Israel Declares War After Hamas Attacks

[Lyndon]

Oh what nonsense. Israel didn't "have this coming." Hamas is a terrorist group that doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist and want to replace it with an Islamist state. That's the reason they attacked. Israel's existence "provokes" them.

nonsense, Israel is a terrorist organization too

 

[Lyndon]

Baffling.



When was it intentional? You're conflating things together.

Hamas doesn't believe Israel should exist. They want to erect an Islamist shariah state. They are literally willing to kill themselves and anyone else to achieve that goal.

If you seriously believe that's morally equivalent to the aims of recent US foreign policy, we have no way of contuining this conversation in seriousness. It's laughable. It's absurd. Has the US killed civilians in war? Yes. Have we been sloppy and are some soldiers "trigger happy?" I'm sure. None of that morally equates to Hamas. You don't think US military forces in 2023 take intentional steps, and have regulations, to avoid civilian casualties in combat zones? You think Hamas plays by those rules? Give me a ****ing break. To pretend they are morally equal is to abandon all claim to a reasonable position in this discussion.

Israel just called for genocide of Hamas, so how is that different

 

[Lyndon]

I do agree that the poor conditions in Gaza make it easier for Hamas to recruit people.



I am aware of those things. I'm also aware of the fact that the situation there is complex and there are no easy solutions. How do you deal with an area right in your own backyard that is run by literal Islamists who don't believe your country should exist? And who have demonstrated over and over that they will kill to achieve their goal of Israel's destruction?

So comparing a situation that is complicated with a situation where a terrorist group just launched a mass attack on civilians just doesn't fly. The two aren't morally equivalent.



This avoids the obvious point. Israel is a liberal democratic country. Hamas is a terroist group. The two aren't the same. They're not morally interchangeable.



Where are we indiscriminately slaughtering civilians?



Which state's existence do we not respect?

Is the US morally equivalent to Hamas in your eyes too? Jesus Christ.

Israel is no longer a democracy, more of a right wing fascist state

 

[Debater Slayer]

The intentional targeting of civilians is a red line, DS. That's what Hamas just did.

I agree. Hamas' actions are reprehensible. However, there's another point that ties into the next part of what you said:

Civilians do die in war unintentionally. That happens in every war on every side. Israel has more effective weaponry and thus, yes, is much more effective at inflicting damage on Hamas. And as I understand it, Gaza is a densely populated area, which I would bet money Hamas uses to its advantage in hiding from Israeli counterstrikes. So comparing raw numbers like that, without context, doesn't allow us to falsely equivocate between a terrorist group and a democratic state.

Intentional targeting of civilians isn't the only way a military can commit an atrocity toward them. Negligence in taking precautions to avoid or minimize civilian deaths as much as possible is also criminally irresponsible. Israel has long faced criticism from independent observers and human rights organizations for excessive civilian death tolls in many operations carried out by the IDF, and I don't think any discussion about the conflict in the region can be based on a complete picture without consideration of that aspect of the region's history.

 

[Debater Slayer]

See my post above to DS above re: civilian deaths. You're also conflating actions of the US decades ago with today. You're also completely ignoring the moral relevance of intent. The fact that a homicidal person fails to ever kill despite intending and trying doesn't make him morally equivalent, much less morally better than, a soldier who unintentionally killed civilians in war. The two aren't the same.

What difference should the stated intent of a military power make to someone who has lost their family, gotten maimed, or had their city or country destroyed by said power's actions? Does the intent change the tangible, real-world results in any way?

I think that intent is more relevant to courtrooms and philosophical discussions than it is to the tangible results of a military's actions and those actions' effects on people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That does not appear to be quite right. According to this source it was not an offer from the Japanese Supreme War Council. it was from some "peace party". In other words it was no a genuine offer. I am sure that the writers of it probably thought that it was, but they were not controlling the country:

Did the Japanese offer to surrender before Hiroshima? (Part 2)

What if Japan did offer nearly-full surrender terms to the US in early 1945? In the 1940s, just this was claimed — but it's not very likely.

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com

This source indicates that there was still resistance to surrender after the bombs were dropped:

Manhattan Project: Japan Surrenders, August 10-15, 1945

"From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.

