Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

If the police response is reasonable and they aren't simply killing everyone in the vicinity of the suspect, then yes, the rapist who engaged with police in a shootout bears responsibility for the deaths of innocent bystanders.

But if we're talking about something like the 1985 bombing of a row house where people suspected of parole violations, contempt of court, and illegal possession of weapons were living with their family members and got into a shootout with the police when their house was raided with extreme force, then the police bear responsibility as well due to their massively destructive, over-the-top, kill-'em-all tactics.

Let's look at that more carefully.

The police blasting their way in in a standoff isn't exactly that unusual. Where that incident went way different is that because of the standoff they couldn't fight the fire. (And what burned in the first place? Explosives rarely start fires unless they hit fuel and what would fuel be doing on the roof?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The irony of conflating killing innocent civilians with morally correct action.

In my view, it is insane to
1) give Hamas what they want - dead and maimed Palestinian civilians, and
2) feel that Israel had one and only one possible response.

But my views really don't matter because there are enough people directly involved in the conflict who think killing more civilians will bring peace to ensure that destruction and death persist for decades.

And, once again, we come back to the fundamental problem of criticizing the action on the faith that there must be a better answer.

And if you look under that streetlight hard enough you'll find your keys. Didn't find them? Your fault, you didn't look hard enough.

 

[lpetrich]

Are Israeli civilians human shields because IDF soldiers live among them? Is Tel Aviv a human-shield city because the headquarters of the IDF is in it? That's the sort of arguments that Israel apologists are making about Hamas and Gazans.

If the Israel-Hezbollah war becomes much hotter, Hezbollah might eventually decide to attack Tel Aviv. If Hezbollah apologists then claimed that those attacks are justified because the city is a human-shield city because of IDF HDQ being there, would anyone take them seriously?

 

[laughing dog]

The irony of conflating killing innocent civilians with morally correct action.

In my view, it is insane to
1) give Hamas what they want - dead and maimed Palestinian civilians, and
2) feel that Israel had one and only one possible response.

But my views really don't matter because there are enough people directly involved in the conflict who think killing more civilians will bring peace to ensure that destruction and death persist for decades.

And, once again, we come back to the fundamental problem of criticizing the action on the faith that there must be a better answer.

And if you look under that streetlight hard enough you'll find your keys. Didn't find them? Your fault, you didn't look hard enough.

Abstracting from the ultimate irony of this coming from the kneejerk Israel apologia chorus, I don't know which is more tedious - the idiotic streetlight analogy or the complete lack of imagination it takes to endorse the "kill'em all" approach.

 

[Arctish]

Fundamentally, most of you are saying that Israel can defend itself but only if it does so perfectly. That's never going to happen, thus the de facto result is you say Israel should die.

No.

I don't expect perfection. I expect rules of engagement designed to protect the soldiers without committing mass murder of unarmed civilians, and without the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Considering that Israel is already far better than anyone else at this

Where is the analysis that indicates Israel is better at 'this' than anyone else?

(and despite fighting an enemy that is actively seeking to cause civilian casualties) you are demanding the impossible.

Your absurd excluded middle fallacy demands we choose which civilian population is to be slaughtered, and nevermind that most people here say "civilians shouldn't be slaughtered, wtf kind of question is that???"

Your "middle" is no civilians dead--but that's not going to happen. Either Israel fights and Palestinian civilians die or Israel doesn't fight and Israeli civilians die.

Bullshit.

I have repeatedly said I do expect civilian casualties in this war. If you can't be bothered to read what I write, don't pretend you are responding to it.

What about that cartoon? What's the solution? In refusing to answer it you are actually supporting Hamas.

Which cartoon? Also, was there a question asked of me that I refused to answer? When did that happen?

If refusing to answer a question means I support Hamas, then your refusal to support your claims must mean you worship Hitler. There's really no middle ground there. [/sarcasm]

View attachment 46430

While it's obviously a cartoon and they're not literally strapping babies to themselves it's a realistic depiction of what's happening--Hamas is acting to maximize civilian casualties to get the world to make Israel stop shooting.

What is your answer for when someone's trying to kill you while hiding behind civilians?

My response is: that's what snipers are for. If you can't get a clean shot right away, then you patiently wait until the hostage taker makes a mistake and you seize the opportunity to get the hostage back safely.

