Israel Declares War After Hamas Attacks

[Left Coast]

Those terms need definition, perhaps
because they're too obscure?

War crime - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Collective punishment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Those definitions require application to particular acts and there are multiple complicating factors. Where is the actual concrete line between what Israel is militarily allowed or not allowed to do? Are they allowed to attack Hamas? How would they do that without killing civilians? Are they allowed to cut off utilities they supply for free that are used by terrorists when they allow humanitarian aid to provide the needs of refugees and Hamas is responsible for providing the needs of its people? What pressures is Israel allowed to exert on Hamas to release the 200 civilians they're holding hostage (I'm pretty sure that's a war crime, right?)? Is Israel allowed to close its border when they know terrorists hide among civilians and would happily commit another 10/7? These questions are more complex than you want to admit.

"Well, it being hard doesn't excuse war crimes."

Obviously. The devil is in the details. Every action or inaction has a consequence. Pick your poison.

Israel admitted prioritizing destruction
over accuracy. The toll of death &
destruction confirms this.

I read your posts for what they say,
& what they avoid. It is what it is.

Lack of expertise doesn't justify war crimes.

You object to my characterization of your
view, but you don't offer an alternative.
And for one so keen on evidence &
definitions, I've seen bupkis in your posts.

This is all stuff I've already addressed, non-responses, and ends with a bit of projection of your own shortcomings.

If you have nothing new or substantive to add to the conversation, just stop.

 

[Left Coast]

You either have to police the hell out of it and arrest Hamas members and hold trials

Ugh, that'll lead to more criticism about occupation.

or learn what lead to Hamas amd perpetuates their existence amd work towards ameliorating that to snuff out Hamas that way.

What perpetuates their existence is hatred of Jews. That's their whole raison d'etre. Eliminating that is a long game for sure.

 

[Copernicus]

Those terms need definition, perhaps
because they're too obscure?

War crime - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Collective punishment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Israel admitted prioritizing destruction
over accuracy. The toll of death &
destruction confirms this...

Those definitions require application to particular acts and there are multiple complicating factors. Where is the actual concrete line between what Israel is militarily allowed or not allowed to do? Are they allowed to attack Hamas? How would they do that without killing civilians? Are they allowed to cut off utilities they supply for free that are used by terrorists when they allow humanitarian aid to provide the needs of refugees and Hamas is responsible for providing the needs of its people? What pressures is Israel allowed to exert on Hamas to release the 200 civilians they're holding hostage (I'm pretty sure that's a war crime, right?)? Is Israel allowed to close its border when they know terrorists hide among civilians and would happily commit another 10/7? These questions are more complex than you want to admit.

"Well, it being hard doesn't excuse war crimes."

Obviously. The devil is in the details. Every action or inaction has a consequence. Pick your poison.
...

The application seems fairly clear to me--don't take actions that endanger the lives of civilians unless there is some immediate, compelling need. Cutting off food, water, and medical supplies to the entire population of Gaza because Hamas will also have access to those supplies clearly violates the specified definitions of war crimes. Blowing up a densely populated area of innocent civilians to kill a high level Hamas commander would be a war crime. Attempting to pressure Hamas by killing large numbers of Palestinians in indiscriminate bombings would be considered a war crime. We can admit that the questions pose extreme difficulty for Israel in trying to root out and eliminate Hamas, but that is what differentiates Israel from Hamas--or, at least, it ought to be.

Or maybe the very definition of war crimes should just be tossed away. For the sake of expediency, anything goes--killing, starvation, no water, no food, no safe havens--because the end justifies the means. Eliminating Hamas justifies killing all of those innocent civilians. And it would help if I stopped calling the civilians "innocent", because that just makes it sound worse than the complicated reality is that many of those civilians also want to commit the same kind of brutal retaliation against Israel that they and their families are now suffering. Maybe not all of them are evil, but some of them are. The complicated reality is that bombs kill everyone in the blast area, including those who are not evil. And they turn hearts evil among those who survive. So maybe they are not the best means to be used in eliminating Hamas. Maybe there is no easy or convenient way to do it.

 

[Left Coast]

The application seems fairly clear to me--don't take actions that endanger the lives of civilians unless there is some immediate, compelling need.

Israel is trying to prevent another terrorist attack that just killed 1400 people. 200 hostages are held by terrorists. Those needs are immediate and compelling, right?

Cutting off food, water, and medical supplies to the entire population of Gaza because Hamas will also have access to those supplies clearly violates the specified definitions of war crimes.

Israel hasn't cut off all food, water, and supplies though.

