Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Politesse]

Your constant criticism of Israel, your barely audible mutterings about Hamas tell us very clearly that you have taken sides as noted earlier.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it more true. Post proof of my "support of Hamas", or retract your false statement about me.

If you are very vocal about a particular sins of a "side" e.g. Israel yet barely mentioned the sins of the other then that tells us whom you care more about.

Wow, just piling it on, aren't you? No, I haven't, and no it doesn't, anyway. It does reflect my bias in the sense that I don't think the US should be involved in another nation's conflicts to begin with, and we're only backing one of the warring parties. Also, MSF is an organization I have a longstanding relationship with and care deeply about. Those are biases, yes, but they do not by any wild stretch of the imagination constitute an endorsement of Hamas, an organization which also, famously, treats civilians and aid workers as legitimate targets of violence.

If your constantly say we should sanction Israel (as an example) yet have nothing to say what could be done against Hamas then you tell us whom you care most about.

I did not in fact say that, nor do I think we should "sanction" Israel, unless you consider refusing to bankroll genocidal actions a "sanction".

The famous quote ""The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"" also applies to Hamas, not just Israel.

The famous aphorism, perhaps. It is not really a quote. But I do agree with it, which is why I am not quiet about my objections to genocide, nor idle in tending to the needs of its survivors such as I can in my role.

If nothing is done about Hamas it will triumph. The only ones doing something about Hamas are the Israelis.

Israel's "solution" has accomplished nothing. It's not even a solution, anymore than a gasoline/petrol canister is a solution to wildfires. The only party that has "solved" anything here in the sense of bringing a conflict to some sort of resolution have been President Biden and President Trump, respectively, and the diplomatic pressure of the Gulf kingdoms that have wisely (unlike the US) refused to just straightfowardly endorse one of the militant groups.

You, the UN, have done nothing about stopping Hamas except clucth your pearls, swoon and wring your hands.

I am not the UN, nor do they have a blank check from me much though I admire that organization when it is at its best. The UN is the UN, and they have a long and complicated history of attempted interventions in Israel/Palestine over several decades. Some good, some bad.

That, in this case, is next to useless.

So is blowing children to pieces and then killing the doctors who arrive to try and stitch them back together. Neither children nor aid workers are "Hamas", and random terrorist acts inflame rather than soothing tensions, as Hamas itself has decisively proven in this conflict.

Nice attempt at a derail, but I'd still like for you to apologize for lying about what I said or believe, now that you have tried and failed to find any evidence of your claims about me.

 

[ZiprHead]

How many are under the rubble? You're taking Hamas' word for it on that. Somehow there are 10,000--and the count doesn't change. That makes no sense--as time goes on the death count of any mass calamity drops as duplicates are resolved. We saw the same thing with the twin towers--10,000 missing, but it actually turned out to be about 2,500. It's a Hamas fabrication, just like basically everything else they say. Most things were evacuated before the bombs fell, there's little reason to think there's any great number in the rubble.

Who said 10,000? Sources I've posted here say Hamas does not count the missing as dead.

Hamas keeps claiming 10,000 buried in the rubble. I do not find it credible that this number has not changed appreciably over time.

Please provide a source for that 10,000. Frankly that sounds low to me.

 

[bilby]

Killing in war generally isn't unlawful.

Yes it is. Killing enemy combatants, when the Rules of Engagement permit it, isn't unlawful, but killing anyone else most certainly is.

You can't lawfully kill civillians, reporters, or even combatants who are on your own side. Even enemy combatants cannot be lawfully killed if your RoE and/or lawful
orders prohibit their killing in the given circumstances - for example if they are hors de combat.

Yet again your oversimplification renders your position laughably wrong.

 

[bilby]

Globally, you're right.

I know.

But in the context, yes, the terms are meaningful.

No, they aren't.

And to assert that they are is contradicting your own previous sentence.

Your entire thesis is arse-backwards; You start with a conclusion that is based in absurdity "Israel are the good guys", and rationalise any and all observations to fit that conclusion.

That's how religion does "knowledge", and epistemologists are fully aware that it is popular, satisfying, desirable, and wrong.

You have literally decided in advance to know nothing. And to celebrate your own ignorance as supreme virtue. You might as well be a creationist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm sorry. You're not getting a free pass on this. Especially not at a time when the world suddenly turned antisemitic on a dime. That was not the time and place to try to wiggle out of moral responsibility.

A genocide apologist is lecturing me on morality? There's a joke in there, but i doubt anyone would care to laugh.

You're the one who have been criticising Israel, the only side in the conflict trying to stop genocide.

The accusations against Israel for genocide was always just bullshit. You know that, right?

If there ever was a time to take a stand and support the victims... this was it. And you failed in that. You supported the perpetrators.

I will always support the victims, not the perpetrators, of unjust wars. Often in very direct and material ways. I don't suppose you actually do anything for the refugees of the wars you support so casually? I do, and I assure you, human suffering does not occur only on one "side" of any war. Most people don't have a "side" when war begins, but it erases their life just the same. Most victims of war are children, who will never be given a chance to live a normal life at all as a result.

