An Issue Of Valuing The Lives Of Others

[Mock Turtle]

So says international law.

I'll await the verdict.

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.

Well I wouldn't know, not being in power in Israel and the options open to them.

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 you position - which is explicitly excusing war crimes that are responding to war crimes - would implicitly justify Hamas.

No I haven't. I have said that what went before doesn't justify such an attack on Israel as has occurred, given that it hasn't all been big bad Israel with nothing coming out of Gaza over the last several decades. October 7th was the first such 'war act' performed by Hamas and should be seen as such - and hence the response.

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

No it isn't a debate. If it was I might prefer to have better resources to work with and acknowledge such. I am just working with the information that I have and can access.

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.


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.

That is where we seem to disagree since I don't know if they are justified or not, but where you seem to just know this.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'll await the verdict.

Or, you can make a moral judgement as a moral agent, just like you did for Hamas.

Well I wouldn't know, not being in power in Israel and the options open to them.

Are you in power with Hamas? Have you condemned their actions or not? Do you know what their options were?

No I haven't.

Yes you have. You believe war crimes justify war crimes, which explicitly justifies Hamas.

I have said that what went before doesn't justify such an attack on Israel as has occurred,

Wow! "The bad things done before don't justify this subsequent attack"!

What a novel idea! Now, how about employing that incredibly original and brave new idea of yours to the current situation in Gaza?

given that it hasn't all been big bad Israel with nothing coming out of Gaza over the last several decades.

You believe Israel have not committed any war crimes in the last few decades?

October 7th was the first such 'war act' performed by Hamas and should be seen as such - and hence the response.

Selective outrage is very telling. I condemn October 7th because it is the killing of civilians for the sake of collective punishment. Israel are doing the same now. You believe one is fine and the other is not.

That is where we seem to disagree since I don't know if they are justified or not, but where you seem to just know this.

You have explicitly justified Israeli war crimes and collective punishment.

You are a moral agent. If you have the moral agency to condemn Hamas, you should have the moral agency to condemn Israel. But you don't. Instead you excuse them and imply war crimes against civilians - even those unconnected to Hamas - are justified.

Why?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Why is it hard? By your source Israel is doing exactly what Hamas wants it to. Infiltrating Hamas is an option, arresting Hamas officials shouldn't be too hard if they can find them clustered around civilians without apparent difficulty, but Israelbgoes with the time tested approach that fuels your enemies hatred?
Sure that must be the most difficult path to take as it ensures the fighting will continue.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Or, you can make a moral judgement as a moral agent, just like you did for Hamas.

Yeah, apparently like most I can recognise murderous thugs when I see them, but deaths from war scenarios, not so much.

Are you in power with Hamas? Have you condemned their actions or not? Do you know what their options were?

I'm more inclined to live and let live, so if they choose the worst option then it seems apparent to me. But much like all those who seem to be fanatical as to certain beliefs. I think my language tells as to how I view Hamas.

Yes you have. You believe war crimes justify war crimes, which explicitly justifies Hamas.


Wow! "The bad things done before don't justify this subsequent attack"!

What a novel idea! Now, how about employing that incredibly original and brave new idea of yours to the current situation in Gaza?

Well if you consider the suicide of a whole people as being appropriate I pity you, even as to Hamas apparently knowing it is such for them. But then the Palestinians in Gaza hardly got to vote over October 7th. Unless you think this type of action should have been done long ago, and regularly, because of all perceived harms coming from Israel.

You believe Israel have not committed any war crimes in the last few decades?

Both sides seemingly have committed such.

Selective outrage is very telling. I condemn October 7th because it is the killing of civilians for the sake of collective punishment. Israel are doing the same now. You believe one is fine and the other is not.

Not true. As I have said tirelessly, Hamas has made it difficult to attack them, hence the disproportionate casualties amongst the civilian population and especially children.

You have explicitly justified Israeli war crimes and collective punishment.

You are a moral agent. If you have the moral agency to condemn Hamas, you should have the moral agency to condemn Israel. But you don't. Instead you excuse them and imply war crimes against civilians - even those unconnected to Hamas - are justified.

Why?

I'll leave the judgement until later. I know what Hamas have done, not so much as to Israel - apart from the number of deaths, which might be inflated though. Given we are reliant on news coming out of Gaza and much of this is controlled by Hamas.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I condemn October 7th because it is the killing of civilians for the sake of collective punishment. Israel are doing the same now. You believe one is fine and the other is not.

