Israel Hamas War, West Bank, Etc. | Hostilities resume

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 85K
  • Politics 
ZZLPHeels said:
I'd argue that Israel is quite a bit safer right now. Hamas has been crippled militarily. Hezbollah has been kneecapped. Iran isn't interested in fighting. The Houthis are done as well. Aside from the horrific civilian casualties, Israel has done a remarkable job substantially weakening its adversaries on every front.

As you alluded to, though, the key is ensuring that this stability can last once the fighting stops. That is quite a tricky scenario for the reasons that you outlined.
Click to expand...
The Houthis are done? I'll take a bet on that one.

Hezbollah has been weakened for sure. But notice how Israel accomplished that without turning Lebanon into a gravel pit?

"Aside from the horrific civilian casualties ...." That is a bit like the line to Mary Lincoln after the play. No one (or almost no one) has challenged Israel's right to attack Hamas in Gaza. The question has always been whether Israel's tactics in waging that war were appropriate, or indeed, even in Israel's long-term interests. I think it is naive to believe that Israel will be safer in the future because of its Gaza strategy. There was a way to wage this war that would have actually made Israel safer. Bibi intentionally did not choose that option.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
IIRC, the roof knocks and phone calls tell people specifically which building is going to be targeted. Not every target gets warning, but for the ones that do, they have time to get out. If my wife is on bed rest, it doesn't matter....staying inside the building means a 100% certainty of death. If my father is in a wheelchair, I'm picking him up and carrying him. Being inconvenienced doesn't matter when your literal life is at stake.

Also, I'm pretty sure Hamas didn't give the victims on 10/7 any sort of warning or quarter. The IDF is unique in warning people before strikes occur. That's something that absolutely does not have to happen in warfare.
Click to expand...
1. Wife being on bed rest might considerably impact her ability leave the building, as would many other conditions as you well know. I can't carry my father. For one thing, he weighs 300 pounds. For another, I have an issue with my back where it has trouble bearing weight. It's often in pain just from supporting my weight; I would be simply unable to get down more than a flight of stairs before the muscle would give way. You know all this.

2. Israel is doing the minimum required under international law. You are incorrect that it does not have to happen in warfare. The Geneva Convention addresses civilian deaths. I mean, it doesn't have to happen in warfare if the warfare completely ignores the rules, but since Israel uses this same knock-then-blow-up technique all the time, war or peace, they don't want to be in constant violation of the Geneva Convention. I do not know the specific rules as to how the Geneva Convention applies and which provisions in particular are relevant; I know that the Convention speaks to this point.

3. Bringing up 10/7 like that is so fucking weak, man. You can defeat ANY or ALL morality with that. "the IDF should not be raping women in their custody"; "well we don't gang rape, unlike Hamas on 10/7." Whataboutism is so degenerate because it is a lazy and uneducated way to resolve cognitive dissonance between ideals and actual beliefs.

Actions are moral or immoral in themselves. It doesn't matter if the other person acted even worse. For instance, suppose you're kidnapped and tied to a chair. They torture you by electrocuting your balls. You manage to free yourself, climb up a chain and subdue the guard. Would it be right for you to torture him by electrocuting his balls? It would not, and it doesn't matter that he did. Would you be justified in killing him in self-defense? In that situation, I would say almost certainly. But that doesn't mean his evil act justifies yours. It's to say that "killing in self-defense" is considered more ethically acceptable than "killing wantonly." If you have to kill, fine, but wantonly inflicting pain is no more acceptable just because he did it to you.
 
ZenMode said:
No because civilians were their primary target because terrorists are evil pieces of shit. Israel is fighting an enemy with no morals. An enemy that will gladly use wo.en and children as bombs. An enemy that is using Israel's morality against them by using civilians.

If Israel used human shields, it would be a bonus for Hamas.

In "normal" warfare, like Ukraine/Russia, it's just accepted that both sides will try, to varying degrees, to avoid civilian areas. That's partially because of the fear of war crimes, but you can't charge terrorists with war crimes.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Russia, like Israel, is trying to minimize civilian deaths and injuries because both nations want to do so and both are worried about war crimes.

🙄
 
Zoo_View said:
Yes.

Russia, like Israel, is trying to minimize civilian deaths and injuries because both nations want to do so and both are worried about war crimes.

🙄
Click to expand...
Why do you believe, in war, the sides involved generally try to avoid civilian deaths?
 
