An Issue Of Valuing The Lives Of Others

[Mock Turtle]

I have never, even once, said that Hamas bears no responsibility. That's not my argument.

And I think your analogy, which compares modern, militarised nations with squabbling children, is perhaps a little inadequate.

True, a more accurate one would be a Hamas fighter with his wife and child shielding him, firing at an Israelis soldier and shouting 'war crime' when the Israeli soldier fired back.

Once again, you seem to want to alleviate all responsibility from Israel, despite the fact that Israel started their reaction to Hamas' incursion by committing an explicit war crime against the entire civilian population of Gaza. As we have seen, Israel is not above deliberately harming civilians in this conflict, and so I'm less than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that when they target clearly non-military targets and justify it as "you'll just have to trust us, Hamas was there".

I don't. I know what Israel is doing and it is not pleasant. They have chosen their particular route as they see the situation, but Hamas initiated this and it hardly seems fair to play by their rules.

So you're just going to ignore the decades leading up the Hamas incursion?

Do you honestly believe war crimes justify more war crimes?

Also, don't you find it absolutely atrocious that my argument, which was "You can't use war crimes to justify more war crimes" that your response was "Well, they did the war crimes first!". You're explicitly saying that previous war crimes justify more war crimes. That is, apparently, your position.

According to Wiki, the Palestinians have committed nine war crimes as opposed to Israel's two, so all I'm saying is such things happen even though they might be deplored by those looking at the conflict rather than being in it.

No and no.

Once again, my argument has never been that Hamas are fine and should be let off. It's that what Hamas did does not justify what Israel is doing. This has been my argument from the start. Please respond to why you think it's okay for a state to commit war crimes and kill over 10,000 civilians in response to terrorists killing over 1,000 civilians. In what way does that not explicitly justify Hamas?

But it isn't about numbers - they are just the consequences of various actions - and as I have stated many times, this seems to result from Hamas being embedded within the population, so more a result of their tactics. Horrible though it is, one can't let casualties alone determine how one progresses any action so as to achieve the aims set. Israel is not directly targeting civilians in my view, and the losses say more about the stupidity of what Hamas did and in not protecting the population as to which they were the authority in charge.

Once again, you absolve Israel of all wrongdoing. You're pretending that they have no choice whatsoever in how they respond, this alleviating them of any moral culpability for the civilian deaths.

I still haven't seen any other response that they might sensibly have carried out, and as I have stated, both Israel and Hamas are responsible for the deaths, but with Israel not directly targeting civilians.

Please tell me how this is any different whatsoever to blaming the civilians killed by Hamas on Israel, because it's a direct consequence of Israeli foreign policy? Why do you selectively apply this logic of "killing civilians is bad but justified because the other side did a bad thing" to Israel, but not Hamas? Your logic, that justifies atrocities, justifies ALL ATROCITIES.

I'm not justifying anything. This is often what happens in wars - that civilians are killed in large numbers because of bad decisions by those in power over them.

I think calling war crimes "a mistake" is overly generous, to say the least. Israel have engaged in very active and deliberate war crimes against civilian populations for decades. I am much less willing to believe that any acts of mass murder they inflict on the Palestinian people are just a big "whoopsie doodle".

See above mentioned war crimes of both sides. And perhaps you have noticed the use of 'genocide' being applied to the Palestinians, when the Jews are the ones who know the true use of this term when it nearly happened to them in WWII.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe I'm being too generous. I guess it can be both. Some people are genocidal because of their religion, some people are religious because it justifies their being genocidal. I'm just sidestepping the inevitable "not all religious people" argument I would get in response and, to be fair, I'd be comfortable agreeing with in the broad sense.

Of course not all Jews & Christians hate Muslims.
But as groups, Christians & Jews exhibit this.
And the bigots work hard to silence those who
dissent in favor of human rights for all.
Just look at Congress to see that it is so.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

True, a more accurate one would be a Hamas fighter with his wife and child shielding him, firing at an Israelis soldier and shouting 'war crime' when the Israeli soldier fired back.

