Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

Yes, a lot of civilians unfortunately died too, and much of Gaza has been destroyed. But starting wars of aggression has conseqences

Which of those civilians started a war of aggression?

IIRC it was not the civilians at the Nova music festival that started a war of agression.

Thanks for the helpful “whataboutism”,

Is seems that living in the same area as people who start wars of aggression is what has consequences. Would you be OK with your family being killed by police, because your next door neighbour started a shootout with them? Would you just shrug, and say "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

It does has consequences. Pity Hamas did not really consider that starting a war of agression next door to Gaza might spill over into Gaza itself.

“War of aggression “ has many different levels. How are you privy to know that Hamas expected the actual level of aggression?

 

[laughing dog]

I would like to note that it was diplomacy, not genocide, that saved these final survivors of the horror. In particular, American influence. Any American president could have chosen to do as Trump has done. Violence freed 8 hostages. 3 were murdered by their rescuers. 168 were rescued by conference. Let the lesson be clear.

I wonder what will save the next batch of Israeli civilians kidnapped by Gazan militants.
The clear lesson is that violent Muslim supremacists can kidnap civilians and their supporters, like you, will rally to their cause!
Tom

Leave ‘Muslim’ out of it. Like every other conflict, it’s all motivated by money and power, hiding under a cloak of religion.

There are two parts to what he said.

Yes, like every other conflict it's about power (money is a means to power).

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??

I think that Hana’s is vile. That is unrelated to Islam or Muslims.

Just as some, usually white ‘Christians ‘ are Nazis and/or white supremacists, most white people are not Nazis or white supremacists. Nor are most Christian’s Nazis or white supremacists. In fact, most Christians would say that Nazis white supremacists are are not Christians.

You aren't addressing my point at all. You say you don't like Hamas--but you keep taking their side over Israel. Just like most of the left does. You say they are vile but you blindly accept their propaganda and reach the position they are after.

Ignoring the massive irony of your accusation, produce one post from Toni that blindly accepts Hamas’s propaganda. There are three criteria for your proof to meet to be valid
1) the post is from Toni,
2) the post has an actual acceptance of a Hamas statement, and
3) the “propaganda” is actually false.

If you cannot meet all 3 criteria, you should apologize to Toni because your accusation was uncalled for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The latest victim of the onslaught was this guy, Omar Hayek, killed on his way out of the city to a satellite clinic. He was waiting at a bus stop. I sure it was a fucking terrorist bus stop. Murderers! This is the fourteenth killing of an MSF staff member since they began operations in Gaza. You'd be safer as a soldier than you are as a doctor when Israel is on the march, at least soldiers get body armor and are allowed to shoot back.

We have one MSF member documented as Hamas.

The relevance is ?

The point is you pretend that "MSF" must be a good guy. We have one case where it is clearly shown they were a very bad guy.

And the relevance of one bad guy to this death is…? And try to respond to the actual question and witount imputing straw men. I know moyjing about Mr Hayek and, clearly, neither do you.

You're not addressing my point.

"MSF" is being presented as evidence it was not a proper action. But one of the dead MSF people was also Hamas. Therefore, being MSF isn't proof they aren't Hamas and thus whether it was a proper action or not can't be established (except for the guy seen in Hamas uniform.)

Since most Gazans are not Hamas, one would think it is up to the IDF to show that Mr Hayek was a terrorist.

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

And note that Israel has called for the evacuation of Gaza City. Everyone there is either Hamas or a human shield.

You know this because you personally interviewed the remaining inhabitants? And since when is it moral to kill someone because they are making your task harder?

You object to Israel hitting civilians in combat areas, but you also object to Israel calling for civilians to leave combat areas. In other words, the only acceptable compliance is just sit there waiting to be killed.

That is non responsive to my question of how do you know that anyone remaining is either Hamas or a human shield? Please stop evading questions with straw men responses and ridiculous conclusions.

Civilians normally get out of the path of war if possible. Forces that we would typically consider to be on the good side generally try to get civilians out of the way (but can't always--they certainly wouldn't have told the French to get out of the way of the D-Day landings!) Civilians typically do get out of the way--except in Gaza. We have multiple examples of people describing being shot at for getting out of the danger zone and plenty of examples of Hamas deliberately forcing civilians into the danger zone.

And we have plenty if examples if exhausted or injured civilians unable to move. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

We have Hamas claims of this, doesn't make it true.

Why in the world should I think this case is any different than what's gone before?