I personally do not get how one was bad and the other ok. Someone needs to whack all the instigators upside the head until they start getting along. It's absolutely terrible what they're doing because innocent people are paying the steepest and harshest consequences.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In the news, our leaders express concern for Israelis
killed & kidnapped, but are largely silent regarding
the far greater number of Palestinians killed by
Israel's massive bombing campaign, & embargo
on water, energy, & freedom to move...killing &
maiming thousands of non-combatants whose
only crime is being where Israel keeps them.

Democrats' divisions on Israel-Hamas war boil over in Michigan as Detroit-area Muslims feel betrayed

Many top Michigan Democrats, including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, took part in a huge pro-Israel rally near Detroit after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on the country.

apnews.com

In USA there are sanctions imposed on people
who show support for Palestinians. Israel's
sway over Christians is creating a deadly new
McCarthyism.

After Writing an Anti-Israel Letter, Harvard Students Are Doxxed

A truck with a billboard displayed their names and photos, and critics put out do-not-hire lists. The students say it’s a campaign to shut them up.

www.nytimes.com

Battle against hate: Violence, bigotry toward Palestinian Americans spiking across US

Palestinian and Muslim Americans say discrimination against their communities has risen since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.

www.usatoday.com

The Mounting Onslaught of Censorship and Suppression

"A failure to stop this new McCarthyism would be to surrender to the forces of reaction that tragically are carrying the day."

inthesetimes.com

We should not tolerate the evil of state terrorism,
even when committed by a nominal ally. USA's
voters & leaders must reckon with their subversion
of their own values.

Disclaimer...
This post is about general trends in groups,
not about every single individual, who might
differ from their tribe.

Well, @Revoltingest, I'm listening to the Republican debate in Florida -- and not a single debater on that stage (De Santis, Haley, Christie, Scott, Ramaswamy) said one word about the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, when they were given the chance. Not even Chris Christie, who I had a brief glimmer of hope for.

Worse, even Tim Scott had himself a nice rant on anti-Semitism (meaning anti-Jewish). Apparently, he doesn't recognize that most Jews today aren't actually semites, while most Muslims (outside of Asia) are. Funny.

You may not believe me, but it brought a tear to my weary old eye.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yeah, apparently like most I can recognise murderous thugs when I see them, but deaths from war scenarios, not so much.

Totally no bias whatsoever, there.

I'm more inclined to live and let live,

Except when you're not, apparently.

so if they choose the worst option then it seems apparent to me. But much like all those who seem to be fanatical as to certain beliefs. I think my language tells as to how I view Hamas.

And yet, you don't apply the same logic to the fanatics who are enacting genocide on Palestinian civilians, and chastise people for even using the word "genocide" when referring to the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people explicitly because of what you see as the religio-ethnic makeup of Israeli people.

Well if you consider the suicide of a whole people as being appropriate I pity you, even as to Hamas apparently knowing it is such for them.

In what reality do you believe what I have said suggests that?

Are you seriously blaming Palestinian civilians for their own murder?

But then the Palestinians in Gaza hardly got to vote over October 7th. Unless you think this type of action should have been done long ago, and regularly, because of all perceived harms coming from Israel.

I can't help but notice how completely and utterly you misinterpreted what I wrote.

Since my position, all along, has been that you can't justify carrying out an atrocity on civilians just because of previous atrocities - a position you have stated yourself - on what level do you think this position JUSTIFIES ATROCITIES? You are the one saying "you can't justify atrocities, except Israel can".

Both sides seemingly have committed such.

Right. How does that justify continuing to do so?

Not true. As I have said tirelessly, Hamas has made it difficult to attack them, hence the disproportionate casualties amongst the civilian population and especially children.

And do you believe "It's difficult to bomb Hamas without also disproportionately bombing civilians" serves as a justification for "We should just bomb them anyway"?

I'll leave the judgement until later.

Why not defer your judgement on Hamas, too? Why are you able to make a clear, moral judgement that the Hamas attack, in your words, was an act carried out by "murderous thugs" despite your total detachment from the event? And now you're deferring judgement on what is, objectively, a mass killing of civilians because... it's Israel doing it?

