Israel declares war on Hamas

[FlamesAddiction]

Brussels is currently under lockdown and their terror alert level was set to the highest level after a terrorist killed 3 people and is still on the loose.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67129117

They haven't said for sure if it is linked to this conflict, but going by the details in the story and the timing, it sounds pretty likely.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Bagor

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


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

The BBC also had to walk back their statements from a previous broadcast where they stated that pro-Palestinian marches were, "pro-Hamas".

I have no idea, but sometimes I wonder if media are doing these things on purpose, that is, push out a slant knowingly, while also knowing they will and can walk it back later if called out on it. They look good correcting themselves after the fact, but still achieve the goal of pushing it out initially to frame the story the way they wish.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1713968039580881215

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Flacker

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.

No not at all. And agree.

[GKDarts]

Apologies if already posted earlier somewhere in this thread, Sam Harris,...14 minutes that is a very worthwhile listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6VCF_csmDg

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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.

FWIW, the ICC does have jurisdiction in Palestine, which covers anything done by Palestine and by other nations acting within those borders, which includes Israel when it comes to Gaza, the West Bank, etc.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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

This is super vague and totally beside the point. You are saying humanitarian organizations, like the Red Cross, know something about the whereabouts of Hamas that subsequently lead to targeting certain buildings or areas. And they can evaluate whether Hamas is actually present in a target. There was a total breakdown by Mossad that led to the initial terror attack, even they didn't know what Hamas was up to. THEY are trying figure out where Hamas is. I really doubt Red Cross has some inside info.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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?

Again, I don't think you can trust either side to be unbiased about what's happening on the ground right now. Unless they both say the same thing, like on the terror attack, then it's probably true. Like how do you know that Hamas isn't putting out a ton interviews as propaganda where people under their control are made to make up stories about what's going on. I would absolutely expect that to happen. Assuming that these interviews are credible seems like a low bar for accurate information.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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?

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.

You seem to be doing a lot of hand waving without offering any solution. Should Israelis lower their weapons and go home to wait for another Hamas attack? What if the only way to get rid of Hamas is to accept civilian casualties in the process because they are being used as human shields? Just repeating that international law can't be broken isn't a solution.

And by the way Hamas doesn't give #### about humanitarian law and neither does any other terrorist organization. And I don't think anyone is expecting that in an armed conflict.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

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.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing.
They're in an impossible position. I said earlier in the thread, I can't think of any other war where one side was responsible for the citizens of both sides, while the enemy couldn't care less about either.

I do expect them to exercise whatever caution possible, but admit it's difficult to define what that it.
Allowing in aid seems like an obvious start and bare minimum expectation though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

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.

I think most agree here that this is exactly what Hamas wanted, even if Israel has no choice but to respond.

But then it makes you wonder why the hell Iran, as the biggest supporter of Hamas isn't being crippled to no end in order to prevent things from getting to this point.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Saqe

This is super vague and totally beside the point. You are saying humanitarian organizations, like the Red Cross, know something about the whereabouts of Hamas that subsequently lead to targeting certain buildings or areas. And they can evaluate whether Hamas is actually present in a target. There was a total breakdown by Mossad that led to the initial terror attack, even they didn't know what Hamas was up to. THEY are trying figure out where Hamas is. I really doubt Red Cross has some inside info.

You should either start reading what I’m actually saying, or stop reading it and then deciding I’m saying something I didn’t say, because it’s annoying, pointless, and makes me less inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt every time you do it. Beside the point that none of what I said has anything to do with Red Cross having inside info on Hamas, if you’re saying Israel doesn’t even know where they are and are still levelling entire areas of the city… that would be indiscriminate bombing.

Originally Posted by Saqe

Again, I don't think you can trust either side to be unbiased about what's happening on the ground right now. Unless they both say the same thing, like on the terror attack, then it's probably true. Like how do you know that Hamas isn't putting out a ton interviews as propaganda where people under their control are made to make up stories about what's going on. I would absolutely expect that to happen. Assuming that these interviews are credible seems like a low bar for accurate information.

How do you know Israel isn’t? Because you don’t expect it to happen? The world very obviously does not operate on your expectations, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that nobody in this thread should either.

We know that water, electricity, fuel, and food is cut off because both sides have said it. We know that Israel has been bombing the entry point for aid because both sides have said it. We know that Israel has destroyed hundreds of civilian buildings because both sides have said it. Etc. Etc.