Following the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (left), the Japanese government met to consider what to do next. The emperor had been urging since June that Japan find some way to end the war, but the Japanese Minister of War and the heads of both the Army and the Navy held to their position that Japan should wait and see if arbitration via the Soviet Union might still produce something less than a surrender. Military leaders also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement. Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3. For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender. On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state. "

They were still holding out hope to hold on to at least some of the countries that they had conquered, nor were they will to have any oversight. The bombings appear to have been legit. Even in hindsight.

Of course there was still resistance. But there was hope Russia would act as a mediator to negotiate a surrender before the bombs were dropped. But what Russia replied with was a declaration of war against Japan, which did more than the bombs in getting the Japanese to agree to the harsh terms prolosed to them.

Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion and consolidation, an eventual conflict with the United States, and finally a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some new territory they had conquered.[22] By 1945, Japan's leaders were in agreement that the war was going badly, but they disagreed over the best means to negotiate its end. There were two camps: the so-called "peace" camp favored a diplomatic initiative to persuade Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, to mediate a settlement between the Allies and Japan; and the hardliners who favored fighting one last "decisive" battle that would inflict so many casualties on the Allies that they would be willing to offer more lenient terms.[1] Both approaches were based on Japan's experience in the Russo–Japanese War, forty years earlier, which consisted of a series of costly but largely indecisive battles, followed by the decisive naval Battle of Tsushima.[23]

In February 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe gave Emperor Hirohito a memorandum analyzing the situation, and told him that if the war continued, the imperial family might be in greater danger from an internal revolution than from defeat.[24] According to the diary of Grand Chamberlain Hisanori Fujita, the Emperor, looking for a decisive battle (tennōzan), replied that it was premature to seek peace "unless we make one more military gain".[25] Also in February, Japan's treaty division wrote about Allied policies towards Japan regarding "unconditional surrender, occupation, disarmament, elimination of militarism, democratic reforms, punishment of war criminals, and the status of the emperor."[26] Allied-imposed disarmament, Allied punishment of Japanese war criminals, and especially occupation and removal of the Emperor, were not acceptable to the Japanese leadership.[27][28]

At a series of high-level meetings in May, the Big Six first seriously discussed ending the war, but none of them on terms that would have been acceptable to the Allies. Because anyone openly supporting Japanese surrender risked assassination by zealous army officers, the meetings were closed to anyone except the Big Six, the Emperor, and the Privy Seal. No second or third-echelon officers could attend.[34] At these meetings, despite the dispatches from Japanese ambassador Satō in Moscow, only Foreign Minister Tōgō realized that Roosevelt and Churchill might have already made concessions to Stalin to bring the Soviets into the war against Japan.[35] Tōgō had been outspoken about ending the war quickly.[36]: 628  As a result of these meetings, he was authorized to approach the Soviet Union, seeking to maintain its neutrality, or (despite the very remote probability) to form an alliance.[37]

They knew they were beaten. It was the conditions they balked at. Amd the bombs were dropped and the Russians attacked anyways.
So, yeah. Uncle Sams sense of morals and ethics is probably just as bad as Hamas.

 

[Yerda]

Blockades, embargos, occupation of the West Bank and their own aggressions do add some weight to that claim.

I can see why there is support for armed resistance but the civilians who were murdered had no bearing on the state of Palestinian lives, and neither will their murder do anything to remove blockades, embargos, occupation etc.

I think at best we could say this is not entirely unexpected given the situation but calling it "resistance" like Hamas is striking a blow for the freedom of the people of Palestine is absolutely shameful, imo.

Do you live within the concentration camp gaza? Have you ever had your homes and land taken from you because settlers expect you to leave?

No.

Has your family been murdered by psychotic religious fanatics harbouring a genocidal rage against your people?

 

[Yerda]

Israel just called for genocide of Hamas, so how is that different

This is mental. Hamas isn't a nation, or an ethnic group or a people. Get a grip of yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course there was still resistance. But there was hope Russia would act as a mediator to negotiate a surrender before the bombs were dropped. But what Russia replied with was a declaration of war against Japan, which did more than the bombs in getting the Japanese to agree to the harsh terms prolosed to them.

Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

They knew they were beaten. It was the conditions they balked at. Amd the bombs were dropped and the Russians attacked anyways.
So, yeah. Uncle Sams sense of morals and ethics is probably just as bad as Hamas.

You are not making sense. The Japanese were the aggressors for about eight years before WWII. They were not willing to give up their ill gotten gains. A US.invasion would likely have cost even more.US and Japanese civilian lives. Their leadership was like Trump of today. We couldn't have that sort of peace with them. It had to be almost unconditional.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is mental. Hamas isn't a nation, or an ethnic group or a people. Get a grip of yourself.

So who is Netanyahu referring to, when declaring that Israel is at war? And who or what will Israel's considerable hi-tech arsenal be targeting in the weeks to come, do you think?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Debater Slayer - thank you for the clarity you've demonstrated in this thread.

 

[Yerda]

So who is Netanyahu referring to, when declaring that Israel is at war? And who or what will Israel's considerable hi-tech arsenal be targeting in the weeks to come, do you think?

I'm not sure how this relates to what I've said.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not sure how this relates to what I've said.

The relevance is clear enough, I think. The Prime Minister of Israel has declared that his country is at war, and has vowed to 'reduce Gaza to rubble.' If Hamas is not a nation or a people, doesn't that beg the question, Who then, is Israel at war with? It also begs the further question, Is Israel's government any better than her enemies?

I appreciate you are under no obligation to answer either of these questions.

 

[Lyndon]

Who are the real terrorists?? read this link to see whos killing more than 10 times as many innocent civilians

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Bthoth]

Gaza and the West Bank are different places.

Correct, Gaza is the concentration camp that the people of the west bank are sent too when removed from their homes in the west bank/jerusalem etc.

 

[Bthoth]

I can see why there is support for armed resistance but the civilians who were murdered had no bearing on the state of Palestinian lives, and neither will their murder do anything to remove blockades, embargos, occupation etc.

Palestinians are civilians too. As i read your comment, it appears that you do not observe the palestinians as human beings and even parrot the same style of bias as israelis do. Using hate and labels as your method.

Do you have any sense of equality for human beings?

Yes killing civilians is wrong, all cases.... every time!

I think at best we could say this is not entirely unexpected given the situation but calling it "resistance" like Hamas is striking a blow for the freedom of the people of Palestine is absolutely shameful, imo.

I agree with the shamefulness of the acts as the very model began in the 20th century against the british. The original terrorists of the region were the zionist. The local peasants just learned how

No.

Has your family been murdered by psychotic religious fanatics harbouring a genocidal rage against your people?

All of mankind are my PEOPLE. I do not use the model of racial dividing. For example, palesitnians and the Jews of israel are brethren but the majority of zionist are migrants claiming diaspora.

 

[Left Coast]

Israel just called for genocide of Hamas, so how is that different

Source?

Hamas is a terrorist group, not an ethnic group.

 

[Left Coast]

Israel is no longer a democracy, more of a right wing fascist state

When you come back down to Earth, let me know.

 

[Bthoth]

When you come back down to Earth, let me know.

We asked: “You may have been following recent developments in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. In your opinion which of the following is closer to describing the way Israel looks to you.” We provided the following four options: a vibrant democracy; a flawed democracy; a state with restricted minority rights; a state with segregation similar to apartheid.

Brookings

Is Israel a democracy? Here’s what Americans think​

Shibley Telhami​

April 25, 2023

I am not posting the results but you will be surprised

 

[Left Coast]

Intentional targeting of civilians isn't the only way a military can commit an atrocity toward them. Negligence in taking precautions to avoid or minimize civilian deaths as much as possible is also criminally irresponsible. Israel has long faced criticism from independent observers and human rights organizations for excessive civilian death tolls in many operations carried out by the IDF, and I don't think any discussion about the conflict in the region can be based on a complete picture without consideration of that aspect of the region's history.

Think through what you're saying.

"Intentionally killing as many civilians as possible" is somehow morally equivalent to "failing to take precautions to minimize civilians deaths?"

No.

Has Israel surely "failed to take precautions to minimize civilian deaths" in times of war? Yes I'm sure it has. It's very difficult to battle an enemy in a densely populated urban area with civilians everywhere.

None of that makes them morally equivalent to Hamas. It's silliness.