I know what Hamas have done, not so much as to Israel - apart from the number of deaths, which might be inflated though.

And you know the numbers of dead in Israel ISN'T inflated because...?

Of course, I don't believe they're inflated. But I don't believe the numbers coming out of Gaza are, either - even though I don't trust Hamas.

Given we are reliant on news coming out of Gaza and much of this is controlled by Hamas.

Whereas Israel always, always, always tells the truth. It's not like they are actively engaged in suppressing information coming out of Gaza, control access to the internet in Gaza, control all medical aid going into and coming out of Gaza, and have routinely lied in the past about Gaza.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, @Revoltingest, I'm listening to the Republican debate in Florida -- and not a single debater on that stage (De Santis, Haley, Christie, Scott, Ramaswamy) said one word about the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, when they were given the chance. Not even Chris Christie, who I had a brief glimmer of hope for.

Worse, even Tim Scott had himself a nice rant on anti-Semitism (meaning anti-Jewish). Apparently, he doesn't recognize that most Jews today aren't actually semites, while most Muslims (outside of Asia) are. Funny.

You may not believe me, but it brought a tear to my weary old eye.

I avoid such “debates”.
Nauseating.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

No no no its all Israel for oppressing their neighbors They should stop flinching. Cut Gaza some slack. Its Ok to raise their children to be the cogs in a vengeance machine. Just abrahamics having fun Let them play.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Totally no bias whatsoever, there.


Except when you're not, apparently.


And yet, you don't apply the same logic to the fanatics who are enacting genocide on Palestinian civilians, and chastise people for even using the word "genocide" when referring to the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people explicitly because of what you see as the religio-ethnic makeup of Israeli people.

If one wants to apply the use of genocide to any example where large numbers of people die then do so but to me the word implies a deliberate and intentional act or series of acts to eradicate a race, and this hardly applies to the current situation in Gaza, given that the people there are warned about coming attacks.

In what reality do you believe what I have said suggests that?

Are you seriously blaming Palestinian civilians for their own murder?

I'm not in a position to know what those in Gaza think, and especially as to what Hamas has done, but I suspect they might not be too pleased, unless they truly believe that what happened on October 7th was justified and deserved no retaliation whatsoever, especially from a much more powerful foe. Such seems more like stupidity to me - and just so cynical and cowardly of the leadership of Hamas, given most of these might escape death. But not those civilians who might never have voted for such actions - including so many innocent children.

I can't help but notice how completely and utterly you misinterpreted what I wrote.

Since my position, all along, has been that you can't justify carrying out an atrocity on civilians just because of previous atrocities - a position you have stated yourself - on what level do you think this position JUSTIFIES ATROCITIES? You are the one saying "you can't justify atrocities, except Israel can".

It is simply a natural reaction from the attack by Hamas. I can't condone violence of any sort but what are the other options as to responding in a similar fashion? The leadership of Hamas have stated their position - as to destroying Israel - and Gaza is where they are in authority and where they operate from. Israel has said they will not tolerate future threats like this so we have them doing what they are now doing. Did Hamas not understand this?

Right. How does that justify continuing to do so?

War crimes? It is often inevitable in wars. I'm not so judgmental as to differentiate between any in particular. Where would one like to go with this - the Russian losses during WWII or the nuclear weapons dropped on a civilian population, for instance?

And do you believe "It's difficult to bomb Hamas without also disproportionately bombing civilians" serves as a justification for "We should just bomb them anyway"?

As I've said many times, Hamas is as guilty as the Israelis for so many civilian deaths, including all the children, because of the tactics that Hamas use. They are essentially using underhand tactics (as per the hostages) - can't touch us because you'll be seen to be targeting poor innocent civilians, so there! Even if this what many in their position might do. My suggestion is to do something else, rather than placing the civilians at risk of death and a poor future. And no, I don't have any great solutions.

Why not defer your judgement on Hamas, too? Why are you able to make a clear, moral judgement that the Hamas attack, in your words, was an act carried out by "murderous thugs" despite your total detachment from the event? And now you're deferring judgement on what is, objectively, a mass killing of civilians because... it's Israel doing it?

The evidence does seem to me to be enough. Despite the claims that this was purely a military operation so as to take military hostages in exchange for those Palestinians held by Israel, the number of civilians killed is enough to trash this story. Either it went wrong in some fashion or got out of hand, and it might not have been as envisaged by those who organised this attack - my theory. Although, as mentioned in some of the articles cited concerning interviews with the Hamas leadership, they seemingly were prepared for what resulted.