I object to the IDF telling people to move to “safe zones” and then attackjng the safe zones. So please stop misrepresenting my thoughts.

The IDF had people move away from the objects they wished to strike. That did not preclude Hamas using the crowds to strike from. And it doesn't even mean that people that died during the evacuation were killed by Israel. Supposedly Israel struck vehicles in the evacuation--but strangely the images never show a vehicle that's taken a hit from a modern weapon, nor do we see a crater. All we see is shrapnel damage--which says it was a roadside bomb, not a weapon from the sky.

We have reports of the IDF bombkng “safe” zones.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

Again and again and again Hamas rigs it so civilians die and you blindly blame Israel. Thus they do it again.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The latest victim of the onslaught was this guy, Omar Hayek, killed on his way out of the city to a satellite clinic. He was waiting at a bus stop. I sure it was a fucking terrorist bus stop. Murderers! This is the fourteenth killing of an MSF staff member since they began operations in Gaza. You'd be safer as a soldier than you are as a doctor when Israel is on the march, at least soldiers get body armor and are allowed to shoot back.

We have one MSF member documented as Hamas.

The relevance is ?

The point is you pretend that "MSF" must be a good guy. We have one case where it is clearly shown they were a very bad guy.

And the relevance of one bad guy to this death is…? And try to respond to the actual question and witount imputing straw men. I know moyjing about Mr Hayek and, clearly, neither do you.

You're not addressing my point.

"MSF" is being presented as evidence it was not a proper action. But one of the dead MSF people was also Hamas. Therefore, being MSF isn't proof they aren't Hamas and thus whether it was a proper action or not can't be established (except for the guy seen in Hamas uniform.)

Since most Gazans are not Hamas, one would think it is up to the IDF to show that Mr Hayek was a terrorist.

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

Cooperated or was adjacent enough that MSF could do their jobs? I'm certain MSF has contacts with a lot of bad groups, just so that they can get in safely and render aid. MSF is in some ugly areas and security is critical.

Why in the world should I think this case is any different than what's gone before?

I object to the IDF telling people to move to “safe zones” and then attackjng the safe zones. So please stop misrepresenting my thoughts.

The IDF had people move away from the objects they wished to strike. That did not preclude Hamas using the crowds to strike from. And it doesn't even mean that people that died during the evacuation were killed by Israel. Supposedly Israel struck vehicles in the evacuation--but strangely the images never show a vehicle that's taken a hit from a modern weapon, nor do we see a crater. All we see is shrapnel damage--which says it was a roadside bomb, not a weapon from the sky.

We have reports of the IDF bombkng “safe” zones.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

If one is going to kill civilians as collateral damage to a military strike, the strike better damn well be worth it. Was it?

 

[Politesse]

The latest victim of the onslaught was this guy, Omar Hayek, killed on his way out of the city to a satellite clinic. He was waiting at a bus stop. I sure it was a fucking terrorist bus stop. Murderers! This is the fourteenth killing of an MSF staff member since they began operations in Gaza. You'd be safer as a soldier than you are as a doctor when Israel is on the march, at least soldiers get body armor and are allowed to shoot back.

We have one MSF member documented as Hamas.

The relevance is ?

The point is you pretend that "MSF" must be a good guy. We have one case where it is clearly shown they were a very bad guy.

And the relevance of one bad guy to this death is…? And try to respond to the actual question and witount imputing straw men. I know moyjing about Mr Hayek and, clearly, neither do you.

You're not addressing my point.

"MSF" is being presented as evidence it was not a proper action. But one of the dead MSF people was also Hamas. Therefore, being MSF isn't proof they aren't Hamas and thus whether it was a proper action or not can't be established (except for the guy seen in Hamas uniform.)

Since most Gazans are not Hamas, one would think it is up to the IDF to show that Mr Hayek was a terrorist.

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

And note that Israel has called for the evacuation of Gaza City. Everyone there is either Hamas or a human shield.

You know this because you personally interviewed the remaining inhabitants? And since when is it moral to kill someone because they are making your task harder?

You object to Israel hitting civilians in combat areas, but you also object to Israel calling for civilians to leave combat areas. In other words, the only acceptable compliance is just sit there waiting to be killed.

That is non responsive to my question of how do you know that anyone remaining is either Hamas or a human shield? Please stop evading questions with straw men responses and ridiculous conclusions.

