Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Sorry, I should have made that a lot clearer. Is this not the problem with blindly following "religion" though? Perhaps that's the root of this issue...
You can, of course replace 'hurt' with 'killed' and my opinion would stand. Why? Because it doesn't change the fact people get hurt in wars. Killed, even. We did it above germany. Quite a few times.
If you review the posts yesterday we spent some time on this point. It's not justified in the way you're claiming under international law and we wouldn't be tolerating it from any other allied government. That's why it's attracting attention. Same applies to the settlement policy, it will attract more attention here when a supposedly friendly government is pursuing it than a violent extremist non-state actor.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You focus on my choice of words too much, which sounds about right since there's not much else you can do to justify beheadings, rape, etc... the point is sound though.
The point doesn't stand though, you're implying that the Netanyahu government are justified and acting lawfully in killing unarmed non-combatants in Gaza for no reason whatsoever beyond that they're in the way. Nobody is implying the killings of unarmed non-combatants by Hamas militants is justified or legal. However, people are rejecting your double standard.
This is an inaccurate description though, which you're only advancing dishonestly, in order to try to manipulate the reader into believing they're morally broken.
What's actually happening is hundreds of people are being killed or seriously injured, including children, I note you used "beheaded" for one side and "hurt" for the other, despite their both being equally violent and grotesque ways to take the life of an unarmed non-combatant. You emphasised it to "babies" for one side, but then reduced it to "someone" for the other, even though many young children have now lost their lives over the past few days.
I haven't spotted anyone claiming on this forum that the attack on Israeli babies is somehow justified because their military commanders have killed Palestinian babies as collateral. Such an attack couldn't ever be justified.
The key here isn't the method of killing, it's the intent. The intent of Hamas is to kill Jews in the most brutal and barbarian ways possible. The intent of Israel is to protect the state and remove Hamas, whatever this takes. Unfortunately due to Hamas using human shields this will result in collateral damage, including the killing of children. However the intent is not genocide.
The key here isn't the method of killing, it's the intent. The intent of Hamas is to kill Jews in the most brutal and barbarian ways possible. The intent of Israel is to protect the state and remove Hamas, whatever this takes. Unfortunately due to Hamas using human shields this will result in collateral damage, including the killing of children. However the intent is not genocide.
So you think the end justifies the means? I can kill you if you're in my way, provided I'm sad about it later and I never intended for you to die, only that you should get out of my way? You think that means it's justified to provably kill hundreds of unarmed non-combatants, that they don't "intend" their death? You think that's an appropriate defence in law? You wouldn't mind your house being destroyed and some of your family killed if the people who dropped the bomb never "intended" you die?
The point doesn't stand though, you're implying that the Netanyahu government are justified and acting lawfully in killing unarmed non-combatants in Gaza for no reason whatsoever beyond that they're in the way. Nobody is implying the killings of unarmed non-combatants by Hamas militants is justified or legal. However, people are rejecting your double standard.
According to the Geneva Conventions, the targeting of civilian infrastructure and thus killing of non-combatants becomes lawful when said infrastructure is used for military purposes. No double standards here.
According to the Geneva Conventions, the targeting of civilian infrastructure and thus killing of non-combatants becomes lawful when said infrastructure is used for military purposes. No double standards here.
If force used is proportionate. Which it plainly can't possibly be, because if it were there'd be only a handful of collateral casualties. In reality there will be thousands.
So you think the end justifies the means? I can kill you if you're in my way, provided I'm sad about it later and I never intended for you to die, only that you should get out of my way? You think that means it's justified to provably kill hundreds of unarmed non-combatants, that they don't "intend" their death? You think that's an appropriate defence in law? You wouldn't mind your house being destroyed and some of your family killed if the people who dropped the bomb never "intended" you die?
If I was harbouring terrorists in my house then it is completely legitimate. Whether the Gazan population willingly harbours Hamas in their houses is a different matter, but that is what the text messaging and roof knocking are for. If you get a message instructing you to leave or face destruction, and do not, I'm afraid that is on you.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If force used is proportionate. Which it plainly can't possibly be, because if it were there'd be only a handful of collateral casualties. In reality there will be thousands.