Blowing up a densely populated area of innocent civilians to kill a high level Hamas commander would be a war crime.

This is closer to something more clear cut, I agree. It's dependent, as I've read, on the urgency and military advantage to be gained from the attack.

Attempting to pressure Hamas by killing large numbers of Palestinians in indiscriminate bombings would be considered a war crime.

And of course, Israel would say it isn't doing that, and that civilians are being killed in the crossfire because they are human shields.

We can admit that the questions pose extreme difficulty for Israel in trying to root out and eliminate Hamas, but that is what differentiates Israel from Hamas--or, at least, it ought to be.

On that we agree.

Or maybe the very definition of war crimes should just be tossed away...

I don't think we need to go that far.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you have nothing new or substantive to add to the conversation, just stop.

Since you're just repeating yourself,
there's nothing new for you.
It's tedious when you get this way.

 

[Copernicus]

Israel is trying to prevent another terrorist attack that just killed 1400 people. 200 hostages are held by terrorists. Those needs are immediate and compelling, right?

No, because another terrorist attack of that kind was neither immediate nor compelling at the time that Israel has been killing all of those civilians since the October 7 attack. Nor is it clear that any of these actions will stop terrorist attacks in the future. It certainly will not end the thirst for revenge against Israel that many Palestinians and Muslims feel now. But I suspect you know that the real thought here is to deter future attacks because of the horror visited on Palestinians for this one. Hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future.

Israel hasn't cut off all food, water, and supplies though.

Actually, it has. And power needed to run the hospitals, too. And medical supplies. The Gaza Strip used to require about 500 truckloads of supplies a day. Right now, they get a tiny amount of those.

This is closer to something more clear cut, I agree. It's dependent, as I've read, on the urgency and military advantage to be gained from the attack.

Israel has had the military advantage all along, and it appears that they even had advance warnings that a terrorist attack was coming. Not only did they underestimate the scale of that attack. They ignored the warnings. There is no urgency now, and Israel is not in danger of losing its military advantage. What it is doing is pure revenge. And not just against Hamas, but against the civilian population of the Gaza Strip that neither planned nor participated in the attack.

...Attempting to pressure Hamas by killing large numbers of Palestinians in indiscriminate bombings would be considered a war crime.
And of course, Israel would say it isn't doing that, and that civilians are being killed in the crossfire because they are human shields.

That's why people consider it a war crime. Civilian lives take precedence over military objectives. The fact that they didn't go from one area being bombed to another is no excuse. Besides, where would they go? Supplies of food, water, power, shelter, and medical aid are scarce everywhere. One Palestinian I saw interviewed had returned from the south to go back north. He said that, if he was going to die, he would rather it be in his own home. On NBC, an IDF Lt. Colonel explained that they had done everything they could to tell people to leave the north, but they chose to stay anyway. So, what were they supposed to do? Not drop bombs on civilians????

...Or maybe the very definition of war crimes should just be tossed away...

I don't think we need to go that far.

Why not? There doesn't seem to be any excuse in the minds of the IDF not to kill human shields. What is the point of saying that it is a war crime then?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What perpetuates their existence is hatred of Jews.

That's like saying PIRA existed because they hate the English. There's more to it than that, such as Israel corraling that many people into such a small area and economically repressing them.
It's like the history books painting Rome as the victim of "barbarians," people who were fighting against an oppressive and brutal state.

 

[metis]

Lots of people write lots of rubbish.

When the ayatollah claims that they are arming HAMAS, then I can believe it.

But israeli media rhetoric or online ranting is not evidence.

I provided some evidence, so why didn't you counter that with evidence you found?

BTW, according to a study done by PolitiFact, PBS NewsHour is the most accurate in their reporting than any other tv news followed by CNN. Wanna take a guess at which major network is the worst?

 

[Bthoth]

I provided some evidence, so why didn't you counter that with evidence you found?

Be specific. I asked if Iran is supplying HAMAS with weapons.

BTW, according to a study done by PolitiFact, PBS NewsHour is the most accurate in their reporting than any other tv news followed by CNN. Wanna take a guess at which major network is the worst?

Not really. But I do not trust Israel, that I can state without reservation.

 

[metis]

Be specific. I asked if Iran is supplying HAMAS with weapons.

Not really. But I do not trust Israel, that I can state without reservation.

Iran does provide material support to Hamas as well as training and money, experts told Vox, as does Hezbollah. Proxy groups — armed groups affiliated with a state actor — like the Fatemiyoun Brigade in Syria and the Badr Organization in Iraq, as well as the Houthis in Yemen, work more in concert with the Iranian regime, but it would be incorrect to automatically put the blame for Saturday’s attack right at the regime’s doorstep... -- How does Iran fit into the war between Israel and Hamas?