So, again, you're just going to completely ignore everything before the Hamas attack? You believe literally nothing happened between Israel and Palestine BEFORE October 7th 2023?

I don't. I know what Israel is doing and it is not pleasant.

Again, "not pleasant" is you being generous again. I doubt you would describe the Hamas incursion as "not pleasant", despite it's death toll being one tenth the size.

They have chosen their particular route as they see the situation, but Hamas initiated this and it hardly seems fair to play by their rules.

Again, you are ignoring the entire history of the conflict and pretending there were not atrocities committed by either side prior to October 7th. This seems extremely convenient for someone whose stated position is "war crimes are a reasonable response to war crimes", because that same logic WOULD JUSTIFY HAMAS if you took into account the history of entire conflict. The fact that you arbitrarily set this starting point for atrocities at the most recent one committed by Hamas - rather than the fifty-plus years of war crimes that lead up to the most recent ones - shows that this is clearly a one-sided justification.

According to Wiki, the Palestinians have committed nine war crimes as opposed to Israel's two, so all I'm saying is such things happen even though they might be deplored by those looking at the conflict rather than being in it.

Firstly, provide a source.

Secondly, you are explicitly endorsing war crimes as a response to war crimes. So what does it matter? You believe war crimes can be justified.

But it isn't about numbers - they are just the consequences of various actions - and as I have stated many times, this seems to result from Hamas being embedded within the population, so more a result of their tactics. Horrible though it is, one can't let casualties alone determine how one progresses any action so as to achieve the aims set.

I refuse to believe that a country with one of the most advanced a well funded militaries in the world has only two possible responses to a terrorist attack by Hamas: nothing or WAR CRIMES.

There is no number of walls I could bang my head into that would produce enough brain damage for me to ever think that is a reasonable position. It is not.

Israel is not directly targeting civilians in my view,

They are. They have explicitly done it. They did it in the past and they are doing it now.

and the losses say more about the stupidity of what Hamas did and in not protecting the population as to which they were the authority in charge.

Again, absolving Israel. Would you say the same about the deaths caused by Hamas? Do you lay them at the feet of Israeli foreign policy?

I still haven't seen any other response that they might sensibly have carried out, and as I have stated, both Israel and Hamas are responsible for the deaths, but with Israel not directly targeting civilians.

They are. I believe saying this is just explicit war crime denial, at this point.

I'm not justifying anything. This is often what happens in wars - that civilians are killed in large numbers because of bad decisions by those in power over them.

The bad decisions of Israel. So hold them to account for it and stop with the one-sided justification that lays the blame solely at Hamas while ignoring decades of Israeli war crimes that have stoked and played upon antagonism in the region.

See above mentioned war crimes of both sides. And perhaps you have noticed the use of 'genocide' being applied to the Palestinians, when the Jews are the ones who know the true use of this term when it nearly happened to them in WWII.

Trying to dismiss claims of genocide against Israel on the basis of the Holocaust is disgusting.

Firstly, Israel is not "the Jews". It is a multi-faith state.

Secondly, being the target of previous genocide DOES NOT JUSTIFY ENACTING GENOCIDE.

This is vile. It is absolutely unacceptable to suggest or imply that the Jewish people's historical victimisation gives the state of Israel any degree of immunity from accusations of genocide when they are killing thousands of civilians.

 

[Mock Turtle]

This is vile.

So be it. can't be bothered with you - again.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You might seek death.
I don't.
I've always actively tried to avoid it.

Its a fact about men that you are attempting to deny.

I'm seeing very little understanding & responsibility
taken by the faithful when conflicts involve religion.
They circle the wagons, & unleash Armageddon on
the infidels.

What I see is Israel taking responsibility that nobody else will accept. Countries accepted migrants from Gaza, but they sent them back because of PLO activity. Now whoever is in Gaza is stuck there. Politics has surrounded them not believers. They're stuck and they should put down roots and plan to stay instead of plan to move. They need to plant and build things. You have said Israel keeps them poor and blows up their stuff. Well now that won't happen, because they are going to have security. They can build things. If somebody other than Israel is willing to step in and provide security and keep some justice services running there, then that will be nice. How about Jordan? How about France? Then Israel will no longer be on point, and you won't have to worry about them making Gaza poor.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So be it. can't be bothered with you - again.