In this case what would "proportionate" force look like? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but you appear to be skirting around my point that one side has explicitly stated that their end goal is global genocide.
Harbouring terrorists you say? OK so how are you planning to get rid of your "terrorist" friends? They likely own the building and you have no influence, no weapons, no money and no job. You depend on them for food and clean water - and the roof over your head. You're not allowed to flee - all borders around you are closed and there'd be nowhere abroad for you to flee to even if you somehow did manage to escape. Finally there are more than 2 million people all in exactly the same situation as you, all crammed into a tiny area you could walk from one end of to the other in a few hours, and surrounded by barbed wire and guns.
If force used is proportionate. Which it plainly can't possibly be, because if it were there'd be only a handful of collateral casualties. In reality there will be thousands.
What more can Israel do, than advertise and communicate its strikes? It’s not like the IDF will be allowed safe passage to politely and civilly arrest those who have committed horrendous atrocities against innocent civilians.
If force used is proportionate. Which it plainly can't possibly be, because if it were there'd be only a handful of collateral casualties. In reality there will be thousands.
Also, one of the reasons there have been so many casualties is because Gazans are ignoring warnings or standing outside marked buildings to watch their destruction. That's why there are so many videos of the destruction so far.
This isn't robbing a house, this is just not supplying an area you're in active conflict with, that a) isn't your responsibility and b) has alternative options.
Harbouring terrorists you say? OK so how are you planning to get rid of your "terrorist" friends? They likely own the building and you have no influence, no weapons, no money and no job. You depend on them for food and clean water - and the roof over your head. You're not allowed to flee - all borders around you are closed and there'd be nowhere abroad for you to flee to even if you somehow did manage to escape. Finally there are more than 2 million people all in exactly the same situation as you, all crammed into a tiny area you could walk from one end of to the other in a few hours, and surrounded by barbed wire and guns.
Whether the Gazan population willingly harbours Hamas in their houses is a different matter, but that is what the text messaging and roof knocking are for. If you get a message instructing you to leave or face destruction, and do not, I'm afraid that is on you.
If I sent you a text and said I wanted something under your house, and I was going to destroy it if you didn't leave within 10 minutes, would you leave? And would you just take it and say "oh well they gave me fair warning" if someone you lived with died because they were in my way? And that'd be on you? And of course there are the many cases where the buildings where people weren't given enough time to evacuate, didn't have anywhere to evacuate to, did evacuate but were still killed by falling rubble or flying pieces, or in some cases no warnings at all reached anyone in the building.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If I sent you a text and said I wanted something under your house, and I was going to destroy it if you didn't leave within 10 minutes, would you leave? And would you just take it and say "oh well they gave me fair warning" if someone you lived with died because they were in my way? And that'd be on you? And of course there are the many cases where the buildings where people weren't given enough time to evacuate, didn't have anywhere to evacuate to, did evacuate but were still killed by falling rubble or flying pieces, or in some cases no warnings at all reached anyone in the building.
We're not talking about individuals here - it's a terrorist group supported by a population, against a nation state. Gazan citizens have seen so much destruction and know that the IDF are deadly serious when the text message or warning shots arrive.
But I'm getting tired of making the same points again and again. I note you haven't replied to my comment about the aims of Hamas being genocide, or that the Israelis are the only force in human history to go through the efforts to minimise civilian casualties to this level. If you want to keep creating whataboutisms, I'm going to assume you have sadly been affected by Palestinian propaganda, which is EXACTLY what Hamas is trying to achieve through this conflict - removing western support for Israel through the belief that a Palestinian genocide is ongoing, therefore setting the stage for yet another genocide of the Jews.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We're not talking about individuals here - it's a terrorist group supported by a population, against a nation state. Gazan citizens have seen so much destruction and know that the IDF are deadly serious when the text message or warning shots arrive.