Sure. Most victims of war are innocent. And your point is?

There was no side you could have picked in this conflict that wouldn't have led to suffering. Pretending their was is moral cowardice IMHO.

Which is why, unlike you, I didn't pick a side. Genocide is not a sport, Israel and Palestine aren't teams, and if war is a game, the only way to win it is not to play. This war could have been stopped in its tracks a half dozen times over the last several decades, and it should have been. Would have been, if outside powers weren't leaning on the buttons, including my own nation.

You most certainly picked a side.

Yes, this war could have been stopped. It's just that Palestinians seem unwilling to live in peace with Jews. What is the Israeli govornment supposed to do about that?

Israel has been on the brink of destruction since it's founding. All of it's Muslim neighbours constantly looking for ways to take it down and destroy it. You are aware of this?

I'm very disapointed over the weak morals of many on this forum displayed when it came to this conflict. I thought better of this place.

It's a free country. You're free to abandon morality. But when you do, you will be judged for it.

My moral position is not absent, ambiguous or in dispute. I oppose any intentional warmongering or ethnoreligious violence in the strongest terms, and I am happy to be judged by that metric.

In the geopolitical context we live in, pacifism is just another way to say that might makes right. In practice it means a willing submission to whoever is the most aggressive and violent. Peace is acheived by a capacity and willingness to fight but making the choice to de-escalate when possible. Aggressive powers will attack anyone who shows weakness.

That's what I think about your moral position. Due to the world we live in now, pacificism isn't just amoral, it's immoral IMHO.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Palestinians do not have the ability for stable self rule.

That is one of the most vile statements of casual and thoughtless racism it has ever been my misfortune to see.

It doesn't have to be racism. It can also just be an observation about the social realities of Gaza at the moment. There can be cultural factors not linked to race, to make Steve's statement true right now.

Exactly. This isn't about race. It's about culture and about the utterly ruthless manipulation by the puppetmasters that are funding the mess.

Really, it's this.
Unfortunately for the Palestinians in general, and the Gazans in a particular, they are being used as cannon fodder/human shields.

Violent Muslim supremacists are the real problem. No amount of blaming Zionists is going to help.
Tom

If "violent Muslim supremacists" are the real problem, slaughtering thousands of innocent people who aren't "violent Muslism supremacists" is not going to help solve the problem. In fact, I am not seeing any evidence whatseover that slaughtering thousands of people who are "violent Muslim supremacists" is helpful.

Have you noticed how the most powerful nations in the world keep losing wars to ragtag bands of angry religious extremists? You really think it's because their main strategy of killing lots of people was sound, they just didn't kill enough? Next time, they'll be able to kill enough bad guys and peace will reign? How is losing war after bloody war to extremist pseudo-Muslim militias supposed to make anyone safer?

It led to the latest ceasefire and the return of the last hostages. So clearly Israels actions worked out for them.

What Israel proved to Hamas is that Hamas can't use civilians as human shields as a deterrent. That's a powerful message. Hopefully this is the first and last time a combatant ever tries to use that tactic.

If Hamas now loses power in Gaza it'll be another strong message against employing that tactic, as well as doing attacks on Israel taretting civilians. We mustn't condone attacks on civilians in war. It's an unacceptable behaviour. And we must hold Hamas responsible for this behaviour.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But what he was referring to is how much the left supports one of the viler organization on Earth. Why do you bend over backwards to avoid blaming them for what they have done??

You mean the part where he told a bold-faced lie about my position and refuses to recant it? I am not "the Left", my name is Politesse and I have a clearly stated position on Gaza, which is not that.

I think Loren is right about you

 

[DrZoidberg]

How many are under the rubble? You're taking Hamas' word for it on that. Somehow there are 10,000--and the count doesn't change. That makes no sense--as time goes on the death count of any mass calamity drops as duplicates are resolved. We saw the same thing with the twin towers--10,000 missing, but it actually turned out to be about 2,500. It's a Hamas fabrication, just like basically everything else they say. Most things were evacuated before the bombs fell, there's little reason to think there's any great number in the rubble.

Who said 10,000? Sources I've posted here say Hamas does not count the missing as dead.

Hamas keeps claiming 10,000 buried in the rubble. I do not find it credible that this number has not changed appreciably over time.

Don't forget the famine that just seems to never materialise.

 

[Politesse]

What Israel proved to Hamas is that Hamas can't use civilians as human shields as a deterrent. That's a powerful message. Hopefully this is the first and last time a combatant ever tries to use that tactic.

If you believe that, you're a child.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What Israel proved to Hamas is that Hamas can't use civilians as human shields as a deterrent. That's a powerful message. Hopefully this is the first and last time a combatant ever tries to use that tactic.

If you believe that, you're a child.

Ok. Please explain to me why I am wrong

 

[Politesse]

What Israel proved to Hamas is that Hamas can't use civilians as human shields as a deterrent. That's a powerful message. Hopefully this is the first and last time a combatant ever tries to use that tactic.

If you believe that, you're a child.

