's say IFD is attacking Hamas, and they are using a child as a shield. IFD is expected to do their best not to harm the child. Could you even imagine IFD using a child as a shield? And what would Hamas do in that case? To IFD its a moral conundrum. To Hamas its a 2 for 1. That's the difference. Now imagine if Hamas has Israel's air force, and boming capability. Would they even hesitate to limit casualties? Of course not.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As far as I have seen, the border is closed to people. Egypt isn't going to let a million refugees in, and I don't blame them, this isn't really their problem. Israel could let them in and give them safety and aid, right? These are innocent non-combatants. Has Israel proposed this?

There has to be a DMZ or humanitarian corridor, and Israel has the biggest role to play in that. Thing is when your enemy is Hamas, do they respect and honor such things?? My opinion, would be not a chance in hell.

There is no cure for this except time and sustained peace. This latest conflict ensures another generation of Israelis/Palestinians have their hatred fueled.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

No one has said that. I posted a link that defines antisemitism and pointed out two passages from that website - that should be helpful for you to read and learn when and how I used the term.

If you disagree with that, please show why. Whatever you wrote is not relevant.

Israel was compared to Nazis (that is in the link) and Israel was not being judged the same as basically every other country (that is in the link). So instead of coming at me, read the definition and speak about that.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

So let's say IFD is attacking Hamas, and they are using a child as a shield. IFD is expected to do their best not to harm the child. Could you even imagine IFD using a child as a shield? And what would Hamas do in that case? To IFD its a moral conundrum. To Hamas its a 2 for 1. That's the difference. Now imagine if Hamas has Israel's air force, and boming capability. Would they even hesitate to limit casualties? Of course not.

I think the point he was making, is If we expect Israel to be better than the terrorists here (and I think most do); they do have to exercise better restraint than the terrorists.

Yes it sucks that they have to play by different rules, but that's what not being a terrorist requires.
If they decide to lower themselves to the standards of the terrorists, then the Western world will have to treat them that way too, label them a terrorist organization and freeze them out from sitting at the table with Western allies.

[Nage Waza]

Much of the world condemned Israel for decades while Israel was being attacked by rockets. Why should Israel actually believe something will be done this time?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Flacker

There has to be a DMZ or humanitarian corridor, and Israel has the biggest role to play in that. Thing is when your enemy is Hamas, do they respect and honor such things?? My opinion, would be not a chance in hell.

There is no cure for this except time and sustained peace. This latest conflict ensures another generation of Israelis/Palestinians have their hatred fueled.

What a ####ed up world. Hamas terrorists commit some of the worst atrocities against Jewish people we have seen in a generation and antisemitism explodes around the globe exponentially.

A Columbia University professor called the attacks amazing and wonderful.

Meanwhile Hamas has released the first video of a kidnapped 21 year old French-Israeli girl, Maya Sham.

[Sliver]

This is what you said:

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.

This is what I said:

Originally Posted by Sliver

Dude, everything isn't anti-Semitism. You can disagree with Israel's tactics and not be anti-Semitic. 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.

Then this is what you said:

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

No one has said that. I posted a link that defines antisemitism and pointed out two passages from that website - that should be helpful for you to read and learn when and how I used the term.

If you disagree with that, please show why. Whatever you wrote is not relevant.

Israel was compared to Nazis (that is in the link) and Israel was not being judged the same as basically every other country (that is in the link). So instead of coming at me, read the definition and speak about that.

I don't see a link in your post that I replied to. I objected to your non-stop use of the term anti-Semitic. How can I read your link when you didn't post one?

[FlamesAddiction]

Watching DW's live coverage, they just interviewed a woman from a Norwegian aid organization. It sounds like Israel wants everything inspected before it enters Gaza from Egypt to make sure the products going in are only for humanitarian aid. It doesn't sound like they want to take Egypt's word for it. Talks between Egypt and Israel have been fruitless about this apparently.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I think the point he was making, is If we expect Israel to be better than the terrorists here (and I think most do); they do have to exercise better restraint than the terrorists.