There are many possible ways to eliminate a threat hiding behind a hostage. Shooting through the hostage in order to kill the hostage-taker, or killing everything that moves in the area where you suspect the hostage taker might be hiding, are two possibilities, neither of which are acceptable if you value the life of the hostage.

The three shirtless and barefoot Israeli hostages who were shot as they attempted to surrender to the IDF should not be dead. Yes, Hamas bears responsibility for their deaths by kidnapping them and taking them to Gaza. But the IDF also bears responsibility for not allowing them to surrender, despite how cooperative and non-threatening they were.

Those men were murdered by the IDF. It appears the reason is because the IDF policy was to kill every adult male they encountered, even the ones who were incapable of fighting and/or surrendering. IMO that is unacceptable.

 

[Arctish]

If the police response is reasonable and they aren't simply killing everyone in the vicinity of the suspect, then yes, the rapist who engaged with police in a shootout bears responsibility for the deaths of innocent bystanders.

But if we're talking about something like the 1985 bombing of a row house where people suspected of parole violations, contempt of court, and illegal possession of weapons were living with their family members and got into a shootout with the police when their house was raided with extreme force, then the police bear responsibility as well due to their massively destructive, over-the-top, kill-'em-all tactics.

Let's look at that more carefully.

The police blasting their way in in a standoff isn't exactly that unusual. Where that incident went way different is that because of the standoff they couldn't fight the fire. (And what burned in the first place? Explosives rarely start fires unless they hit fuel and what would fuel be doing on the roof?

Yes, let's look at that more carefully.

Let me know when you have finished reading the Wikipedia entry. Obviously you haven't done it yet, because if you had, you would know the answer to your questions.

Also, where that incident went wrong was the decision to bomb the row house, knowing there were children and adults who were not suspected of any crime inside. It was excessive force, as subsequent investigations have determined.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fundamentally, most of you are saying that Israel can defend itself but only if it does so perfectly. That's never going to happen, thus the de facto result is you say Israel should die.

No.

I don't expect perfection. I expect rules of engagement designed to protect the soldiers without committing mass murder of unarmed civilians, and without the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Considering that Israel is already far better than anyone else at this

Where is the analysis that indicates Israel is better at 'this' than anyone else?

You ignored it before.

Urban combat without evacuation--the good guys typically kill about 9 civilians per combatant. Even with very pessimistic numbers Israel doesn't reach 2.

(and despite fighting an enemy that is actively seeking to cause civilian casualties) you are demanding the impossible.

Your absurd excluded middle fallacy demands we choose which civilian population is to be slaughtered, and nevermind that most people here say "civilians shouldn't be slaughtered, wtf kind of question is that???"

Your "middle" is no civilians dead--but that's not going to happen. Either Israel fights and Palestinian civilians die or Israel doesn't fight and Israeli civilians die.

Bullshit.

I have repeatedly said I do expect civilian casualties in this war. If you can't be bothered to read what I write, don't pretend you are responding to it.

You say this, but you always say it's too many.

What about that cartoon? What's the solution? In refusing to answer it you are actually supporting Hamas.

Which cartoon? Also, was there a question asked of me that I refused to answer? When did that happen?

If refusing to answer a question means I support Hamas, then your refusal to support your claims must mean you worship Hitler. There's really no middle ground there. [/sarcasm]

View attachment 46430

While it's obviously a cartoon and they're not literally strapping babies to themselves it's a realistic depiction of what's happening--Hamas is acting to maximize civilian casualties to get the world to make Israel stop shooting.

What is your answer for when someone's trying to kill you while hiding behind civilians?

My response is: that's what snipers are for. If you can't get a clean shot right away, then you patiently wait until the hostage taker makes a mistake and you seize the opportunity to get the hostage back safely.

There are many possible ways to eliminate a threat hiding behind a hostage. Shooting through the hostage in order to kill the hostage-taker, or killing everything that moves in the area where you suspect the hostage taker might be hiding, are two possibilities, neither of which are acceptable if you value the life of the hostage.

The three shirtless and barefoot Israeli hostages who were shot as they attempted to surrender to the IDF should not be dead. Yes, Hamas bears responsibility for their deaths by kidnapping them and taking them to Gaza. But the IDF also bears responsibility for not allowing them to surrender, despite how cooperative and non-threatening they were.