You literally argued that what's happening to Palestinians shouldn't be called "genocide" because Israel = Jews, and the Jews were victims of the holocaust.

Do you not understand how utterly disgusting the implications of that argument are? That we should attribute the actions of the state of Israel to Jews (something that a lot of Jews would find personally extremely offensive), and the implication that regardless of the reality of the situation and/or whether or not it meets the definition of genocide, we should refrain from doing so because Jews suffered through the holocaust.

Think about the logical conclusion of your statement and tell me it's not vile.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You literally argued that what's happening to Palestinians shouldn't be called "genocide" because Israel = Jews, and the Jews were victims of the holocaust.

Do you not understand how utterly disgusting the implications of that argument are? That we should attribute the actions of the state of Israel to Jews (something that a lot of Jews would find personally extremely offensive), and the implication that regardless of the reality of the situation and/or whether or not it meets the definition of genocide, we should refrain from doing so because Jews suffered through the holocaust.

Think about the logical conclusion of your statement and tell me it's not vile.

I was saying that the emotive use of the word is not justified here, given that there is no proof that the Israelis are intentionally targeting and killing civilians.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I was saying that the emotive use of the word is not justified here, given that there is no proof that the Israelis are intentionally targeting and killing civilians.

I disagree, and I think to suggest they are not intentionally killing civilians is war crime denial.

My bigger issue was with this statement in bold:
"See above mentioned war crimes of both sides. And perhaps you have noticed the use of 'genocide' being applied to the Palestinians, when the Jews are the ones who know the true use of this term when it nearly happened to them in WWII."

I will not excuse this statement. I will not allow you to link Israel with "Jews" broadly - as if the actions of the state and the IDF are in any way indicative of some collective Jewish will, and I will not allow you dismiss claims of genocide with a wave of the hand because of the holocaust.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I disagree, and I think to suggest they are not intentionally killing civilians is war crime denial.

Your view, not mine.

My bigger issue was with this statement in bold:
"See above mentioned war crimes of both sides. And perhaps you have noticed the use of 'genocide' being applied to the Palestinians, when the Jews are the ones who know the true use of this term when it nearly happened to them in WWII."

I will not excuse this statement. I will not allow you to link Israeli with "Jews" broadly, and I will not allow you dismiss claims of genocide with a wave of the hand because of the holocaust.

I was simply comparing to its use when it did apply. They were targeted rather than being casualties of war. Perhaps you took offence mistakenly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your view, not mine.

Then justify the view, don't wave away the accusation on such an obviously morally fraught basis.

I was simply comparing to its use when it did apply.

It does apply.

They were targeted rather than being casualties of war. Perhaps you took offence mistakenly.

You explicitly evoked that as if it, in some way, meant that accusations of genocide cannot be justified. They can be.

The holocaust is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not the state of Israel is now conducting genocide, and to essentially equate Israel and "Jews" more broadly is, in my view, explicitly anti-Semitic. You're argument basically is that any genocide has to be at the level of the holocaust for it to meet the "true use of the term".

This rhetoric excuses genocide. And it does it while pretending to evoke and equate Jewish suffering in the holocaust by direct comparison, and dismisses all other "lesser" forms of genocide. That's what was vile.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its a fact about men that you are attempting to deny.

I spoke of myself.
What you say isn't true for all.
It's not even relevant.
BTW, women show war lust too.

What I see is Israel taking responsibility that nobody else will accept.

Exterminating Palestinians?
Destroying Gaza?

Countries accepted migrants from Gaza, but they sent them back because of PLO activity. Now whoever is in Gaza is stuck there. Politics has surrounded them not believers. They're stuck and they should put down roots and plan to stay instead of plan to move. They need to plant and build things.