Yes it sucks that they have to play by different rules, but that's what not being a terrorist requires.
If they decide to lower themselves to the standards of the terrorists, then the Western world will have to treat them that way too, label them a terrorist organization and freeze them out from sitting at the table with Western allies.

Yes, but it's basically damned if you do, damned if you don't. So, Israel now has the following choice, either:

1-avoid all civilian causalities in Gaza- Unfortunately, Hamas is imbedded in the civilian infrastructure including hospitals and schools and it's part of their strategy to us these people as shields. Some would argue they want to use them as martyrs for their cause. This would likely result in Israel being in a complete defensive position where all they can try to do is repel additional attacks from Hamas. But of course, some of their neighbors, being what they are, will likely take advantage of this passive approach and also attack Israel. This will lead to the death of Israel civilians and likely the destruction of Israel.

2-defend themselves- This will mean Gazan civilian deaths. If they go this route one would hope that they would minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. But how possible is that when their enemy wants their own (and Israelis civilians) to die in this conflict.

On a few occasions, Pepsi has asked what is the right number of civilian casualties. That question is impossible to answer. But I would suggest that wiping out Hamas now will probably prevent more civilian casualties in the future. I hope that they somehow manage to get the civilians out of Gaza but that's not an easy task either as Hamas shields themselves with civilians, even if they're refugees.

Civilians are going to die in large numbers one way or another. It's a sad, somber reality that is inescapable. The same is unfortunately true in any war: bombing of London, bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki are a few dark examples. War is hell, but make no mistake, this is what Hamas wanted.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This is what you said:



This is what I said:



Then this is what you said:



I don't see a link in your post that I replied to. I objected to your non-stop use of the term anti-Semitic. How can I read your link when you didn't post one?

It was stated where it made sense. Not over and over, where appropriate. Raising awareness in this thread on what hate looks like is a good thing to do. I think you raged on the wrong person.

And if you read more than my post, you would have seen Nazi mentioned and obvious double standards. Please read what the meaning of antisemitism is before you respond and attack me for stating the obvious.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Saqe

This is a total non-sequitur. What does international law have to do with current military operations on the ground and the actions of Israel right now? You may say that Israel should be held to that standard but it tells us nothing about their reasons behind their decisions.

It has everything to do with them. It always does.

Originally Posted by Saqe

Are you serious? The only thing that both parties of the conflict have both confirmed is the terror attack on Israel. It should be obvious that this actually happened. And generally when opposite sides of the party both confirm something it has a better chance of being true.

You’re the one who has made a complex set of rules that determine who we can trust about what, excluding as many people and organizations as possible. It’s obvious that a lot of things have happened, but your position is that nobody here can know those things and no organizations on the ground that aren’t military can know those things, not even the people who it’s happening to. Are you serious?

Originally Posted by Saqe

You can judge them if you want, I don't care. It's super easy to criticize everything that people do. But what is your solution? Israel should just sit back and say, "hey Hamas, no biggie, just keep doing what you are doing"? They have to get rid of Hamas. And yes it's an huge humanitarian catastrophe. It's a war and war is brutal. I'm not sure what your expectation is.

My expectation is that they follow international law in general and specifically international humanitarian law, which is quite literally the expectation of every participant in armed conflict.

Why do you believe the options are either to disregard and/or outright violate international humanitarian law and do nothing? Why is any criticism or judgement under the terms of those expectations synonymous with the suggestion that they shouldn’t be doing anything at all?

Originally Posted by Saqe

That Hamas is using hospitals as cover? I don't. But then what you're saying is that Israel is targeting purely civilian targets without any other reason than killing civilians. Which wouldn't serve any purpose if the goal is to kill Hamas. Also by evacuating north Gaza it's something they have tried not to do, or at least minimize casualties. So my assumption is that they aren't doing it just for kicks.