Civilians normally get out of the path of war if possible. Forces that we would typically consider to be on the good side generally try to get civilians out of the way (but can't always--they certainly wouldn't have told the French to get out of the way of the D-Day landings!) Civilians typically do get out of the way--except in Gaza. We have multiple examples of people describing being shot at for getting out of the danger zone and plenty of examples of Hamas deliberately forcing civilians into the danger zone.

And we have plenty if examples if exhausted or injured civilians unable to move. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

We have Hamas claims of this, doesn't make it true.

Why in the world should I think this case is any different than what's gone before?

I object to the IDF telling people to move to “safe zones” and then attackjng the safe zones. So please stop misrepresenting my thoughts.

The IDF had people move away from the objects they wished to strike. That did not preclude Hamas using the crowds to strike from. And it doesn't even mean that people that died during the evacuation were killed by Israel. Supposedly Israel struck vehicles in the evacuation--but strangely the images never show a vehicle that's taken a hit from a modern weapon, nor do we see a crater. All we see is shrapnel damage--which says it was a roadside bomb, not a weapon from the sky.

We have reports of the IDF bombkng “safe” zones.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

Again and again and again Hamas rigs it so civilians die and you blindly blame Israel. Thus they do it again.

It can be categorically shown that members of the mafia sometimes wear police officer's uniforms in service of crimes, even lethal crimes. That is itself a crime, and if caught, they should go go jail. This does not however, make it legal for me to shoot anyone I see wearing a police uniform.

Similarly, it is a crime to impersonate a medic in a war zone, and anyone who does so makes themselves a combatant. Bit it is not legal to kill any medic you meet just because someone else once impersonated their identity. Ditto members of the press, children, and other sorts of aid workers. It is obvious that the Geneva Convention did not intend for its rulings to be a blank check to justify any murder, as you have attempted to interpret it.

 

[laughing dog]

The latest victim of the onslaught was this guy, Omar Hayek, killed on his way out of the city to a satellite clinic. He was waiting at a bus stop. I sure it was a fucking terrorist bus stop. Murderers! This is the fourteenth killing of an MSF staff member since they began operations in Gaza. You'd be safer as a soldier than you are as a doctor when Israel is on the march, at least soldiers get body armor and are allowed to shoot back.

We have one MSF member documented as Hamas.

The relevance is ?

The point is you pretend that "MSF" must be a good guy. We have one case where it is clearly shown they were a very bad guy.

And the relevance of one bad guy to this death is…? And try to respond to the actual question and witount imputing straw men. I know moyjing about Mr Hayek and, clearly, neither do you.

You're not addressing my point.

"MSF" is being presented as evidence it was not a proper action. But one of the dead MSF people was also Hamas. Therefore, being MSF isn't proof they aren't Hamas and thus whether it was a proper action or not can't be established (except for the guy seen in Hamas uniform.)

Since most Gazans are not Hamas, one would think it is up to the IDF to show that Mr Hayek was a terrorist.

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

That is not addressing the point. You have no evidence to show he was a terrorist.

And note that Israel has called for the evacuation of Gaza City. Everyone there is either Hamas or a human shield.

You know this because you personally interviewed the remaining inhabitants? And since when is it moral to kill someone because they are making your task harder?

You object to Israel hitting civilians in combat areas, but you also object to Israel calling for civilians to leave combat areas. In other words, the only acceptable compliance is just sit there waiting to be killed.

That is non responsive to my question of how do you know that anyone remaining is either Hamas or a human shield? Please stop evading questions with straw men responses and ridiculous conclusions.

Civilians normally get out of the path of war if possible. Forces that we would typically consider to be on the good side generally try to get civilians out of the way (but can't always--they certainly wouldn't have told the French to get out of the way of the D-Day landings!) Civilians typically do get out of the way--except in Gaza. We have multiple examples of people describing being shot at for getting out of the danger zone and plenty of examples of Hamas deliberately forcing civilians into the danger zone.

And we have plenty if examples if exhausted or injured civilians unable to move. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

We have Hamas claims of this, doesn't make it true.

We have reports in reputable news media. You have kneejerk denial of reality.

Why in the world should I think this case is any different than what's gone before?

I object to the IDF telling people to move to “safe zones” and then attackjng the safe zones. So please stop misrepresenting my thoughts.

The IDF had people move away from the objects they wished to strike. That did not preclude Hamas using the crowds to strike from. And it doesn't even mean that people that died during the evacuation were killed by Israel. Supposedly Israel struck vehicles in the evacuation--but strangely the images never show a vehicle that's taken a hit from a modern weapon, nor do we see a crater. All we see is shrapnel damage--which says it was a roadside bomb, not a weapon from the sky.

