Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[TomC]

Israel has no agency?

Israel has no better options for protecting itself against Gaza. At least that's how I'd phrase it.
Tom

 

[DrZoidberg]

The degree of barbarity in the Hammas attack, and the behaviour of Hammas, I think, gives Israel a free pass to not be so concerned about civilians.

Under international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, all parties to a conflict are obligated to distinguish between military objectives and civilians at all times, and to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian harm. By law they do not have a "free pass to not be so concerned about civilians". Bruh, it doesn't take a superior understanding (something I've claimed to have only in your fantasy) to see it.

While I agree with you on this what you fail to see is that Israel's behavior is consistent with international law.

You take what precautions you can but you're not obligated to pass on military targets because there are civilians in the area.

Hamas is trying their damndest to make it as hard as possible for the IDF to tell combatants apart from Palestinian civilians. Their fighters most often wear civilian clothing. And they use hospitals as military staging posts, to guarantee civilian casualities if they’re attacked.

I'd argue that unless Hamas makes it possible for the IDF to distinguish between fighters and civilians, then Hamas holds full responsibility for civilian casualities. Remember, Hamas started all this 7/10. Israel didn't.

If someone says that Israel can't attack unless they guarantee no civilian casualities then Hamas' despicable tactics are rewarded. That is NOT a good precedent. Fuck Hamas for doing this to the Palestinian people. It's only OK to be a martyr for a cause if it's a cause you have chosen. It's disgusting how Hamas is forcing so many Palestinians to become martyrs for their pointless cause.

So you would agree that the civilian deaths are justified collateral damage in the IDF’s war against Hamas, yes?

No, I don't.

I think Hamas are the ones who should be held accountable for the civilian deaths.

Hamas provoked a retaliation and are now hiding behind civilians. So they are to blame.

I understand your point as to blame. But I’m not addressing blame. It seems you agree that the level of response the IDF has taken is justified and that the collateral damage is as expected whoever we “blame” for it.

If Israel were to simply carpet bomb or nuke Gaza, ensuring that 100% of Hamas and Gazans were killed, would that be a justified response and we could simply blame Hamas for the carnage?

I’m not saying Israel shouldn’t respond but clearly there’s a line and we are negotiating that line.

They're not doing that. They're being as careful as they can without putting their troops at unnecessary risk

If you agree that Israel should respond, and you don't think they're doing a good job, then how do you think they should go about it? Crawl through tunnels Hamas have been booby-trapping for 20 years?

 

[Shadowy Man]

The degree of barbarity in the Hammas attack, and the behaviour of Hammas, I think, gives Israel a free pass to not be so concerned about civilians.

Under international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, all parties to a conflict are obligated to distinguish between military objectives and civilians at all times, and to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian harm. By law they do not have a "free pass to not be so concerned about civilians". Bruh, it doesn't take a superior understanding (something I've claimed to have only in your fantasy) to see it.

While I agree with you on this what you fail to see is that Israel's behavior is consistent with international law.

You take what precautions you can but you're not obligated to pass on military targets because there are civilians in the area.

Hamas is trying their damndest to make it as hard as possible for the IDF to tell combatants apart from Palestinian civilians. Their fighters most often wear civilian clothing. And they use hospitals as military staging posts, to guarantee civilian casualities if they’re attacked.

I'd argue that unless Hamas makes it possible for the IDF to distinguish between fighters and civilians, then Hamas holds full responsibility for civilian casualities. Remember, Hamas started all this 7/10. Israel didn't.

If someone says that Israel can't attack unless they guarantee no civilian casualities then Hamas' despicable tactics are rewarded. That is NOT a good precedent. Fuck Hamas for doing this to the Palestinian people. It's only OK to be a martyr for a cause if it's a cause you have chosen. It's disgusting how Hamas is forcing so many Palestinians to become martyrs for their pointless cause.

So you would agree that the civilian deaths are justified collateral damage in the IDF’s war against Hamas, yes?

No, I don't.

I think Hamas are the ones who should be held accountable for the civilian deaths.

Hamas provoked a retaliation and are now hiding behind civilians. So they are to blame.

I understand your point as to blame. But I’m not addressing blame. It seems you agree that the level of response the IDF has taken is justified and that the collateral damage is as expected whoever we “blame” for it.

If Israel were to simply carpet bomb or nuke Gaza, ensuring that 100% of Hamas and Gazans were killed, would that be a justified response and we could simply blame Hamas for the carnage?

I’m not saying Israel shouldn’t respond but clearly there’s a line and we are negotiating that line.

They're not doing that. They're being as careful as they can without putting their troops at unnecessary risk

So, if they are being as careful as they can then the level of civilian deaths is to be expected and inline with the legitimate level of response. You agree that the collateral damage is a justified result of the IDF response to the terrorist attack, yes?