Or, what I’m saying is that Israel is disregarding civilian lives in a way violates their duty to do so in pursuit of Hamas. That evacuating a hospital, which you call “minimizing casualties” and the WHO calls “a death sentence” for those civilians requiring the care of that hospital, will be extremely hard to justify based on the military outcome it achieves.

We know that Israel indiscriminately bombs entire areas. We know that the UN has cited instances of Israel targeting or indiscriminately bombing civilians. We know that Israel has engaged in collective punishment. We know that, among other things, Israel has shown a disregard for Palestinian civilians in the days, weeks, months, and years leading up to this specific period of conflict. History has taught us that… but you’re saying it’s impossible to believe that they’re doing it again… despite people on the ground saying otherwise.

I don’t get it.

[WCW Nitro]

I see some talk about what can Israel do or that it has no choice but to kill many civilians in the process. So my question, is what should the Palestinians in the West Bank to repel illegal settlements being built there? Would it theoretically be ok for them to launch rockets knowing civilians may be killed? Or is just Israel that has a right to get angry and kill civilians?

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I see some talk about what can Israel do or that it has no choice but to kill many civilians in the process. So my question, is what should the Palestinians in the West Bank to repel illegal settlements being built there? Would it theoretically be ok for them to launch rockets knowing civilians may be killed? Or is just Israel that has a right to get angry and kill civilians?

Sorry, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you suggesting it's either okay for everybody to kill civilians or nobody to kill civilians?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The rules, or laws, around war always apply.

Well, to be clear, they apply where a country has agreed to be bound by them at least. And Israel is not a member of the ICC and has traditionally refused to entertain any investigations of war crimes under that body.

So the "laws" in question, which are really just international agreements, don't really apply in any real sense. What we're talking about here is applying the moral standards of what constitutes a war crime according to the nations that ARE bound by those rules to judge whether Israel's actions are morally wrong.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with doing that, because you have to apply SOME moral standard to conduct. If someone commits a rape, and the country that happens in is one in which that act is instead defined as the victim having instead committed the "crime" of adultery, we don't say "well, our sexual assault laws don't apply there, therefore she wasn't really sexually assaulted".

EDIT: I should say that Israel has ratified the Geneva Convention (1949) and has adopted other international standards of conduct that might be applicable, so it really depends what specific things we're talking about as to whether Israel is "bound" by them.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

What a ####ed up world. Hamas terrorists commit some of the worst atrocities against Jewish people we have seen in a generation and antisemitism explodes around the globe exponentially.

A Columbia University professor called the attacks amazing and wonderful.

Meanwhile Hamas has released the first video of a kidnapped 21 year old French-Israeli girl, Maya Sham.

I agree, just to clarify you didn't think I'm an anti-Semite right?

I support Israel, I also have sympathy for the innocents of Gaza.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Interesting, I see in the list of examples they give I can nod along to all of them, but this one seems odd:

"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."

I'm not really sure how pointing out someone's priorities like that is antisemitic.

It's not pointing out someone's priorities. It's assuming someone's priorities simply because they're Jewish. Same as assuming a Japanese-Canadian during WWII had loyalty to the empire, simply because of their race.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Sorry, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you suggesting it's either okay for everybody to kill civilians or nobody to kill civilians?

I am saying there are some people who are even justifying food and water being blocked to civilians but would consider rockets being fired in response to illegal settlements as unacceptable.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

It was stated where it made sense. Not over and over, where appropriate. Raising awareness in this thread on what hate looks like is a good thing to do. I think you raged on the wrong person.

And if you read more than my post, you would have seen Nazi mentioned and obvious double standards. Please read what the meaning of antisemitism is before you respond and attack me for stating the obvious.

Sorry, I still have no idea what you're talking about. You quoted me about not reading your link. You hadn't linked anything.

I was calling out the non-stop charges of labelling too many things anti-Semitic and I stand by it.

There was no rage.