Sure nobody's disputing that. But there's no legitimate government in Gaza. Hamas are simply the most unscrupulous of a small group of violent aggressors. They can't speak legitimately for all Gazans and most would be as horrified as I am at the senseless murder on Israeli children and other unarmed citizens. Moderate voices speaking up is, however, of very little consequence because their tiny bit of land they've been allowed is still being destroyed by aerial bombardment either way. Effectively regaining control from the militia in those circumstances will be all but impossible for purely practical reasons. It doesn't mean 20 - 30k militant extremists speak for a population of over 2.3 million and it's fundamentally wrong of you to characterise it as such.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Also, one of the reasons there have been so many casualties is because Gazans are ignoring warnings or standing outside marked buildings to watch their destruction. That's why there are so many videos of the destruction so far.
Nice bit of victim blaming. It's not the commanders for choosing the "blockbuster" policy, it's the people being killed's own fault they're dead. How enormously convenient for you (and their killers in the Netanyahu government) that they're dead, and dead people can make no reply.
What more can Israel do, than advertise and communicate its strikes? It’s not like the IDF will be allowed safe passage to politely and civilly arrest those who have committed horrendous atrocities against innocent civilians.
Well I'd start by simply not destroying entire buildings or blocks if it were me - seems easy enough? I'd also stop all expansion of unlawful settlements - seems easy enough?
Sure nobody's disputing that. But there's no legitimate government in Gaza. Hamas are simply the most unscrupulous of a small group of violent aggressors. They can't speak legitimately for all Gazans and most would be as horrified as I am at the senseless murder on Israeli children and other unarmed citizens. Moderate voices speaking up is, however, of very little consequence because their tiny bit of land they've been allowed is still being destroyed by aerial bombardment either way. Effectively regaining control from the militia in those circumstances will be all but impossible for purely practical reasons. It doesn't mean 20 - 30k militant extremists speak for a population of over 2.3 million and it's fundamentally wrong of you to characterise it as such.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Nice bit of victim blaming. It's not the commanders for choosing the "blockbuster" policy, it's the people being killed's own fault they're dead. How enormously convenient for you (and their killers in the Netanyahu government) that they're dead, and dead people can make no reply.
There's no need to get so confrontational. I'm sorry if I was a little callous in my earlier posts, but all the things I've seen in the last few days have got me very, very angry and it's a desperately sad situation for all innocent people involved. I don't want anyone dead, so it's not convenient for me at all.
I also note that you have STILL not made reference to my point that the aim of Hamas is literally to start a Muslims vs Jews war with eventual global genocide. How you can continue to describe them as a "unscrupulous small group of violent aggressors" when they had 70+% approval ratings in 2006 (likely to have risen, for reasons discussed upthread) is completely beyond me. Have you not seen the videos of Gazan civilians dancing around the dead bodies of raped women and children? There are many innocent people in Gaza but they're not the overwhelming majority you seem to think they are.
Can I just repeat my earlier point. What tactics should the IDF be using currently?
In this case what would "proportionate" force look like? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but you appear to be skirting around my point that one side has explicitly stated that their end goal is global genocide.
The destruction of infrastructure usable only for military purposes. Damage to civilian telecoms infrastructure which may be used for military purposes. The killing of armed raiders and prevention of weapons trading. Lots of responses are proportionate. In other words basically anything and everything they do but not the destruction of whole blocks of flats as that simply can't be done without unreasonable force being deployed. It's also primarily not about targeting Hamas military capability either, it's a calculation that the terror of the property destruction abd resultant civilians crushed to death or maimed by flying rubble will subjugate the Gazans again for a while and buy them time to build up better defences. If they were hitting genuine military targets they'd be bragging about the hardware the enemy has lost. The caginess about precisely how each block of flats was a "military target" is about inspiring fear.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I've answered this several times but fundamentally it comes down to whether you believe collateral damage on an enormous scale is justified. Clearly you do and that's fine but I don't. I'd say that says a lot about your attitude.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I also note that you have STILL not made reference to my point that the aim of Hamas is literally to start a Muslims vs Jews war with eventual global genocide.
Yes but people do that in every country, including this one. People celebrated the death of Lee Rigby and Osama Bin Laden in this country for example, that doesn't mean we're all violent extremists.
We're not talking about individuals here - it's a terrorist group supported by a population, against a nation state. Gazan citizens have seen so much destruction and know that the IDF are deadly serious when the text message or warning shots arrive.