Originally Posted by Saqe

You seem to be doing a lot of hand waving without offering any solution. Should Israelis lower their weapons and go home to wait for another Hamas attack? What if the only way to get rid of Hamas is to accept civilian casualties in the process because they are being used as human shields? Just repeating that international law can't be broken isn't a solution.

Sorry for not solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on this message board. My bad.

I’ve asked it before, so I’ll ask you: if the only way is to accept civilian casualties, how many would you accept if you were in charge? Put a number on it. And do you trust the military to only

And yes, reminding people of international law is part of a solution, because international law also covers using people as human shields and who is ultimately responsible for when those civilians die (it’s the people who used them). But that doesn’t mean you flatten an apartment building, killing 100 because there was a member of Hamas in there.

Perhaps you can use your imagination and figure out what a middle ground between “commit all the war crimes you want” and “lay down your weapons and go home” looks like. I’m sure you can come up with something.

Originally Posted by Saqe

And by the way Hamas doesn't give #### about humanitarian law and neither does any other terrorist organization. And I don't think anyone is expecting that in an armed conflict.

No doubt. Anyone arguing any different?

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

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.

This notion of Israel having only bad choices presupposes that it has not been the aggressor. Like has been mentioned many times, the Palestinians in the West Bank who did lay down their weapons got rewarded with illegal settlements. Israel is not offering war or peace, they are offering be quiet about settlements/blockades or war.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

FWIW, the ICC does have jurisdiction in Palestine, which covers anything done by Palestine and by other nations acting within those borders, which includes Israel when it comes to Gaza, the West Bank, etc.

Well, Palestine says so, but it has obvious incentive to want that to be the case. The ICC says so, but obviously it wants its jurisdiction to extend as broadly as possible. Israel says no, and it has an arguable case, and doesn't submit to the ICC's jurisdiction. So... yeah. It's really not that simple.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

This notion of Israel having only bad choices presupposes that it has not been the aggressor. Like has been mentioned many times, the Palestinians in the West Bank who did lay down their weapons got rewarded with illegal settlements. Israel is not offering war or peace, they are offering be quiet about settlements/blockades or war.

And Israel, in exchange for removing settlements, received nothing but violence and war from Gaza. What's their incentive to expose major population centers, like Tel Aviv, to a group that states any concession will be temporary and lead to more war.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by blankall

And Israel, in exchange for removing settlements, received nothing but violence and war from Gaza. What's their incentive to expose major population centers, like Tel Aviv, to a group that states any concession will be temporary and lead to more war.

As Human Rights Watch pointed out, Israel was till acting like an occupying power after it "withdrew" by controlling the water, airspace, and restrictions on goods.

[afc wimbledon]

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?

There is nothing Palestinians can do to repel illegal settlements, zero, nada, zilch, butka's, neither the PA Fatah or Hamas have any ability to stop Israel doing anything, if they want to fire some rockets or shoot some random Jews they can but all that will do is get thousands more Palestinian's killed and lose more land, there is no pathway to anything that Palestinians want, would settle for or would recognise as self determination, Palestine's lot is to accept defeat, live with what is left and hope maybe as we in Canada tend to feel guilt about our theft of native land in the end Israel will feel the same way about arab land

[blankall]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

As Human Rights Watch pointed out, Israel was till acting like an occupying power after it "withdrew" by controlling the water, airspace, and restrictions on goods.

This only occurred after Hamas was elected and began a campaign of rockets and militant attacks.

Listen, I get where you are getting with this, but the argument is pretty cyclical. The Israelis don't do X, because the Palestinians and/or Hamas do X, and vice versa.

The peace process failed. Right or wrong, the Israelis point of view was that they made a major concession and were rewarded with Hamas. To expect the Israelis to make future major concession would involve a great deal of trust. There is no trust right now.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You should either start reading what I’m actually saying, or stop reading it and then deciding I’m saying something I didn’t say, because it’s annoying, pointless, and makes me less inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt every time you do it. Beside the point that none of what I said has anything to do with Red Cross having inside info on Hamas, if you’re saying Israel doesn’t even know where they are and are still levelling entire areas of the city… that would be indiscriminate bombing.



How do you know Israel isn’t? Because you don’t expect it to happen? The world very obviously does not operate on your expectations, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that nobody in this thread should either.