The plant olive trees.
Settlers kill them while harvesting.
The murderers receive no sanction from their government.

You have said Israel keeps them poor and blows up their stuff.

It's Israel's official policy.

Well now that won't happen, because they are going to have security. They can build things.

And Israel will destroy those things
using USA taxpayer money.

If somebody other than Israel is willing to step in and provide security and keep some justice services running there, then that will be nice. How about Jordan? How about France? Then Israel will no longer be on point, and you won't have to worry about them making Gaza poor.

Israel should simply stop oppressing & killing Palestinians.
That is the path to peace.
But If 70 years of brutal oppression are to continue, then
Israel will endure such attacks in perpetuity. And we
taxpayers will continue to foot the bill as long as
Christian & Jewish islamophobes run this country.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Then justify the view, don't wave away the accusation on such an obviously morally fraught basis.

I've said it enough times. Hamas are embedded within the population, making it hard for the Israelis to get at them. Hence the likelihood of more civilian casualties even though the Israelis have warned the people to get out of any likely targeted areas. Yes, there are instances where civilians are killed elsewhere but neither you nor I can know exactly what happens in these cases.

It does apply.


You explicitly evoked that as if it, in some way, meant that accusations of genocide cannot be justified. They can be.

The holocaust is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not the state of Israel is now conducting genocide, and to essentially equate Israel and "Jews" more broadly is, in my view, explicitly anti-Semitic.

Not in my view. A genocide is a deliberate action - here the target is Hamas.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've said it enough times. Hamas are embedded within the population, making it hard for the Israelis to get at them.

Doesn't justify killing civilians. "This person is using a human shield" does not justify "I'll just shoot the human shield".

Hence the likelihood of more civilian casualties even though the Israelis have warned the people to get out of any likely targeted areas.

This doesn't excuse it, either. Asking millions of people to evacuate when you know that they are not able does not exonerate you when you drop a bomb on them.

Yes, there are instances where civilians are killed elsewhere but neither you nor I can know exactly what happens in these cases.

I know that civilians have died as a direct consequence of Israel firing rockets at them. I know that that's bad, and I know you can't justify it.

Not in my view. A genocide is a deliberate action - here the target is Hamas.

And yet they have engaged in actions which have deliberately harmed civilians. Cutting off aid and power to millions of civilians is not "targeting Hamas". Not to mention the fact that Israel has continuously committed war crimes on the west bank, where there is no Hamas. To pretend Israel aren't fully willing to commit to killing civilians, and also perfectly capable of NOT doing so, is delusional.

Israel is committing war crimes either because they want to kill civilians or they don't care about Palestinian civilians in the firing line. Both are unacceptable positions, and you know this.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Doesn't justify killing civilians.

Well wake up and tell all those who died in all previous wars.

This doesn't excuse it, either. Asking millions of people to evacuate when you know that they are not able does not exonerate you when you drop a bomb on them.

Where are Hamas when one needs them - as to protecting the civilians?

I know that civilians have died as a direct consequence of Israel firing rockets at them. I know that that's bad, and I know you can't justify it.

I can't justify any war - until it's over and we count the cost.

And yet they have engaged in actions which have deliberately harmed civilians. Cutting off aid and power to millions of civilians is not "targeting Hamas". Not the mention the fact that Israel has continuously committed war crimes on the west bank, where there is no Hamas. To pretend Israel aren't fully willing to commit to killing civilians, and also perfectly capable of NOT doing so, is delusional.

And all those who have targeted Israelis are innocent as the driven snow.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Exterminating Palestinians?
Destroying Gaza?

Hyperbolic and inflammatory. I don't understand why this 'Revoltingest' persona has to take up the most impossible arguments and try to support them. I guess somebody has to keep the dead conversation going.

The plant olive trees.
Settlers kill them while harvesting.
The murderers receive no sanction from their government.

Thanks for the propaganda with absolutely no source. I get enough of that from the peanut gallery.

It's Israel's official policy.