Is it hard to agree with this? You seem to be dancing around outright saying that the civilian casualties are an acceptable result.

If you agree that Israel should respond, and you don't think they're doing a good job, then how do you think they should go about it? Crawl through tunnels Hamas have been booby-trapping for 20 years?

One, I didn’t say they weren’t doing a good job, did I? Two, why would the opinion of some rando like me with no expertise in warfare, politics or diplomacy matter in this conversation? How should I know what the best way to go about the response would be? I hardly can know what resources the IDF has available now do I? I don’t know the options or opinions involved.

I would assume that the people leading the country and its armies would be best suited to know how to respond. Maybe what they are doing is the best way? Who am I to say differently?

The supporters here, like you, seem to think what they are doing is ok and all I want to know is if that’s true then don’t you agree that the level of collateral damage is a justified result of their response?

 

[Tigers!]

I’m not saying Israel shouldn’t respond but clearly there’s a line and we are negotiating that line.

This is where I fail to understand.
Many here say Israel is allowed to respond and defend itself but as soon as they do the cry goes up "Genocide", "war crimes", "disproportionate response" etc. etc..
What can Israel to defend itself and bring down Hamas that will not cause such cries?

 

[Tigers!]

Israel has no agency?

Israel has no better options for protecting itself against Gaza Hamas. At least that's how I'd phrase it.
Tom

FIFY to avoid the accusation of blaming the wrong people otherwise good.

 

[Tigers!]

I would assume that the people leading the country and its armies would be best suited to know how to respond. Maybe what they are doing is the best way? Who am I to say differently?

But you (and others) are saying differently. All the time.

The supporters here, like you, seem to think what they are doing is ok and all I want to know is if that’s true then don’t you agree that the level of collateral damage is a justified result of their response?

I am not saying the collateral damage is considered acceptable. Unfortunately unavoidable.

 

[laughing dog]

I’m not saying Israel shouldn’t respond but clearly there’s a line and we are negotiating that line.

This is where I fail to understand.
Many here say Israel is allowed to respond and defend itself but as soon as they do the cry goes up "Genocide", "war crimes", "disproportionate response" etc. etc..
What can Israel to defend itself and bring down Hamas that will not cause such cries?

War crimes are not a necessary outcome of war. If Israel is committing war crimes, then they are doing war wrong.
So cries of "war crime" may be driven by the perception of an actual war crime being committed. For example, when the IDF executed 3 suspected wounded terrorists in a hospital while they were being treated - that was an actual war crime.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What can Israel to defend itself and bring down Hamas that will not cause such cries?

I’m no expert so I don’t know. But it’s possible there is something that they could do. Or is it that what they are doing is the only, or perhaps the “least bad”, option.

I’m assuming you would agree that nuking Gaza into glass would be bad, yes? And Israel turning the other cheek doesn’t seem like a good idea either. So somewhere in the middle there’s a solution.

To many, the Gazan civilian death toll seems disproportionately high. I don’t know what the right number is. Collateral damage is an unfortunate aspect of war. But many here who support Israel are giving the impression that the current death toll is acceptable, where “acceptable” means not worthy of them questioning the approach of the IDF.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I would assume that the people leading the country and its armies would be best suited to know how to respond. Maybe what they are doing is the best way? Who am I to say differently?

But you (and others) are saying differently. All the time.

what did I say they should be doing differently?

Maybe I did. My thoughts have been evolving on this. I do think they have the right to respond and should. Clearly the atrocities that Hamas committed shouldn’t go unanswered. And I feel for all those whose family members were abducted.

That doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree that the current approach is the best or that the civilian death toll isn’t too much.

 

[Arctish]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Is it to defeat Hamas militarily and get a peace treaty with the PA? Is it to install a quisling government that will comply with Israel's wishes? Is it to clear the way for Zionist settlers? Is it to forever destroy any chance the Palestinians might have the strength and ability to form a Palestinian State in Palestine?

Does Israel simply want to kill as many Gazans as it can, while it can?

 

[TomC]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Security for Israel.

This isn't difficult.
Tom

 

[Tigers!]

What can Israel to defend itself and bring down Hamas that will not cause such cries?

I’m no expert so I don’t know. But it’s possible there is something that they could do. Or is it that what they are doing is the only, or perhaps the “least bad”, option.

I’m assuming you would agree that nuking Gaza into glass would be bad, yes? And Israel turning the other cheek doesn’t seem like a good idea either. So somewhere in the middle there’s a solution.

To many, the Gazan civilian death toll seems disproportionately high. I don’t know what the right number is. Collateral damage is an unfortunate aspect of war. But many here who support Israel are giving the impression that the current death toll is acceptable, where “acceptable” means not worthy of them questioning the approach of the IDF.