Those men were murdered by the IDF. It appears the reason is because the IDF policy was to kill every adult male they encountered, even the ones who were incapable of fighting and/or surrendering. IMO that is unacceptable.

In a standoff a sniper is a possibility. Not in a dynamic battle.

As for the three dead hostages--what you are ignoring is that fake surrenders are a routine thing in that battle. One real one was missed in a sea of fake ones.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the police response is reasonable and they aren't simply killing everyone in the vicinity of the suspect, then yes, the rapist who engaged with police in a shootout bears responsibility for the deaths of innocent bystanders.

But if we're talking about something like the 1985 bombing of a row house where people suspected of parole violations, contempt of court, and illegal possession of weapons were living with their family members and got into a shootout with the police when their house was raided with extreme force, then the police bear responsibility as well due to their massively destructive, over-the-top, kill-'em-all tactics.

Let's look at that more carefully.

The police blasting their way in in a standoff isn't exactly that unusual. Where that incident went way different is that because of the standoff they couldn't fight the fire. (And what burned in the first place? Explosives rarely start fires unless they hit fuel and what would fuel be doing on the roof?

Yes, let's look at that more carefully.

Let me know when you have finished reading the Wikipedia entry. Obviously you haven't done it yet, because if you had, you would know the answer to your questions.

Also, where that incident went wrong was the decision to bomb the row house, knowing there were children and adults who were not suspected of any crime inside. It was excessive force, as subsequent investigations have determined.

Of course they say excessive force--have to have someone to blame.

The reality is there is no good solution to long term standoff with hostages situations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A few things of interest in today's news:

BBC: UN says Israel blocked an aid truck

Israel Gaza war: UN aid convoy 'denied entry to north'

Unicef spokesman James Elder says severely malnourished children will not get the supplies they need.

www.bbc.com

COGAT, setting the record straight:


Think it through--lied about it. Thus a setup from the start. The UN sent a truck they knew would be blocked.

As for humanitarian conditions:
Another one of the polls that keep being ignored:

Press Release: Public Opinion Poll No (92) | PCPSR

www.pcpsr.org

Strangely, the Israeli occupation has made a big jump in the number of people that have enough food for a day or two.

 

[Arctish]

Fundamentally, most of you are saying that Israel can defend itself but only if it does so perfectly. That's never going to happen, thus the de facto result is you say Israel should die.

No.

I don't expect perfection. I expect rules of engagement designed to protect the soldiers without committing mass murder of unarmed civilians, and without the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Considering that Israel is already far better than anyone else at this

Where is the analysis that indicates Israel is better at 'this' than anyone else?

You ignored it before.

Bullshit.

That is exactly the kind of support for your claims that I have been asking you to supply, and exactly the kind of weak ass attempt to dodge my request you typically employ.

I am very interested in seeing an analysis of the IDF's policies in the current conflict and how it compares to the operations of other military forces in similar conflicts. If you posted one before, it should be very easy for you to find it and re-post it now.

If someone missed a link, post it again. I do it for you all the time. So do others. The least you can do is return the courtesy.

Urban combat without evacuation--the good guys typically kill about 9 civilians per combatant. Even with very pessimistic numbers Israel doesn't reach 2.

(and despite fighting an enemy that is actively seeking to cause civilian casualties) you are demanding the impossible.

Your absurd excluded middle fallacy demands we choose which civilian population is to be slaughtered, and nevermind that most people here say "civilians shouldn't be slaughtered, wtf kind of question is that???"

Your "middle" is no civilians dead--but that's not going to happen. Either Israel fights and Palestinian civilians die or Israel doesn't fight and Israeli civilians die.

Bullshit.

I have repeatedly said I do expect civilian casualties in this war. If you can't be bothered to read what I write, don't pretend you are responding to it.

You say this, but you always say it's too many.

What about that cartoon? What's the solution? In refusing to answer it you are actually supporting Hamas.

Which cartoon? Also, was there a question asked of me that I refused to answer? When did that happen?