Was? You mean while they kept using all of their aid to build missiles? Dum. Just keep denying that people really believe irrationally in things and will fight for them. People do believe in things. After all the times you have argued that religions cause wars you pick Gaza as the exception. For you it can't be the cause of any problems, because you must take up the impossible argument scenario and try to win. That's my ad hom. Tit for tat.

And Israel will destroy those things
using USA taxpayer money.

In the future...! It will be Israel backed by US dollars and not skynet? Goddamn those Israelis are so scary with their weird mixed male female military. Satanic no doubt. I predict the end of the Middle East in 2027.

Israel should simply stop oppressing & killing Palestinians.
That is the path to peace.
But If 70 years of brutal oppression are to continue, then
Israel will endure such attacks in perpetuity. And we
taxpayers will continue to foot the bill as long as
Christian & Jewish islamophobes run this country.

You win! I'll have this conversation forwarded to the US Diplomatic corps to be carried out immediately. We shall have Israel repay the USA, too.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well wake up and tell all those who died in all previous wars.

Once again, you fail to acknowledge distinctions that you, yourself have made. These people aren't collateral of a war. They are victims of war crimes.

Where are Hamas when one needs them - as to protecting the civilians?

Why would you ask me that question when I have never once stated that Hamas are acting in the interests of Palestinian civilians?

I can't justify any war - until it's over and we count the cost.

We're talking about war CRIMES. Not just war.

You have explicitly attempted to justify Israel's war CRIMES.

And all those who have targeted Israelis are innocent as the driven snow.

Now you are no longer debating in good faith, since I have repeatedly and clearly stated that Hamas have committed war crimes.

Why can you not debate in good faith? Do you seriously believe that I have to think Hamas are innocent in order to believe that the indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians, the stealing of their land, and the countless war crimes inflicted on them are unjustified?

The fact that you respond to me pointing out Israel's crimes on the west bank - WHERE THERE IS NO HAMAS - by saying, "well, they're not innocent", really says a lot. According to you, the civilians of Palestine and Gaza deserve collective punishment, because you assume guilt on the part of all of them. So genociding them is fine. Bombing them is fine. Forcibly relocating them and stealing their land is fine. Denying them basic rights is fine. Cutting off their resources is fine.

Hamas are an irrelevancy, according to you; all Palestinians are guilty and deserve mass murder. That is the logical conclusion of what you have just said.

Please be serious and stop responding to arguments I have not made. You are the one justifying war crimes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hyperbolic and inflammatory.

Hardly.
It's actually happening.

I don't understand why this 'Revoltingest' persona has to take up the most impossible arguments and try to support them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There isn’t much I can disagree with here.

It is cogent, balanced and well said.

Thank you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Once again, you fail to acknowledge distinctions that you, yourself have made. These people aren't collateral of a war. They are victims of war crimes.

So you say.

Why would you ask me that question when I have never once stated that Hamas are acting in the interests of Palestinian civilians?

They certainly aren't, and hence why they should share the blame for the large number of casualties along with Israel.

We're talking about war CRIMES. Not just war.

You have explicitly attempted to justify Israel's war CRIMES.

I'm trying to put such into perspective, given that Hamas has made it so difficult for Israel to avoid such..

Now you are no longer debating in good faith, since I have repeatedly and clearly stated that Hamas have committed war crimes.

Why can you not debate in good faith? Do you seriously believe that I have to think Hamas are innocent in order to believe that the indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians, the stealing of their land, and the countless war crimes inflicted on them are unjustified?

This isn't a debate. I'm giving my views.

The fact that you respond to me pointing out Israel's crimes on the west bank - WHERE THERE IS NO HAMAS - by saying, "well, they're not innocent", really says a lot. According to you, the civilians of Palestine and Gaza deserve collective punishment, because you assume guilt on the part of all of them. So genociding them is fine. Bombing them is fine. Forcibly relocating them and stealing their land is fine. Denying them basic rights is fine. Cutting off their resources is fine.

Hamas are an irrelevancy, according to you; all Palestinians are guilty and deserve mass murder. That is the logical conclusion of what you have just said.