I do not assume that the IDF is blameless bur neither do i wish to accuse them of things they have not done or "the fog of war" was a factor

 

[Tigers!]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Is it to defeat Hamas militarily and get a peace treaty with the PA? Is it to install a quisling government that will comply with Israel's wishes? Is it to clear the way for Zionist settlers? Is it to forever destroy any chance the Palestinians might have the strength and ability to form a Palestinian State in Palestine?

Does Israel simply want to kill as many Gazans as it can, while it can?

Whilst you are asking such existential questions you could ask what is Hamas' goal in Israel? Total destruction of Israel, death or exile of all Jews, 2 state solution.? Something else?

 

[ZiprHead]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Security for Israel.

This isn't difficult.
Tom

Simple answers are usually wrong answers.

 

[Arctish]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Security for Israel.

This isn't difficult.
Tom

Okay.

So how does killing tens of thousands of civilians and creating hundreds of thousands more Palestinian refugees make Israel more secure?

Do you honestly think Gazans will be less radicalized following Israel's current killing spree than they were when Israel was only killing a few hundred Gazans each year?

 

[Tigers!]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Security for Israel.

This isn't difficult.
Tom

Okay.

So how does killing tens of thousands of civilians and creating hundreds of thousands more Palestinian refugees make Israel more secure?

So how does killing > 1000 people and taking > 200 hostages make Israel more likely to leave Gaza to its own destiny?

Do you honestly think Gazans will be less radicalized following Israel's current killing spree than they were when Israel was only killing a few hundred Gazans each year?

Or perhaps you could ask the question-
Do you honestly feel Israel is more secure and believe that Gaza can be left to it's own destiny after the 7th October killing spree?

The answer to that question (or any variants thereof) will help answer your question.

Both questions need to be answered yet you persist in only asking and demanding an answer to the 1st question and ignore the 2nd.

 

[Arctish]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Is it to defeat Hamas militarily and get a peace treaty with the PA? Is it to install a quisling government that will comply with Israel's wishes? Is it to clear the way for Zionist settlers? Is it to forever destroy any chance the Palestinians might have the strength and ability to form a Palestinian State in Palestine?

Does Israel simply want to kill as many Gazans as it can, while it can?

Whilst you are asking such existential questions you could ask what is Hamas' goal in Israel? Total destruction of Israel, death or exile of all Jews, 2 state solution.? Something else?

According to their Charter (linked earlier in this thread) their goal is the end of the Zionist state and the creation of a single Palestinian State. The Charter says their fight is not with the Jews, it is with the Zionists. Jewish Palestinians would be full and equal citizens in the Palestinian State, and immigrants could apply for legal resident status.

You can take that with a very large grain of salt. The ideals expressed in the Charter don't necessarily conform with the opinions of Hamas' leadership, much less the rank-and-file militants.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We already know Hamas is lying about the numbers of civilian dead.

Evidence-free assertion.

Their numbers are internally inconsistent.

 

[Tigers!]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Is it to defeat Hamas militarily and get a peace treaty with the PA? Is it to install a quisling government that will comply with Israel's wishes? Is it to clear the way for Zionist settlers? Is it to forever destroy any chance the Palestinians might have the strength and ability to form a Palestinian State in Palestine?

Does Israel simply want to kill as many Gazans as it can, while it can?

Whilst you are asking such existential questions you could ask what is Hamas' goal in Israel? Total destruction of Israel, death or exile of all Jews, 2 state solution.? Something else?

According to their Charter (linked earlier in this thread) their goal is the end of the Zionist state and the creation of a single Palestinian State. The Charter says their fight is not with the Jews, it is with the Zionists. Jewish Palestinians would be full and equal citizens in the Palestinian State, and immigrants could apply for legal resident status.

What is the difference between a Zionist and a Jew who wishes to live in Israel? And remember it is Hamas'opinion that really counts, not yours nor mine.
Hamas would not expend so much blood nor treasure if their goal was just a single Palestinian state where all could live in peace.

You can take that with a very large grain of salt. The ideals expressed in the Charter don't necessarily conform with the opinions of Hamas' leadership, much less the rank-and-file militants.

Since Hamas's leadership would have endorsed that charter before publishing I think we can take it very seriously. No salt required.

Hamas are like Bin Laden - they are deadly seriously about what they say and many find that frightening. In the west we are so used to the feckless nature of our government's, politicians and other institutions etc. that it is unnerving to meet those who mean what they say and say what they mean.

 

[Tigers!]

You can take that with a very large grain of salt. The ideals expressed in the Charter don't necessarily conform with the opinions of Hamas' leadership, much less the rank-and-file militants.

If the Charter was not written by the rank-and-file and does not conform with the opinions of the leadership then who wrote it, accepted it and published it?