If refusing to answer a question means I support Hamas, then your refusal to support your claims must mean you worship Hitler. There's really no middle ground there. [/sarcasm]

View attachment 46430

While it's obviously a cartoon and they're not literally strapping babies to themselves it's a realistic depiction of what's happening--Hamas is acting to maximize civilian casualties to get the world to make Israel stop shooting.

What is your answer for when someone's trying to kill you while hiding behind civilians?

My response is: that's what snipers are for. If you can't get a clean shot right away, then you patiently wait until the hostage taker makes a mistake and you seize the opportunity to get the hostage back safely.

There are many possible ways to eliminate a threat hiding behind a hostage. Shooting through the hostage in order to kill the hostage-taker, or killing everything that moves in the area where you suspect the hostage taker might be hiding, are two possibilities, neither of which are acceptable if you value the life of the hostage.

The three shirtless and barefoot Israeli hostages who were shot as they attempted to surrender to the IDF should not be dead. Yes, Hamas bears responsibility for their deaths by kidnapping them and taking them to Gaza. But the IDF also bears responsibility for not allowing them to surrender, despite how cooperative and non-threatening they were.

Those men were murdered by the IDF. It appears the reason is because the IDF policy was to kill every adult male they encountered, even the ones who were incapable of fighting and/or surrendering. IMO that is unacceptable.

In a standoff a sniper is a possibility. Not in a dynamic battle.

As for the three dead hostages--what you are ignoring is that fake surrenders are a routine thing in that battle. One real one was missed in a sea of fake ones.

Is there evidence of a sea of fake surrenders in Gaza since October of last year, or did you just make that up?

Fake surrenders should lead to soldiers following safety protocols when taking prisoners, not to them simply killing people who appear to be trying to surrender.

You appear to believe the IDF routinely commits war crimes. Do you really believe that, or are you just reflexively bullshitting without giving much thought to what you're claiming IDF soldiers are told to do when they encounter people who have their hands up and appear to be unarmed?

 

[Arctish]

If the police response is reasonable and they aren't simply killing everyone in the vicinity of the suspect, then yes, the rapist who engaged with police in a shootout bears responsibility for the deaths of innocent bystanders.

But if we're talking about something like the 1985 bombing of a row house where people suspected of parole violations, contempt of court, and illegal possession of weapons were living with their family members and got into a shootout with the police when their house was raided with extreme force, then the police bear responsibility as well due to their massively destructive, over-the-top, kill-'em-all tactics.

Let's look at that more carefully.

The police blasting their way in in a standoff isn't exactly that unusual. Where that incident went way different is that because of the standoff they couldn't fight the fire. (And what burned in the first place? Explosives rarely start fires unless they hit fuel and what would fuel be doing on the roof?

Yes, let's look at that more carefully.

Let me know when you have finished reading the Wikipedia entry. Obviously you haven't done it yet, because if you had, you would know the answer to your questions.

Also, where that incident went wrong was the decision to bomb the row house, knowing there were children and adults who were not suspected of any crime inside. It was excessive force, as subsequent investigations have determined.

Of course they say excessive force--have to have someone to blame.

The reality is there is no good solution to long term standoff with hostages situations.

So you didn't read the article and don't remember the incident well enough to know why dropping a bomb on the house was excessive. You have no interest in the reality of the situation even though you want to tell me and others what it was.

Get back to me when you've read up on what actually happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where is the analysis that indicates Israel is better at 'this' than anyone else?

You ignored it before.

Bullshit.

That is exactly the kind of support for your claims that I have been asking you to supply, and exactly the kind of weak ass attempt to dodge my request you typically employ.

I am very interested in seeing an analysis of the IDF's policies in the current conflict and how it compares to the operations of other military forces in similar conflicts. If you posted one before, it should be very easy for you to find it and re-post it now.

If someone missed a link, post it again. I do it for you all the time. So do others. The least you can do is return the courtesy.

This isn't about policies. Think Israel is disclosing that sort of thing?!

Just look at the results. The last numbers I've seen are Israel claiming 15,000 combatants dead, Hamas claiming 36,000 dead, the Ministry of Health claiming 20,000 dead and accounted for. I find the difference between Hamas and the MoH very relevant--looks like the MoH data is meant to be an accounting of the civilians. That gives 20,000:15,000 = 1.33:1. History says 9:1.