We know that water, electricity, fuel, and food is cut off because both sides have said it. We know that Israel has been bombing the entry point for aid because both sides have said it. We know that Israel has destroyed hundreds of civilian buildings because both sides have said it. Etc. Etc.



Sorry for not solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on this message board. My bad.

I’ve asked it before, so I’ll ask you: if the only way is to accept civilian casualties, how many would you accept if you were in charge? Put a number on it. And do you trust the military to only

And yes, reminding people of international law is part of a solution, because international law also covers using people as human shields and who is ultimately responsible for when those civilians die (it’s the people who used them). But that doesn’t mean you flatten an apartment building, killing 100 because there was a member of Hamas in there.

Perhaps you can use your imagination and figure out what a middle ground between “commit all the war crimes you want” and “lay down your weapons and go home” looks like. I’m sure you can come up with something.



No doubt. Anyone arguing any different?

Wow. I'm not sure why you wasted time on writing that. You're not even replying to same issues.

But again, you obviously have no idea what should be done. And since you're the one demanding that international law has to be held, I was hoping you would be the one with an idea how much it can be bent (like it always is) or can it be broken and how much (which probably happens too). Or if Hamas can't be eradicated without breaking international law, then what? I don't know what the solution is so I'm very hesitant to make absolute claims about anything.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There is nothing Palestinians can do to repel illegal settlements, zero, nada, zilch, butka's, neither the PA Fatah or Hamas have any ability to stop Israel doing anything, if they want to fire some rockets or shoot some random Jews they can but all that will do is get thousands more Palestinian's killed and lose more land, there is no pathway to anything that Palestinians want, would settle for or would recognise as self determination, Palestine's lot is to accept defeat, live with what is left and hope maybe as we in Canada tend to feel guilt about our theft of native land in the end Israel will feel the same way about arab land

The attacks only encourage more settlements. As has been explained, the settlements are populated largely be religious fanatics. The vast majority of Israelis, including the large amounts of Hasidic Jews, don't have any desire to live in most settlements. The settlements are tolerated as they are seen as a form of security.

When the peace process breaks down, the settlements become a buffer between the rockets and major centres like Tel Aviv. They become a way to gather intelligence from militant groups in the West Bank.

It's really a chicken and egg thing. The settler population, which started out as a few Jewish people moving back into places they'd been evicted from in 1949, began to vastly accelarte in the late 1980s, afer armed resistance from the Palestinians occured.

Acting like armed resistance has deterred settlement isn't factual and is disengenous.

[Yoho]

I agree with these Coyne comments on this.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1714071117504114863

https://twitter.com/user/status/1714074231799984336

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by blankall

This only occurred after Hamas was elected and began a campaign of rockets and militant attacks.

Listen, I get where you are getting with this, but the argument is pretty cyclical. The Israelis don't do X, because the Palestinians and/or Hamas do X, and vice versa.

The peace process failed. Right or wrong, the Israelis point of view was that they made a major concession and were rewarded with Hamas. To expect the Israelis to make future major concession would involve a great deal of trust. There is no trust right now.

It was also before Hamas was elected, but you're right this whole thing can be but the other side did this ad infinitum. My personal view is that if we just focus on the present, Israel has done some really bad things lately that is making the situation worse.and since it has the guns and the money, I think it can try to improve the situation instead of just making the fire larger.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

It was also before Hamas was elected, but you're right this whole thing can be but the other side did this ad infinitum. My personal view is that if we just focus on the present, Israel has done some really bad things lately that is making the situation worse.and since it has the guns and the money, I think it can try to improve the situation instead of just making the fire larger.

If you assume Israel is the bad guy looking to steal Arab land then why would they want to improve things?

There are two sides here, neither appears to want to improve things but only one gets to win, I can see why Israel does what it does, it's winning, the part I dont understand is why the Palestinians do what they do, they have been slowly losing their land as a result of Israel's inevitable reaction to Arab attacks since 1949 and yet no one in the West Bank or Gaza seems to ever realise that the rest of the Arab world won't help them, that the US will never alter it's support of Israel and their only pathway is to stop fighting.

Palestinians have sacrificed most of their land and 80 years of history in order to allow various Sunni and Shia dictators to say to their people that they care about the faith while never losing or risking a thing, at some point one would hope Palestinians would realise their Arab 'allies' don't give a tinkers about them