But I'm getting tired of making the same points again and again. I note you haven't replied to my comment about the aims of Hamas being genocide, or that the Israelis are the only force in human history to go through the efforts to minimise civilian casualties to this level. If you want to keep creating whataboutisms, I'm going to assume you have sadly been affected by Palestinian propaganda, which is EXACTLY what Hamas is trying to achieve through this conflict - removing western support for Israel through the belief that a Palestinian genocide is ongoing, therefore setting the stage for yet another genocide of the Jews.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes, I can completely see why. Is there a better option at this point though? War is unjustified and I wish it was unlawful.
I've read most of starmills posts, and I certainly wouldn't say he's a Hamas appologist.
For what it's worth, I'm a massive supporter of the state of Israel and I'm also pretty uneasy about the pronouncements of the politicians regarding this bombing campaign.
I do also think that there'll be situation rooms directing these bombings. They'll be full of experienced air force commanders and lawyers and they will be making decisions based on operational necessity Vs potential collateral(god I hate that word)/civilian danger of death. I'd hope that these decisions are made robustly and without political interference and direction.
From what I've read about previous aerial campaigns of Israel and also the us/UK in Iraq and Afghanistan. Quite often the biggest and most unjustifiable atrocities occur when those initial target lists are exhausted but there is still pressure from up high to bomb, bomb, bomb. That's when lists of targets that haven't been updated or checked properly start being used and when decisions start being made on the fly. The pronouncements of the politicians make me fear that is a very possible if not inevitable scenario.
Speaking again as a supporter of Israel, that's really not what I want the country to be. As a bit of an abstract question, how many times can you lower yourself to your enemies level, before you actually become the same ?
This is just ridiculous, it's difficult to have sensible debate with you if you're not taking the point seriously. Lots of alternative courses for the government were being pur forward by the opposition, including through protests against Likud and the refusal of some reservists to report for duty. I put some of these in #195 but there's a lot more that could be done.
I have reread your Post #195 but do not see a single one of your suggestions which would in any way hamper or prevent the murderous activities of Hamas, quite the opposite in fact. So I ask, yet again, what do you believe Israel can and should do to stop Hamas continuing their genocidal campaign against the country and its citizens, now and in the future?
The destruction of infrastructure usable only for military purposes. Damage to civilian telecoms infrastructure which may be used for military purposes.
Is that remotely possible without also incurring civilian casualties, given that as Gaza is a tiny and densely populated enclave, and Hamas have no compunction about siting their facilities among the people anyway? In fact, they may well regard the death of some of their fellow Palestinians as a price worth paying to develop hatred of Jews and as a useful recruiting tool.
I'm sorry if I was a little callous in my earlier posts, but all the things I've seen in the last few days have got me very, very angry and it's a desperately sad situation for all innocent people involved. I don't want anyone dead, so it's not convenient for me at all.
Maybe don't start arguing with people when you're angry if that's how you feel. It can easily lead to escalation and you saying things you soon regret.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I have reread your Post #195 but do not see a single one of your suggestions which would in any way hamper or prevent the murderous activities of Hamas, quite the opposite in fact.
OK well that's fine but as I'm not an Israeli opposition politician I'll have to defer to them and let them speak for themselves. However there's clearly great opposition to indiscriminate blockbuster bombing and also to settlement expansion within the Israeli political community. Unsurprisingly, I might add, as both are so obviously unlawful and generate negative press among Israel's allies. Yet unfortunately these are the two strongly preferred policies of the Netanyahu government. What does that suggest to you?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Is that remotely possible without also incurring civilian casualties, given that as Gaza is a tiny and densely populated enclave, and Hamas have no compunction about siting their facilities among the people anyway? In fact, they may well regard the death of some of their fellow Palestinians as a price worth paying to develop hatred of Jews and as a useful recruiting tool.