RaiGuy said:
They don't warn people all the time and when they do it's pointless.
Click to expand...
Sure, they probably don’t warn people every time, but they DO warn people and it’s not pointless. In the recent case of the hospital, the 20 minute warning allowed everyone to get out of the building.
RaiGuy said:
You are basis your opinion from what you hear from Israel, and I am basing mine from the actual people being bombed. Talk to someone from Gaza and ask them if they're warned ahead of time or if the warnings help. You will find out the real answer. You call be a liar or whatever, but I know what's happening from people there. So many of my friends have lost loved ones and it wasn't because they ignored warnings to evacuate. That is disrespectful to them to say that.
Click to expand...
Yep, it’s terrible that all of this is happening and the innocent civilians, on both sides, are dying, but that isn’t the focus of the discussion.

The focus is your repeated claim that Israel is targeting civilians. Even if their methods of warning are imperfect inconsistent , what evidence do you have that Israel’s intention is to target civilians? Just saying “Civilians are dying in war and it’s incredibly sad” isn’t evidence of targeting, especially when there is clear evidence to the contrary.
 


And much like their handling of Russia’s delays and prevarications, the Trump Administration will throw up their hands and ask what can they do while looking the other way at Israel weaponizing access to food, etc.
 


“… Springsteen echoed earlier criticism of the Trump administration Saturday, saying a “rogue” government was rolling over U.S. lawmakers and institutions designed to keep authoritarianism in check.

“Things are happening right now that are altering the very nature of our country’s democracy,” Springsteen told the audience. To drive the point home, he dedicated one of his songs to our “Dear Leader,” an allusion to the honorific set aside for former North Korean ruler Kim Jong Il.

A similar broadside last week prompted Trump to take aim at Springsteen in a social-media post: “I see that Highly Overrated Bruce Springsteen goes to a Foreign Country to speak badly about the President of the United States. Never liked him, never liked his music, or his Radical Left Politics and, importantly, he’s not a talented guy.”

The escalating confrontation between the president and Springsteen is part of a broader clash between Trump and some pop-culture icons that goes back to the president’s first term. Trump has repeatedly assailed Taylor Swift, who endorsed Kamala Harris in last year’s election but hasn’t engaged in the sort of sharp-tongued criticism delivered by Springsteen.…”
 
ZenMode said:
Right, so some international authority of which terrorists are not beholden.
Click to expand...
Here you go again. You said there's no general obligation, which is incorrect. That terrorists don't follow the Geneva Convention doesn't mean Israel is allowed to follow suit.
 
Doesn’t Israel claim/assert that the 4th Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to the West Bank or Gaza?

Doesn’t Israel claim other aspects of the Geneva Convention and international law don’t pertain to itself, the IDF, Gaza, or the West Bank?

Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions; but, it appears to treat them as an a la carte menu that it can pick and choose from as it sees fit.
 
superrific said:
Here you go again. You said there's no general obligation, which is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Nope. First I referenced war crimes as the reason for general obligation. Then I just asked a question of why the general obligation:

Why do you believe, in war, the sides involved generally try to avoid civilian deaths?
superrific said:
That terrorists don't follow the Geneva Convention doesn't mean Israel is allowed to follow suit.
Click to expand...
I agree and, other than denying aid, I see no evidence that they are.
 
Zoo_View said:
Doesn’t Israel claim/assert that the 4th Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to the West Bank or Gaza?
Click to expand...
They probably should
Zoo_View said:
Doesn’t Israel claim other aspects of the Geneva Convention and international law don’t pertain to itself, the IDF, Gaza, or the West Bank?
Click to expand...
They probably should.
Zoo_View said:
Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions; but, it appears to treat them as an a la carte menu that it can pick and choose from as it sees fit.
Click to expand...
They aren't fighting a country that a) is beholden to international law, b) gives one shit about the norms of war, c) gives one shit about the norms of basic morality, yet here they are continually trying to minimize civilian deaths.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Sure, they probably don’t warn people every time, but they DO warn people and it’s not pointless. In the recent case of the hospital, the 20 minute warning allowed everyone to get out of the building.

Yep, it’s terrible that all of this is happening and the innocent civilians, on both sides, are dying, but that isn’t the focus of the discussion.

The focus is your repeated claim that Israel is targeting civilians. Even if their methods of warning are imperfect inconsistent , what evidence do you have that Israel’s intention is to target civilians? Just saying “Civilians are dying in war and it’s incredibly sad” isn’t evidence of targeting, especially when there is clear evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
You are just blind then. I gave you countless examples of Israel targeting civilians. When you snipe children that are attempting to get water, that is targeting a civilian. When you bomb a civilian refugee camp, that is targeting civilians. When you ambush and execute medical responders, that is targeting civilians. When you target and assassinate reporters, that is targeting civilians. When you bomb every hospital multiple times, that is targeting civilians. When you shoot at people getting food, that is targeting civilians. When you accidentally kill the hostages you're trying to save when they are walking with their hands in the air, that is targeting civilians. If you say that isn't targeting civilians, then you are just in denial. I'm done with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top