And you know the numbers of dead in Israel ISN'T inflated because...?

Of course, I don't believe they're inflated. But I don't believe the numbers coming out of Gaza are, either - even though I don't trust Hamas.

Whereas Israel always, always, always tells the truth. It's not like they are actively engaged in suppressing information coming out of Gaza, control access to the internet in Gaza, control all medical aid going into and coming out of Gaza, and have routinely lied in the past about Gaza.

Who knows. One can simply try to be objective. I don't tend to use social media for any information and tend to rely on the more authoritative news outlets, and here in the UK it does tend to be reasonably balanced - allowing both sides to express their views as freely as I would expect.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If one wants to apply the use of genocide to any example where large numbers of people die then do so but to me the word implies a deliberate and intentional act or series of acts to eradicate a race, and this hardly applies to the current situation in Gaza, given that the people there are warned about coming attacks.

Except on the west bank, where their homes are taken and their rights to return are denied based on race, religion and ethnicity.

I'm not in a position to know what those in Gaza think,

I'm not asking you to tell me what Gazans think. I'm asking you to make your own moral judgement.

and especially as to what Hamas has done, but I suspect they might not be too pleased, unless they truly believe that what happened on October 7th was justified and deserved no retaliation whatsoever, especially from a much more powerful foe. Such seems more like stupidity to me - and just so cynical and cowardly of the leadership of Hamas, given most of these might escape death. But not those civilians who might never have voted for such actions - including so many innocent children.

Again, while this is a consideration worth making, the attitude you are taking implies that these deaths are solely the fault of Hamas and their supporters, regardless of whose finger is on the button. I believe this is wrong. States always have a choice in how they respond to atrocities like October 7th, and Israel deliberately chose a path that involved committing war crimes and killing thousands of civilians. To absolve them of that decision is to excuse that decision.

It is simply a natural reaction from the attack by Hamas.

I disagree. Countries suffer terrorist attacks all the time and don't always commit war crimes in response. Again, you would not extend this logic to Hamas' incursion by stating that it's a "natural reaction" to decades of war crimes and oppression.

I can't condone violence of any sort but what are the other options as to responding in a similar fashion?

Not committing war crimes is always an option. If we deny this, we make a joke out of the very notion that war crimes even exist in the first place, and we give power to organisations - including Hamas - that commit atrocities against civilians.

The leadership of Hamas have stated their position - as to destroying Israel - and Gaza is where they are in authority and where they operate from. Israel has said they will not tolerate future threats like this so we have them doing what they are now doing. Did Hamas not understand this?

It doesn't matter whether they did or did not. That does not justify committing war crimes against civilians.

War crimes? It is often inevitable in wars.

Inevitability does not equal moral deniability. The fact that a murder may have been inevitable doesn't make that murder, when it happens, any amount more morally justified or excusable.

I'm not so judgmental as to differentiate between any in particular.

Except when Hamas does them, apparently. Then they suddenly become a unique, special category that warrants war crimes in response, and no prior war crimes that may have spurred the attack are relevant.

Where would one like to go with this - the Russian losses during WWII or the nuclear weapons dropped on a civilian population, for instance?

I'd like to stay with the war crimes committed by the Israeli state, please.

As I've said many times, Hamas is as guilty as the Israelis for so many civilian deaths, including all the children, because of the tactics that Hamas use. They are essentially using underhand tactics (as per the hostages) - can't touch us because you'll be seen to be targeting poor innocent civilians, so there! Even if this what many in their position might do. My suggestion is to do something else, rather than placing the civilians at risk of death and a poor future. And no, I don't have any great solutions.

I don't believe Hamas give a damn about Palestinian civilian deaths, and I suspect they're keenly aware that Israel really don't care about Palestinian civilian deaths. The question is whether or not that alleviates any blame or moral culpability for Israel pulling the trigger. I believe it doesn't, especially when you consider the history at play and Israel's track record of war crimes and atrocities against the Palestinian people.

Despite the claims that this was purely a military operation so as to take military hostages in exchange for those Palestinians held by Israel, the number of civilians killed is enough to trash this story.

I don't put much credibility in what Hamas says retroactively about their killing civilians, either.