BTW, I don't trust Israel either, especially with Netanyahu at the helm.

 

[Bthoth]

Iran does provide material support to Hamas as well as training and money, experts told Vox, as does Hezbollah. Proxy groups — armed groups affiliated with a state actor — like the Fatemiyoun Brigade in Syria and the Badr Organization in Iraq, as well as the Houthis in Yemen, work more in concert with the Iranian regime, but it would be incorrect to automatically put the blame for Saturday’s attack right at the regime’s doorstep... -- How does Iran fit into the war between Israel and Hamas?

BTW, I don't trust Israel either, especially with Netanyahu at the helm.

And 'we the people' are what gives israel the weapons to blow up GAZA. Are 'WE" responsible for death of 1000's of men women and children?

There are no shipments of weapons from any country going to HAMAS, proxy terminology is about like claiming that the terrorist org Irgun is now IDF, because the people of IDF absorbed irgun in the 40's.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Be specific. I asked if Iran is supplying HAMAS with weapons.

Not really. But I do not trust Israel, that I can state without reservation.

Guess what, many won't trust a word coming out of Gaza when the area is run by a bunch of murderous thugs it seems.

 

[Bthoth]

Guess what, many won't trust a word coming out of Gaza when the area is run by a bunch of murderous thugs it seems.

The 20-30k HAMAS could barely fill a basket ball venue. There are more crips in the world than HAMAS.

I was not debating what HAMAS says, as they could claim that china 1.5 billion support them, just because CHINA has signed UN resolutions against israel.

I do trust the UN claiming 400+ children a day are dying. Especially knowing that a Over 45% of GAZA strip is children under 18 yrs old and observing the amount of damage gaza is experiencing during this one event. Keep in mind, Israel has bombed GAZA at least once ever 10-15 yrs.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The 20-30k HAMAS could barely fill a basket ball venue. There are more crips in the world than HAMAS.

I was not debating what HAMAS says, as they could claim that china 1.5 billion support them, just because CHINA has signed UN resolutions against israel.

I do trust the UN claiming 400+ children a day are dying. Especially knowing that a Over 45% of GAZA strip is children under 18 yrs old and observing the amount of damage gaza is experiencing during this one event. Keep in mind, Israel has bombed GAZA at least once ever 10-15 yrs.

The deaths might be so but the circumstances might be different, given Hamas are in charge as to what information comes out mostly. Your accusation was not really appropriate though as to seemingly not trusting Israel as any accurate source of information.

 

[Bthoth]

The deaths might be so but the circumstances might be different, given Hamas are in charge as to what information comes out mostly. Your accusation was not really appropriate though as to seemingly not trusting Israel as any accurate source of information.

I was focused on a specific, if you want to respond appropriately then try to keep focused.

i asked about iran giving weapons to HAMAS. There is no evidence but the rude and assumptive want to accept the rhetoric that iran are the bad guys.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I was focused on a specific, if you want to respond appropriately then try to keep focused.

i asked about iran giving weapons to HAMAS. There is no evidence but the rude and assumptive want to accept the rhetoric that iran are the bad guys.

Fair enough.

 

[metis]

There are no shipments of weapons from any country going to HAMAS, proxy terminology is about like claiming that the terrorist org Irgun is now IDF, because the people of IDF absorbed irgun in the 40's.

Hamas, a Palestinian militant group, acquires smuggled weapons from Iran and also builds them in Gaza, according to the CIA.-- PolitiFact - Ask PolitiFact: Where does Hamas get its weapons?

 

[metis]

As an addendum to my last post, this:
DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran’s Supreme Leader on Friday denounced Israel as a “tumor” to be removed and hailed Tehran’s supply of arms to Palestinians, drawing swift condemnation from the United States, European Union and Israel.-- Iran lauds arms supply to Palestinians against 'tumor' Israel

 

[Bthoth]

Hamas, a Palestinian militant group, acquires smuggled weapons from Iran and also builds them in Gaza, according to the CIA.-- PolitiFact - Ask PolitiFact: Where does Hamas get its weapons?

Information but lousy weaponry in compared to israel

 

[Bthoth]

As an addendum to my last post, this:
DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran’s Supreme Leader on Friday denounced Israel as a “tumor” to be removed and hailed Tehran’s supply of arms to Palestinians, drawing swift condemnation from the United States, European Union and Israel.-- Iran lauds arms supply to Palestinians against 'tumor' Israel

Neither are reasons to attack iran and get US into a war.