We have reports of the IDF bombkng “safe” zones.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

Again and again and again Hamas rigs it so civilians die and you blindly blame Israel. Thus they do it again.

First you deny bombing of safe zones. Now justify it. All in the same post. Are you posting drunk?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

We ended up involved because the 1973 war had the potential to go nuclear and from that the potential of WWIII. And while it probably wouldn't start WWIII these days we still have a major interest in avoiding a situation where they resort to the Sampson option. The only real option with nuclear weapons is to ensure nobody needs to fire one.

As for MSF--yes, they do good. But they have become highly politicized. And in a situation like Gaza aid workers do the bidding of the oppressor. They try to pretend otherwise but that doesn't make it go away. And nobody addressed the study I posted a while back that exposed this elephant.

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".

Wife-beating.

You first need to establish that genocide is taking place.

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.

What you fail to realize is that to the extent that your actions are relevant you are actually siding with the evil, not opposing it. Any one person, a drop in the bucket. Lots and lots of people--you get what you reward. And what you reward is dead civilians.

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.

1) They have destroyed many years worth of Hamas infrastructure.

2) They have virtually destroyed Hamas' senior leadership. This will degrade their abilities going forward for quite a while.

3) They found an Achilles heel: Hamas is dependent on the aid to maintain power. The GHF was bypassing this.

This solved nothing, it postponed the next 10/7. That's all that Israel can expect to accomplish.

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.

The UN's record is abysmal. Everything they do is propping up the bad guys. Whatever pressure got them to tell the truth about the aid diversion (>90%) has failed, they're back to publishing the numbers of what reaches the warehouses as if it's a measure of what crossed the border. There's no reason to think the diversion rate went down.

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.

Aid workers might not actually be Hamas (but some are), but there's no way they can operate without doing the bidding of Hamas.

And where are the random terrorist acts by Israel? You continue to blame them without considering facts. Mistakes in war are not terrorism, and the vast majority of what you blame them for is legitimate military action or were actually Hamas in the first place. (Don't simply accept a claim of Israel did X. Consider exactly how they supposedly did X--again and again we find scenes that do not match up with real world weapons. And we find scenes that look like low energy explosives.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You are citing cases where you can't kill but that doesn't mean you can't kill a combatant because there are civilians that might get hurt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

They have accepted the propaganda to the point they don't know that.

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?

It's not the Palestinians. It's those who keep providing them money for war. Terrorist movements always have backers. The problem can only be resolved by those backers quitting.

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?

They've internalized the propaganda too deeply for this. They do not understand that they are demanding death for the Jews.

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.

Exactly. It's the standard leftist problem of always blaming the side with the apparent power.

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.

No. It's only immoral when you demand it of others. Someone can choose to submit, they don't get to demand that others submit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

What it showed is that parading dead kids in front of the camera was not enough to shield them from something as big as 10/7.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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"?

Reality check: That 10 to 1 ratio is typical for urban combat. Even taking the most pessimistic numbers Israel did better than that. Hamas is claiming something over 60,000 dead. The leaked Israeli database of confirmed terrorist kills is just under 9,000. It is unlikely that Hamas is too low. It is extremely unlikely the Israeli number is too high. (And note that the Israeli number is not the total combatant deaths, but the total where Israel has specific evidence of terrorist affiliation and specific evidence of death.)

Reality check #2: That's leftist fantasy. Smashing the population does not breed terrorism. It can breed resentment, but turning that into a terrorist movement requires lots of money, more than any group can make other than a few cases involving control of local resources for export. (For example, FARC. It was about control of cocaine production, the funding was from selling cocaine.)

Hamas has learned that dead babies aren't a perfect defense. They'll be reluctant to try anything on the scale of 10/7 again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You expected anything else?!

 

[bilby]

Yes, a lot of civilians unfortunately died too, and much of Gaza has been destroyed. But starting wars of aggression has conseqences

Which of those civilians started a war of aggression?

IIRC it was not the civilians at the Nova music festival that started a war of agression

Are you seriously suggesting that "two wrongs make a right"?

Is seems that living in the same area as people who start wars of aggression is what has consequences. Would you be OK with your family being killed by police, because your next door neighbour started a shootout with them? Would you just shrug, and say "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

It does has consequences.