Either it went wrong in some fashion or got out of hand, and it might not have been as envisaged by those who organised this attack - my theory. Although, as mentioned in some of the articles cited concerning interviews with the Hamas leadership, they seemingly were prepared for what resulted.

This would not surprise me, either.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Except on the west bank, where their homes are taken and their rights to return are denied based on race, religion and ethnicity.

If you want to divert attention elsewhere then do so, but not with me. I am merely commenting as to how I see the current events as to Gaza and Israel.

I'm not asking you to tell me what Gazans think. I'm asking you to make your own moral judgement.

You really expect me to comment on religious beliefs and what such often does to people? Given that this mostly is the basis for all these issues. I try not to judge as to such. I don't really know what you are asking here, apart from trying to lay all the blame for this latest round of hostilities at the door of Israel. Which many seem to be doing.

Again, while this is a consideration worth making, the attitude you are taking implies that these deaths are solely the fault of Hamas and their supporters, regardless of whose finger is on the button. I believe this is wrong. States always have a choice in how they respond to atrocities like October 7th, and Israel deliberately chose a path that involved committing war crimes and killing thousands of civilians. To absolve them of that decision is to excuse that decision.

Twisting my words again. I've never said it is solely due to Hamas, but that they along with Israel share the blame for the large number of deaths. And unfortunately we are often constrained by what others do - hence not always having a free hand - and in this case, Israel didn't have that many realistic choices, given what Hamas did and what Hamas have said (as to eliminating Israel) - which presumably the Israelis already knew.

I disagree. Countries suffer terrorist attacks all the time and don't always commit war crimes in response. Again, you would not extend this logic to Hamas' incursion by stating that it's a "natural reaction" to decades of war crimes and oppression.

Have your opinion - not mine - and I didn't say it was inevitable but often happens, that violence is the response.

Not committing war crimes is always an option. If we deny this, we make a joke out of the very notion that war crimes even exist in the first place, and we give power to organisations - including Hamas - that commit atrocities against civilians.

The niceties of war - that so often get shoved by the wayside - and especially so when one side opens with a war crime.

It doesn't matter whether they did or did not. That does not justify committing war crimes against civilians.

I'll leave the judgements to others.

Inevitability does not equal moral deniability. The fact that a murder may have been inevitable doesn't make that murder, when it happens, any amount more morally justified or excusable.

I'm not trying to justify anything, just commenting that such often happens in wars.

Except when Hamas does them, apparently. Then they suddenly become a unique, special category that warrants war crimes in response, and no prior war crimes that may have spurred the attack are relevant.

Yes, because Hamas have brought hell down on to the population they were in authority over and quite cynically have done so given that they seem to be relying on public outrage to sway opinion and gain from this. That is why I call them out.

I'd like to stay with the war crimes committed by the Israeli state, please.


I don't believe Hamas give a damn about Palestinian civilian deaths, and I suspect they're keenly aware that Israel really don't care about Palestinian civilian deaths. The question is whether or not that alleviates any blame or moral culpability for Israel pulling the trigger. I believe it doesn't, especially when you consider the history at play and Israel's track record of war crimes and atrocities against the Palestinian people.


I don't put much credibility in what Hamas says retroactively about their killing civilians, either.


This would not surprise me, either.

No doubt there will be an inquest over this whole business, and the sooner the better, for the sake of the civilians who live in Gaza.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you want to divert attention elsewhere then do so, but not with me. I am merely commenting as to how I see the current events as to Gaza and Israel.

The point being made is that Israel IS committing genocide, and so it's not exactly a huge leap to suggest that the current bombardment of Gaza and its disproportionate killing of Palestinian civilians is an extension of that.

You really expect me to comment on religious beliefs and what such often does to people?

No. I'm asking you to make your OWN moral judgement.

Given that this mostly is the basis for all these issues. I try not to judge as to such.

You called Hamas "murderous thugs" so you obviously aren't trying that hard not to judge, and while I'd agree with your judgement I think it's somewhat selective.

I don't really know what you are asking here, apart from trying to lay all the blame for this latest round of hostilities at the door of Israel. Which many seem to be doing.

I lay the blame for Israel killing civilians at the feet of Israel, yes. While I believe Hamas provoked them, I don't believe a country being "provoked into deliberately killing thousands of civilians" is much of an excuse.