Ok. Please explain to me why I am wrong

Because in the real world, when an industrial state takes a blanket approach of leveling entire neighborhoods with 10 to 1 casualties, it generally starts new guerilla resistance movements, it certainly does not end them. No, Hamas is not going to stop using "civilian" neighborhoods, a term which has little meaning in Gaza as it now exists anyway. What are you even thinking, that from now on, Hamas, having "learned its lesson" will now exclusively conduct its operations from clearly defined Evil Lairs conveniently perched outside of town with a big flag syaing "Spare the children, bomb here instead"?

 

[ZiprHead]

Hamas Addresses Public Executions, Whether It Will Disarm Amid Peace Deal | iHeart

Hamas addressed public executions in Gaza and whether it will disarm amid its peace deal with Israel. | iHeart

www.iheart.com

Basically, nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

 

[Derec]

Is it difficult to constantly misspell The Guardian or does your autocorrect now anticipate it?

"Grauniad" is a deliberate misspelling that has been around forever.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Is it difficult to constantly misspell The Guardian or does your autocorrect now anticipate it?

"Grauniad" is a deliberate misspelling that has been around forever.

That may be true but it doesn’t address my question. It is still a misspelling that must be purposefully done. Perhaps you are saying that it is so common that it is as trivial to misspell the word as it is to spell it correctly. If that’s the case then I guess I concede the point.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What Israel proved to Hamas is that Hamas can't use civilians as human shields as a deterrent. That's a powerful message. Hopefully this is the first and last time a combatant ever tries to use that tactic.

If you believe that, you're a child.

Ok. Please explain to me why I am wrong

Because in the real world, when an industrial state takes a blanket approach of leveling entire neighborhoods with 10 to 1 casualties, it generally starts new guerilla resistance movements, it certainly does not end them. No, Hamas is not going to stop using "civilian" neighborhoods, a term which has little meaning in Gaza as it now exists anyway. What are you even thinking, that from now on, Hamas, having "learned its lesson" will now exclusively conduct its operations from clearly defined Evil Lairs conveniently perched outside of town with a big flag syaing "Spare the children, bomb here instead"?

I don't know how to reply to this. You seem to be living in a fairytale world.

If a combatant uses their own population as human shields and uses civilian urban centres as military bases the 10 to 1 ratio is pretty predictable.

The Geneva convention stipulates that combatants need to identify as such or they're breaking international law. You're free to call war zones "evil lairs". But, yes, the point is to protect children and other civilians from getting hurt.

I think its sad that you don't understand the world that we live in. The Geneva Convention came to be after all the atrocities after WW2. That’s not a world we want to go back to. Hamas (and other Islamists) are trying to.

Please don't create incentives for the the uncivilised part of humanity to turn the clock back to the world prior to the Geneva Convention.

So yes, we want all combatants to stick to fighting in "evil lairs" because that's what we agreed to in the Geneva Convention. And they're great rules to stick to, since it minimises civilian casualties.

 

[Politesse]

What Israel proved to Hamas is that Hamas can't use civilians as human shields as a deterrent. That's a powerful message. Hopefully this is the first and last time a combatant ever tries to use that tactic.

If you believe that, you're a child.

Ok. Please explain to me why I am wrong

Because in the real world, when an industrial state takes a blanket approach of leveling entire neighborhoods with 10 to 1 casualties, it generally starts new guerilla resistance movements, it certainly does not end them. No, Hamas is not going to stop using "civilian" neighborhoods, a term which has little meaning in Gaza as it now exists anyway. What are you even thinking, that from now on, Hamas, having "learned its lesson" will now exclusively conduct its operations from clearly defined Evil Lairs conveniently perched outside of town with a big flag syaing "Spare the children, bomb here instead"?

I don't know how to reply to this. You seem to be living in a fairytale world.

If a combatant uses their own population as human shields and uses civilian urban centres as military bases the 10 to 1 ratio is pretty predictable.

The Geneva convention stipulates that combatants need to identify as such or they're breaking international law. You're free to call war zones "evil lairs". But, yes, the point is to protect children and other civilians from getting hurt.

I think its sad that you don't understand the world that we live in. The Geneva Convention came to be after all the atrocities after WW2. That’s not a world we want to go back to. Hamas (and other Islamists) are trying to.

Please don't create incentives for the the uncivilised part of humanity to turn the clock back to the world prior to the Geneva Convention.

So yes, we want all combatants to stick to fighting in "evil lairs" because that's what we agreed to in the Geneva Convention. And they're great rules to stick to, since it minimises civilian casualties.

So you support the wanton mass slaying of civilians, children, and medics, as long it is in defense of the Geneva Convention, which forbid the killing of civilians, children and medics.

I'm glad I'm not smoking whatever you're smoking.

 

[TSwizzle]

Gaza’s media office has accused Israel of violating the ceasefire with Hamas 47 times since the truce came into effect in early October, killing 38 Palestinians and wounding another 143. “These violations have included crimes of direct gunfire against civilians, deliberate shelling and targeting, and the arrest of a number of civilians, reflecting the occupation’s continued policy of aggression despite the declared end of the war,” reads the statement.

Teh Gruaniad

They really will publish any old rubbish.