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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 51K
  • 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top