Twisting my words again. I've never said it is solely due to Hamas, but that they along with Israel share the blame for the large number of deaths.

You have repeatedly, in the past, denied and excused Israel's responsibility for the death by repeatedly suggesting that they had no other choice.

But, that's fine. Stating that Israel share some blame is better than stating they share no blame at all.

And unfortunately we are often constrained by what others do - hence not always having a free hand - and in this case, Israel didn't have that many realistic choices, given what Hamas did and what Hamas have said (as to eliminating Israel) - which presumably the Israelis already knew.

Again, this "they didn't have any choice" narrative eats away at Israeli responsibility. They always have the choice not to mass slaughter civilians; they CHOSE not to, because they generally disregard the lives of Palestinian civilians. I believe this position is fairly well substantiated.

Have your opinion - not mine - and I didn't say it was inevitable but often happens, that violence is the response.

Violence committed against civilians should always be called out.

The niceties of war - that so often get shoved by the wayside - and especially so when one side opens with a war crime.

Again, ignoring all war crimes that occurred BEFORE October 7th. You can't justify atrocities in response to atrocities - you have agreed with this sentiment before, so why excuse the committing of atrocities now?

I'll leave the judgements to others.

Except when you do the judgements of one side, but not the other.

I'm not trying to justify anything, just commenting that such often happens in wars.

You've explicitly tried to justify it as Israel having "no other option" or because Hamas "use human shields". Those are justifications.

Yes, because Hamas have brought hell down on to the population they were in authority over and quite cynically have done so given that they seem to be relying on public outrage to sway opinion and gain from this. That is why I call them out.

I agree, they should be called out.

So should Israel.

No doubt there will be an inquest over this whole business, and the sooner the better, for the sake of the civilians who live in Gaza.

Hopefully, yes, but it seems unlikely considering Israel and the US often veto any significant humanitarian aid going into the region, and Israel have historically denied access to the region by independent human rights groups. We cannot simply allow an atrocity to occur and expect Israel and the US (or Hamas) to suddenly start playing by the rules once the dust has settled and the bodies are buried.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The point being made is that Israel IS committing genocide, and so it's not exactly a huge leap to suggest that the current bombardment of Gaza and its disproportionate killing of Palestinian civilians is an extension of that.

In your view - not in mine - given the word is about intentionality. The Israelis could do it even quicker if they were bent on genocide.

No. I'm asking you to make your OWN moral judgement.

Not in a position to do so, but you are apparently.

You called Hamas "murderous thugs" so you obviously aren't trying that hard not to judge, and while I'd agree with your judgement I think it's somewhat selective.

Hardly selective given the evidence. At least a thousand civilians were intentionally slaughtered.

I lay the blame for Israel killing civilians at the feet of Israel, yes. While I believe Hamas provoked them, I don't believe a country being "provoked into deliberately killing thousands of civilians" is much of an excuse.

We keep getting to this point, that Hamas ensured such by embedding themselves within the population. How can one avoid this fact? Oh, I know - get the Israelis to ask the Hamas fighters nicely to line up at the border so they can mow them down.

You have repeatedly, in the past, denied and excused Israel's responsibility for the death by repeatedly suggesting that they had no other choice.

But, that's fine. Stating that Israel share some blame is better than stating they share no blame at all.

Well you, on the other hand, seem to accuse me of letting Israel off the hook, when I haven't ever said so, but just that their options might have forced them into accepting larger numbers of casualties because of the Hamas tactics. They could of course not attacked Hamas and just ignored what happened on Oct 7th. But how realistic is this? I'm in no position to know as to how spread out Hamas is/was so as to effectively get at them.

Again, this "they didn't have any choice" narrative eats away at Israeli responsibility. They always have the choice not to mass slaughter civilians; they CHOSE not to, because they generally disregard the lives of Palestinian civilians. I believe this position is fairly well substantiated.

See above. I'm not there and neither are you.

Violence committed against civilians should always be called out.

If you told Hamas this before Oct 7th then Gaza might have been spared.

Again, ignoring all war crimes that occurred BEFORE October 7th. You can't justify atrocities in response to atrocities - you have agreed with this sentiment before, so why excuse the committing of atrocities now?

Because they might not be atrocities but simply casualties, as so often happens in warfare.

Except when you do the judgements of one side, but not the other.