And note that 4k of those MoH entries have been found to be garbage. Take them out and it's more likely 1.07:1

Is there evidence of a sea of fake surrenders in Gaza since October of last year, or did you just make that up?

Fake surrenders should lead to soldiers following safety protocols when taking prisoners, not to them simply killing people who appear to be trying to surrender.

You appear to believe the IDF routinely commits war crimes. Do you really believe that, or are you just reflexively bullshitting without giving much thought to what you're claiming IDF soldiers are told to do when they encounter people who have their hands up and appear to be unarmed?

As usual, it's something so common as to not be newsworthy and the search results are severely cluttered. However:

IDF takes no action against soldiers who killed Gaza hostages

IDF sources suggested that once the war was over it was possible that disciplinary or other action might theoretically be taken against some of the soldiers involved.

www.jpost.com

Further, given the many fake surrender traps Hamas has set throughout the war, including using Hebrew, white flags, and actual children’s items seized by Hamas in Israel on October 7, Halevi and other commanders seem to be willing to recognize the subjective sense of danger felt by the soldiers involved as valid enough to avoid immediate punishment.

Controversially, the first soldier who opened fire has admitted that he did see the white flag, but still felt it was a trap and that he was in danger.

Read between the lines. The fact that action hasn't been taken (at least as of the article date) clearly shows that Israeli command understands that surrender flags are probably a trap.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the police response is reasonable and they aren't simply killing everyone in the vicinity of the suspect, then yes, the rapist who engaged with police in a shootout bears responsibility for the deaths of innocent bystanders.

But if we're talking about something like the 1985 bombing of a row house where people suspected of parole violations, contempt of court, and illegal possession of weapons were living with their family members and got into a shootout with the police when their house was raided with extreme force, then the police bear responsibility as well due to their massively destructive, over-the-top, kill-'em-all tactics.

Let's look at that more carefully.

The police blasting their way in in a standoff isn't exactly that unusual. Where that incident went way different is that because of the standoff they couldn't fight the fire. (And what burned in the first place? Explosives rarely start fires unless they hit fuel and what would fuel be doing on the roof?

Yes, let's look at that more carefully.

Let me know when you have finished reading the Wikipedia entry. Obviously you haven't done it yet, because if you had, you would know the answer to your questions.

Also, where that incident went wrong was the decision to bomb the row house, knowing there were children and adults who were not suspected of any crime inside. It was excessive force, as subsequent investigations have determined.

Of course they say excessive force--have to have someone to blame.

The reality is there is no good solution to long term standoff with hostages situations.

So you didn't read the article and don't remember the incident well enough to know why dropping a bomb on the house was excessive. You have no interest in the reality of the situation even though you want to tell me and others what it was.

Get back to me when you've read up on what actually happened.

It turned out badly, somebody had to be to blame.

You haven't presented any alternative other than to permit the standoff to continue--which will end up with a near certain serious harm to the children. These things rarely end peacefully.

 

[Arctish]

Where is the analysis that indicates Israel is better at 'this' than anyone else?

You ignored it before.

Bullshit.

That is exactly the kind of support for your claims that I have been asking you to supply, and exactly the kind of weak ass attempt to dodge my request you typically employ.

I am very interested in seeing an analysis of the IDF's policies in the current conflict and how it compares to the operations of other military forces in similar conflicts. If you posted one before, it should be very easy for you to find it and re-post it now.

If someone missed a link, post it again. I do it for you all the time. So do others. The least you can do is return the courtesy.

This isn't about policies. Think Israel is disclosing that sort of thing?!

Just look at the results. The last numbers I've seen are Israel claiming 15,000 combatants dead, Hamas claiming 36,000 dead, the Ministry of Health claiming 20,000 dead and accounted for. I find the difference between Hamas and the MoH very relevant--looks like the MoH data is meant to be an accounting of the civilians. That gives 20,000:15,000 = 1.33:1. History says 9:1.

And note that 4k of those MoH entries have been found to be garbage. Take them out and it's more likely 1.07:1

So you don't have a source that backs up your claim, all you have is your own guesswork. You used a question mark and exclamation point to indicate incredulity at the suggestion that Israel would let people know what its policies are, and then went straight into doing the math to figure out what its policies are. And then you capped it off with claiming thousands of Ministry of Health entries have been found to be garbage without linking to any sort of documentation that supports your assertion.