Please be serious and stop responding to arguments I have not made. You are the one justifying war crimes.

Here is something to look at, and as to the host asking the right questions and making suitable comments:

Hamas official says group ‘well aware’ of consequences of attack on Israel, Palestinian liberation comes with ‘sacrifices’

LONDON: Senior Hamas official Khaled Mashal has said the group was aware of the ramifications of its Oct. 7 attack on Israel, and added Palestinian lives would need to be sacrificed in order to win “liberation.” Speaking in a fractious interview with Al-Arabiya host Rasha Nabil, Mashal praised...

www.arabnews.com

Senior Hamas official Khaled Mashal has said the group was aware of the ramifications of its Oct. 7 attack on Israel, and added Palestinian lives would need to be sacrificed in order to win “liberation.” Speaking in a fractious interview with Al-Arabiya host Rasha Nabil, Mashal praised the “ingenious” Hamas attack and called it “legitimate resistance” to Israeli occupation. Nabil challenged the former political leader of Hamas and questioned whether the group could call its “transgressions against Israeli civilians” in southern Israel true resistance, saying it was “more like a declaration of war” decided upon without the backing of the Palestinian people. She also noted that in the Western media Hamas was now being compared to Daesh, and pressed Mashal on how he had expected to encourage sympathy for the Palestinian cause by carrying out the attacks, which killed nearly 1,400 Israelis. She also highlighted the fact Hamas likely expected the response such an attack would prompt from the Israeli military and must therefore hold responsibility for the “great human tragedy” unfolding in Gaza, where thousands of Palestinians have been killed or wounded and more than 1 million internally displaced. “We know very well the consequences of our operation on Oct. 7,” Mashal said.

This is mostly what I have been saying - as to the responsibility being shared by Israel and Hamas, amongst other things.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you say.

So says international law.

They certainly aren't, and hence why they should share the blame for the large number of casualties along with Israel.

I never said they shouldn't. I said we shouldn't absolve Israel of blame my falsely implying that they had no choice or that their response is necessary or proportionate.

I'm trying to put such into perspective, given that Hamas has made it so difficult for Israel to avoid such..

You have constantly avoided putting it in perspective by refusing to acknowledge or talk about atrocities on either side that occurred before, and built up to, October 7th. You have repeatedly stated that October 7th was the proverbial "first stone" in this conflict, because your position - which is explicitly excusing war crimes that are responding to war crimes - would implicitly justify Hamas.

This isn't a debate. I'm giving my views.

This is a debate. I'm explaining to you why you can't justify war crimes.

Here is something to look at, and as to the host asking the right questions and making suitable comments:

Hamas official says group ‘well aware’ of consequences of attack on Israel, Palestinian liberation comes with ‘sacrifices’

LONDON: Senior Hamas official Khaled Mashal has said the group was aware of the ramifications of its Oct. 7 attack on Israel, and added Palestinian lives would need to be sacrificed in order to win “liberation.” Speaking in a fractious interview with Al-Arabiya host Rasha Nabil, Mashal praised...

www.arabnews.com

Hamas being fully aware, to a degree, that Israel would respond to their incursion by committing war crimes against civilians doesn't especially surprise me. My position is that this being an expected outcome actually casts Israel in an extremely bad light. We should never allow this to make us believe that, therefore, the response is justified or reasonable. Just because you expect it doesn't mean it should not be condemned.

This is mostly what I have been saying - as to the responsibility being shared by Israel and Hamas, amongst other things.

I have no issue with saying Hamas share responsibility. My issue is with the implication that Israel's actions are justified or reasonable. I have explicitly stated this multiple times.

Once again, what I just said was that Israel is actively involved in war crimes against civilians in the west bank, which Hamas does not control. And your response was literally "And all those who have targeted Israelis are innocent as the driven snow."

You literally painted all civilians who are victims of Israeli violence as deserving of violence. You explicitly endorsed collective punishment even for civilians who have nothing to do with Hamas.