You've explicitly tried to justify it as Israel having "no other option" or because Hamas "use human shields". Those are justifications.

I don't know how one avoids casualties when such happens, apart from just not attacking, but then Hamas win. That is your preferred scenario?

I agree, they should be called out.

So should Israel.


Hopefully, yes, but it seems unlikely considering Israel and the US often veto any significant humanitarian aid going into the region, and Israel have historically denied access to the region by independent human rights groups. We cannot simply allow an atrocity to occur and expect Israel and the US (or Hamas) to suddenly start playing by the rules once the dust has settled and the bodies are buried.

Well, politics is one of my least favourite subjects, along with economics and religions, so I'll leave such to others.

 

[Revoltingest]

No no no its all Israel for oppressing their neighbors They should stop flinching. Cut Gaza some slack. Its Ok to raise their children to be the cogs in a vengeance machine. Just abrahamics having fun Let them play.

You're ignoring Israel's option to stop fueling
the "vengeance machine" with human rights
violations, & war crimes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In your view - not in mine - given the word is about intentionality. The Israelis could do it even quicker if they were bent on genocide.

Once again, they ARE doing genocide - that is just a fact, not a point of view. The idea that they could be doing it "quicker" is a bit silly considering a huge part of their operations in Gaza is about justifying their actions internationally, so it's not as if they can just drop a nuke on the region. But they ARE committing genocide, and I don't think it's unreasonable to see their clearly callous disregard for the lives of Gazan civilians as an extension of this.

Not in a position to do so, but you are apparently.

Yes, you are. You have been making moral judgements this whole time.

Hardly selective given the evidence. At least a thousand civilians were intentionally slaughtered.

The point is that you accept some evidence and make judgements of one side, but when evidence is put before you of the OTHER side you suddenly reserve judgement. You claim to withhold judgement, but the truth is that your judgement is simply selective.

We keep getting to this point, that Hamas ensured such by embedding themselves within the population. How can one avoid this fact?

I've not avoided it. My point all along has been that Hamas using human shields does not justify the shooting of human shields. Both the act of using a human shield and the act of wilfully pulling the trigger to kill that human shield are morally unjustified actions.

Oh, I know - get the Israelis to ask the Hamas fighters nicely to line up at the border so they can mow them down.

Once again, you pretend this is the only option. I will not entertain the idea that Israel had no option other than to commit war crimes or else let Hamas off with just a stern talking to. That is a position that would require the death of my brain, and I will not accept it.

Well you, on the other hand, seem to accuse me of letting Israel off the hook, when I haven't ever said so, but just that their options might have forced them into accepting larger numbers of casualties because of the Hamas tactics.

"Forced them into accepting" is letting Israel off the hook, because it implies Israel had no choice other than to commit war crimes.

They had other choices. To pretend otherwise is to explicitly justify war crimes.

They could of course not attacked Hamas and just ignored what happened on Oct 7th. But how realistic is this?

Weird how you keep saying this is as if it's something I suggested when it isn't. Please stop doing that. I have never once suggested that's what they do. My position has always been that the dichotomy of "Israel either does war crimes on Palestinian civilians or else it ignores Hamas' and they face no retaliation" is a false one.

I'm in no position to know as to how spread out Hamas is/was so as to effectively get at them.

You are in a position, as a rational and moral human being, to condemn the unnecessary loss of civilian life caused by both Israel and Hamas, and not to pretend that Israel had no choice but to kill 10,000+ civilians in response to Hamas' incursion.

See above. I'm not there and neither are you.

Again, you employ this logic selectively. It's not good enough.

If you told Hamas this before Oct 7th then Gaza might have been spared.

Again, you rob Israel of agency. Israel are doing the mass killing now, not Hamas.

Because they might not be atrocities but simply casualties, as so often happens in warfare.

Israel have explicitly committed war crimes. Please stop engaging in war crime denial.

I don't know how one avoids casualties when such happens, apart from just not attacking, but then Hamas win. That is your preferred scenario?

Israel doesn't do war crimes. That would be preferred.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You're ignoring Israel's option to stop fueling
the "vengeance machine" with human rights
violations, & war crimes.