Where is the analysis I supposedly ignored? I'd rather read what it says and look into the professional reputation of the authors than read more of your guesswork.

Is there evidence of a sea of fake surrenders in Gaza since October of last year, or did you just make that up?

Fake surrenders should lead to soldiers following safety protocols when taking prisoners, not to them simply killing people who appear to be trying to surrender.

You appear to believe the IDF routinely commits war crimes. Do you really believe that, or are you just reflexively bullshitting without giving much thought to what you're claiming IDF soldiers are told to do when they encounter people who have their hands up and appear to be unarmed?

As usual, it's something so common as to not be newsworthy and the search results are severely cluttered. However:

IDF takes no action against soldiers who killed Gaza hostages

IDF sources suggested that once the war was over it was possible that disciplinary or other action might theoretically be taken against some of the soldiers involved.

www.jpost.com

Further, given the many fake surrender traps Hamas has set throughout the war, including using Hebrew, white flags, and actual children’s items seized by Hamas in Israel on October 7, Halevi and other commanders seem to be willing to recognize the subjective sense of danger felt by the soldiers involved as valid enough to avoid immediate punishment.

Controversially, the first soldier who opened fire has admitted that he did see the white flag, but still felt it was a trap and that he was in danger.

Read between the lines. The fact that action hasn't been taken (at least as of the article date) clearly shows that Israeli command understands that surrender flags are probably a trap.

Why not read the actual lines?

In publishing the results of its final probe into the issue, the IDF said that despite the soldiers clearly violating the rules of engagement – by firing on persons who presented no immediate danger and were waving a white flag – the enormous complexity of the circumstances led to no immediate punishment.

IDF says the soldiers "clearly violated the rules of engagement".

The decision to not discipline the soldiers does not surprise me. Neither does you inability to admit the rules of engagement do not allow soldiers to shoot people who appear to be surrendering, or that it's a war crime even when Israelis do it.

 

[Arctish]

If the police response is reasonable and they aren't simply killing everyone in the vicinity of the suspect, then yes, the rapist who engaged with police in a shootout bears responsibility for the deaths of innocent bystanders.

But if we're talking about something like the 1985 bombing of a row house where people suspected of parole violations, contempt of court, and illegal possession of weapons were living with their family members and got into a shootout with the police when their house was raided with extreme force, then the police bear responsibility as well due to their massively destructive, over-the-top, kill-'em-all tactics.

Let's look at that more carefully.

The police blasting their way in in a standoff isn't exactly that unusual. Where that incident went way different is that because of the standoff they couldn't fight the fire. (And what burned in the first place? Explosives rarely start fires unless they hit fuel and what would fuel be doing on the roof?

Yes, let's look at that more carefully.

Let me know when you have finished reading the Wikipedia entry. Obviously you haven't done it yet, because if you had, you would know the answer to your questions.

Also, where that incident went wrong was the decision to bomb the row house, knowing there were children and adults who were not suspected of any crime inside. It was excessive force, as subsequent investigations have determined.

Of course they say excessive force--have to have someone to blame.

The reality is there is no good solution to long term standoff with hostages situations.

So you didn't read the article and don't remember the incident well enough to know why dropping a bomb on the house was excessive. You have no interest in the reality of the situation even though you want to tell me and others what it was.

Get back to me when you've read up on what actually happened.

It turned out badly, somebody had to be to blame.

You haven't presented any alternative other than to permit the standoff to continue--which will end up with a near certain serious harm to the children. These things rarely end peacefully.

Read the article, Loren.

Then we'll talk about it.

 

[Tigers!]

Are Israeli civilians human shields because IDF soldiers live among them?

Israeli civilians choose to live amongst their soldiers. The hostages did not choose to exist in Gaza.

Is Tel Aviv a human-shield city because the headquarters of the IDF is in it? That's the sort of arguments that Israel apologists are making about Hamas and Gazans.

Hamas has no regard for human shields. In fact they create them. The IDF has some regard for the safety of human shields (though not enough). It does not create human shields.

If the Israel-Hezbollah war becomes much hotter, Hezbollah might eventually decide to attack Tel Aviv. If Hezbollah apologists then claimed that those attacks are justified because the city is a human-shield city because of IDF HDQ being there, would anyone take them seriously?