Yes of course it is. Blockbuster bombings aren't self-defence by any means. Any action which leads directly to the death of massive numbers unarmed non-combatants is obviously unlawful and unjustifiable and has been specifically chosen as a course of action by the government because a) they think they'll get away with it and b) they think that by "othering" ordinary Gazans they can shore up support for themselves. The Gazans who die or are injured are a sacrifice they're willing to make. Mr Netanyahu appears to have quite persuaded you that all Gazans hate all Jews and wish to deny them the right to land and life. Luckily he hasn't yet convinced everyone in Israeli political life.
However there's clearly great opposition to indiscriminate blockbuster bombing and also to settlement expansion within the Israeli political community.
Actually I agree, indiscriminate bombing is indeed a terrible thing, but as others have said Israel seem to have at least attempted to minimise civilian casualties, and the settlement expansion is plain wrong and not exactly likely to help any form of peace process. But referring to the last few days only, I still cannot see what else Israel really could have done in response to the absolute and undisputed evil of Hamas.
From what I've read about previous aerial campaigns of Israel and also the us/UK in Iraq and Afghanistan. Quite often the biggest and most unjustifiable atrocities occur when those initial target lists are exhausted but there is still pressure from up high to bomb, bomb, bomb.
While I've every confidence you're absolutely correct there are plenty in the upper ranks who are "professional" (seems the wrong term but I can't think of another) enough to take all of this into careful consideration, the issue is that the Prime Minister himself clearly has none of these hold-ups. He was a finished man in his career as a leader before this and likely is now anyway so perhaps he feels he's got little to lose. Certainly the pressure to as you suggest "bomb bomb bomb" is there from him.
While I've every confidence you're absolutely correct there are plenty in the upper ranks who are "professional" (seems the wrong term but I can't think of another) enough to take all of this into careful consideration, the issue is that the Prime Minister himself clearly has none of these hold-ups. He was a finished man in his career as a leader before this and likely is now anyway so perhaps he feels he's got little to lose. Certainly the pressure to as you suggest "bomb bomb bomb" is there from him.
I'm hoping that Gantz is going to be the main link between the politicians and the military men. Netanyahu absolutely hates him so he wouldn't have brought him into the unity coalition unless he really thought he needed him. He's got absolutely no reservations about telling Benji where to go. I think Gantz and Benji both also know that it's Gantz who is going to finish him as pm once and for all when this is over. This border breach is on Netanyahu, it's his failure and I can't wait to see Benny Gantz and the blue and white party really stick it to him when this is all over.
I'm hoping that Gantz is going to be the main link between the politicians and the military men. Netanyahu absolutely hates him so he wouldn't have brought him into the unity coalition unless he really thought he needed him. He's got absolutely no reservations about telling Benji where to go. I think Gantz and Benji both also know that it's Gantz who is going to finish him as pm once and for all when this is over. This border breach is on Netanyahu, it's his failure and I can't wait to see Benny Gantz and the blue and white party really stick it to him when this is all over.
Perhaps that could lead to some respite in the loss of life and injury at least, although I couldn't comment on how likely it would be or how long it would take. As you hint it's a ways into the future after the end of the current "period of cooperation" and it's all of very little solace to anyone caught in fighting or grieving right now.
Well I'd start by simply not destroying entire buildings or blocks if it were me - seems easy enough? I'd also stop all expansion of unlawful settlements - seems easy enough?
Again, as already mentioned- a very idealistic standpoint.
I think flattening a bit of concrete is a very reasonable response to mass murder.
Unfortunately there is no entirely moral way of fighting evil, as the Allies discovered in The Second World War. Overwhelming firepower is a substitute for the lives of IDF personnel on the ground, and I can’t blame them for that particular decision.
Again, as already mentioned- a very idealistic standpoint.
I think flattening a bit of concrete is a very reasonable response to mass murder.
Unfortunately there is no entirely moral way of fighting evil, as the Allies discovered in The Second World War. Overwhelming firepower is a substitute for the lives of IDF personnel on the ground, and I can’t blame them for that particular decision.
I said, to paraphrase: concrete is fair game after a massacre such as that we have seen, and entirely proportionate.
I then said that firepower is the best way of waging offensive warfare in terms of saving your own sides lives. If the UK government were at war, that’s how we’d be wanting it to be done. Even better if warnings to civilians are issued and ‘smart’ munitions are used.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