You assume the worst, so you can be pleasantly surprised later except when it comes to this group of people. You have always opposed (in my experience) our monies we send to other countries. Might that be a hidden concern, or am I to believe you have a sincere wish to entrust Gaza with open borders with a real expectation they will appreciate it in a way that does not kill their neighbors? You believe it is safe? Its not about the foreign aid and runaway spending?

 

[Brickjectivity]

You're ignoring Israel's option to stop fueling
the "vengeance machine" with human rights
violations, & war crimes.

You assume the worst, so you can be pleasantly surprised later except when it comes to this group of people. You have always opposed (in my experience) our monies we send to other countries. Might that be a hidden concern, or am I to believe you have a sincere wish to entrust Gaza with open borders with a real expectation they will appreciate it in a way that does not kill their neighbors? You believe it is safe? Its not about the foreign aid and runaway spending?

 

[Revoltingest]

You assume the worst...

Actually, I can be accused of assuming the best,
ie, that there's a clear, albeit long & bumpy, path
to peace if Israel begins treating Palestinians &
Muslims equally to Jews.
This blames no one....just assigns responsibility to
the party whose actions should change for the better.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Once again, they ARE doing genocide - that is just a fact, not a point of view. The idea that they could be doing it "quicker" is a bit silly considering a huge part of their operations in Gaza is about justifying their actions internationally, so it's not as if they can just drop a nuke on the region. But they ARE committing genocide, and I don't think it's unreasonable to see their clearly callous disregard for the lives of Gazan civilians as an extension of this.

Rubbish. One could say this about almost any war then. Given that civilian deaths are all too common since the advent of modern weapons. You really should look at the past rather than be so selective as to modern conflicts. Perhaps some bias as to Palestinians here?

Yes, you are. You have been making moral judgements this whole time.

And you haven't obviously.

The point is that you accept some evidence and make judgements of one side, but when evidence is put before you of the OTHER side you suddenly reserve judgement. You claim to withhold judgement, but the truth is that your judgement is simply selective.

Well we all are selective. Some see Israel as the big bad ogre, for example.

I've not avoided it. My point all along has been that Hamas using human shields does not justify the shooting of human shields. Both the act of using a human shield and the act of wilfully pulling the trigger to kill that human shield are morally unjustified actions.

Well I don't know of another way to defeat those who use such tactics, given that doing so just encourages others. You might like to look at this:

War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All combatants, including insurgents, are bound by the law of war. Louis René Beres has analyzed the placing of military assets amid Palestinian civilian populations, categorizing it as a clear and punishable crime under international law. The act of perfidy, described as a "grave breach" in Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is forbidden by the Hague Regulations, which forbid placing military assets or personnel in civilian populated areas. Additionally, Protocol I of 1977, supplementing the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, contains related prohibitions on perfidy. These regulations are enforced not only through the mentioned treaties but also via customary international law, as indicated by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. A, as underlined in Article 3, shared across the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.

So Hamas are guilty from the start.

Once again, you pretend this is the only option. I will not entertain the idea that Israel had no option other than to commit war crimes or else let Hamas off with just a stern talking to. That is a position that would require the death of my brain, and I will not accept it.

Your brain still hasn't come up with any sensible alternative though.

"Forced them into accepting" is letting Israel off the hook, because it implies Israel had no choice other than to commit war crimes.

They had other choices. To pretend otherwise is to explicitly justify war crimes.

As above, please tell as to a solution.

Weird how you keep saying this is as if it's something I suggested when it isn't. Please stop doing that. I have never once suggested that's what they do. My position has always been that the dichotomy of "Israel either does war crimes on Palestinian civilians or else it ignores Hamas' and they face no retaliation" is a false one.

And as above.

You are in a position, as a rational and moral human being, to condemn the unnecessary loss of civilian life caused by both Israel and Hamas, and not to pretend that Israel had no choice but to kill 10,000+ civilians in response to Hamas' incursion.

I don't if I recognise what the aims of Israel appear to be - the destruction of Hamas - and such either takes place quickly or more slowly, with the latter perhaps involving more deaths.

Again, you employ this logic selectively. It's not good enough.


Again, you rob Israel of agency. Israel are doing the mass killing now, not Hamas.

Yes, they ran out of ammo or their blood lust passed.

Israel have explicitly committed war crimes. Please stop engaging in war crime denial.


Israel doesn't do war crimes. That would be preferred.

Same as to Hamas and all others. What a shame that Hamas was founded on this principle.