So, what, you don't mind that your completely innocent family all got killed, because "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

I find that hard to believe, and suspect that you are not actually answering my question at all, but instead are answering a question you hoped I might have asked instead.

Pity Hamas did not really consider that starting a war of agression next door to Gaza might spill over into Gaza itself.

What makes you think that Hamas cared at all about the consequences for Gaza?

 

[bilby]

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.

You haven't constantly criticised Israel?

Trotsky constantly criticised Stalin. Should we conclude that Trotsky supported Hitler?

Your reasoning is the broken logic of playground tribalism.

 

[Politesse]

So, what, you don't mind that your completely innocent family all got killed, because "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

Of course he would. His family are people, living human beings with complex rights, motivations, and desires. Every one of them an irretrievable loss of potential. But if we thought of all human beings that way, there'd be no more wars, and who wants that?

 

[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.

You are citing cases where you can't kill but that doesn't mean you can't kill a combatant because there are civilians that might get hurt.

I am not "citing cases" at all. And I am not seeking to show that "you can't kill a combatant because there are civilians that might get hurt", and indeed, I never said not implied that.

I am successfully showing that your claim:

Killing in war generally isn't unlawful.

Is false.

Any conclusions you reach from that false premise are therefore baseless.

Do you have any defence of your false claim? Or the moral fibre to retract it now that you have had its falsity clearly shown to you?

It seems the answer is "No".

Or rather is "No, but I would like to deflect attention from that".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So you support taking Hamas propaganda as god-given truth?

Geneva does a pretty good job of defining what is proper and improper. When you find yourself with a substantial disagreement with Geneva consider that you're likely viewing the situation wrong. Hamas is very deliberately exploiting this, doing things which grant exceptions to the general Geneva rules. Then making a big fuss about "breaking" the Geneva rules when they're not doing their part. (For example, aid. Geneva requires it to be permitted to civilians. This requirement goes away if it's being diverted. And the power that's imposing the limits gets great say in how it is distributed. Hamas trampled all over both of these obligations on their part.)

 

[Politesse]

The targeting of Hamas is not what's in dispute.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Do you expect a news organization to not publish such statements?

Sounds like you do not want a news organization, you want a propaganda machine.

The problem is how extremely biased that article is. Just look at the headline ", says Gaza media office". In other words, Hamas. This article is basically taking Hamas propaganda as truth.

Lots of discussion about killing 11 "civilians" (nothing establishes their status), but

“They had crossed the so-called ‘yellow line’, an imaginary boundary mentioned by the Israeli army,” said Mahmoud Basal, the spokesperson for the Gaza civil defence. “I am certain the family couldn’t distinguish between the yellow and red lines because there are no actual physical markers on the ground.”

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said a “suspicious vehicle was identified crossing the yellow line and approaching IDF troops operating in the northern Gaza Strip”, adding: “The troops fired warning shots toward the suspicious vehicle, but the vehicle continued to approach the troops in a way that caused an imminent threat to them. The troops opened fire to remove the threat, in accordance with the agreement.”

Presenting it as an impossible requirement, but then telling the truth that they clearly had to know. You continue against warning shots, expect the next ones to be on target. Doesn't matter what your perception of the situation, anyone who fires warning shots believes you have done something seriously improper.

Given what that article says the most likely explanation is attempted vehicle ramming attack.


And as for the previously challenged claim of Hamas claiming 10,000 under the rubble:

Gaza’s civil defence agency estimates that the bodies of about 10,000 people are trapped under the debris and collapsed buildings. The task ahead of the rescuers is immense given that there is an estimated 60m tonnes of rubble across the territory.

Same 10,000 two years later. That makes no sense, nobody gets the death toll right on something like that at first.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at the total tonnage of ordnance expended on Gaza, a very small area. Palestinians had no where to go, shooting fish in a barrel. If the bombing campaign was not genocide I do not know what is.

Actually the total tonnage of ordnance dropped is a strong argument against this being a genocide. We have >100,000t of bombs vs. ~70k dead. Less than one dead Gazan (including the combatants) per ton of ordnance dropped. If there had been an attempt to obliterate the population, the death count would have been much, much bigger.
Note also that the age/sex breakdown of fatalities show that the dead are mostly military-aged males.
View attachment 52442
Analysis and graph are my own, using Hamas Health Ministry's list from this September.

Why do you keep presenting unpleasant facts?! You keep saying there is no solution, but there must be a solution. Blame the Jews!