Its Hezbollah. Of course not.

 

[lpetrich]

If the Israel-Hezbollah war becomes much hotter, Hezbollah might eventually decide to attack Tel Aviv. If Hezbollah apologists then claimed that those attacks are justified because the city is a human-shield city because of IDF HDQ being there, would anyone take them seriously?

Its Hezbollah. Of course not.

Because it's Hezbollah? That's not a good argument.

 

[Tigers!]

If the Israel-Hezbollah war becomes much hotter, Hezbollah might eventually decide to attack Tel Aviv. If Hezbollah apologists then claimed that those attacks are justified because the city is a human-shield city because of IDF HDQ being there, would anyone take them seriously?

Its Hezbollah. Of course not.

Because it's Hezbollah? That's not a good argument.

Just responding a comment of yours in post 4963.

 

[Tigers!]

What is your answer for when someone's trying to kill you while hiding behind civilians?

My response is: that's what snipers are for. If you can't get a clean shot right away, then you patiently wait until the hostage taker makes a mistake and you seize the opportunity to get the hostage back safely.

There are many possible ways to eliminate a threat hiding behind a hostage. Shooting through the hostage in order to kill the hostage-taker, or killing everything that moves in the area where you suspect the hostage taker might be hiding, are two possibilities, neither of which are acceptable if you value the life of the hostage.

How long would an Israeli sniper stay undiscovered or alive in the crowded confines of Gaza?

Sounds such a splendid idea when safe in the confines or your office or home typing at a keyboard but absolutely impossible in the real world of Gaza/Israel.

 

[Arctish]

What is your answer for when someone's trying to kill you while hiding behind civilians?

My response is: that's what snipers are for. If you can't get a clean shot right away, then you patiently wait until the hostage taker makes a mistake and you seize the opportunity to get the hostage back safely.

There are many possible ways to eliminate a threat hiding behind a hostage. Shooting through the hostage in order to kill the hostage-taker, or killing everything that moves in the area where you suspect the hostage taker might be hiding, are two possibilities, neither of which are acceptable if you value the life of the hostage.

How long would an Israeli sniper stay undiscovered or alive in the crowded confines of Gaza?

Sounds such a splendid idea when safe in the confines or your office or home typing at a keyboard but absolutely impossible in the real world of Gaza/Israel.

The reason I brought up the book Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War is because the raid to free hostages in Gaza last week brought it to mind. Over 200 Somalis were killed and more than 700 wounded in the Battle of Mogadishu as the American forces first raided a meeting of Mohammed Farah Aidid's lieutenants and then fought to get themselves and their wounded comrades to safety.

The book illustrates what I think you're getting at, that it's impossible to avoid civilian casualties when a firefight breaks out in a crowded area. Hell, just looking at all the gun violence in America illustrates the same point. Bullets go flying in all directions, including through walls, when people hyped up on adrenaline start shooting.

But my point stands: shooting through a hostage in order to kill the hostage-taker, or killing everything that moves in the area where you suspect the hostage taker might be hiding, are two possible ways to eliminate the threat the hostage taker poses. Neither option is acceptable if you value the life of the hostage or want to avoid killing innocents.

It seems to me there is a double standard being employed here, where people are arguing in favor of an approach that kills tens of thousands of civilians while at the same time are expressing horror at the thought of tens of thousands of civilians being killed in the exact same way and for the exact same reason, the difference being the race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation of the people being killed.

I believe in judging actions by one single standard regardless of those factors. If the thought of a Jewish grandmother being killed by a sniper as she holds the hand of a preschooler waving a white flag upsets you, if you think "That's terrible, that little kid's Bubbe was murdered trying to get him to safety!", then IMO you should feel the same way about this. And you should be willing to call it a war crime because that's what it was.

*** I'm going to say this again because some folks are really struggling with the notion of criticizing more than one faction in a fight: I wholeheartedly condemn the Hamas fighters who murdered and kidnapped unarmed Israeli civilians, and the Hamas leadership who planned and coordinated the October 7th attack. I support the war effort to remove them from power. I do not support human rights violations, war crimes, and what looks like ethnic cleansing and apartheid.