The Hamas Argument

[Mycroft]

You call denigrate news sources as likely liars and forum members as sociopaths and then have the audacity to cable about the "moral high ground." That speaks volumes.

I simply denigrate Israeli news sources. Just as I would denigrate Hamas news sources. Is there even a word for Bias in your language?

 

[dantech]

The numbers, howeverm, indicate that Hamas is not really any sort of threat to Israel that requires such heavy bombardment. If Israel has left Hamas alone the death toll would have been much, much lower on the palestinian side and probably around zero on the Israeli side. I think it's very hypocrtical of Israel to start/respond to a conflict and then point to a death toll that only exists due to their own actions as justification for carrying on.

*rewinds tape, hits play*
"So you suggest Israel just lay back and let the rockets fly in, daily! Spending a minimum of $5,000,000 a day on Iron Dome defenses, and constantly living in fear while running to shelters multiple times a day. Seems reasonable for a Prime-Minister to ask these things from his civilians...:yes:"

 

[farouk]

Are we indeed? Let's take a look at that:


Let's see how you get on with these numbers.

Palestinian deaths

• 1,030 men, including 671 civilians and 166 militants
• 219 women
• 414 children, including 246 boys and 161 girls

Israeli deaths

• 64 soldiers
• 2 civilians
• 1 Thai national in Israel

source: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory


Anyone who can still support the attacks after seeing so many civilian deaths should be ashamed of themselves. But of course, no tyranny is too small to get at that natural gas in Palestine, right?

Statistically.
Palestinian Deaths.
10% Militants.
90% Civilians.
Israeli deaths.
97% Militants.
3% Civilians.

It is sad because Civilians has lost the battle.

 

[Mycroft]

*rewinds tape, hits play*
"So you suggest Israel just lay back and let the rockets fly in, daily! Spending a minimum of $5,000,000 a day on Iron Dome defenses, and constantly living in fear while running to shelters multiple times a day. Seems reasonable for a Prime-Minister to ask these things from his civilians...:yes:"

Are you blind? I think the numbers clearly indicate that the Hamas rockets don't do very much at all. Except for when you're putting your troops in front of them.

 

[Mycroft]

Statistically.
Palestinian Deaths.
10% Militants.
90% Civilians.
Israeli deaths.
97% Militants.
3% Civilians.

It is sad because Civilians has lost the battle.

It's even more sad because the only reason for those numbers is that Israel decided to open/return fire. It's a tragic waste of human life that could have been avoided on both sides if Israel had a clue.

 

[dantech]

Are you blind? I think the numbers clearly indicate that the Hamas rockets don't do very much at all. Except for when you're putting your troops in front of them.

They don't each have to be able to wipe out a country for a war to be necessary. They shoot one hundred rockets a day. If only one of those is a threat to any one life (civil or military) under a Prime-Minister's jurisdiction, than it is his responsibility to neutralize that threat.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*rewinds tape, hits play*
"So you suggest Israel just lay back and let the rockets fly in, daily! Spending a minimum of $5,000,000 a day on Iron Dome defenses, and constantly living in fear while running to shelters multiple times a day. Seems reasonable for a Prime-Minister to ask these things from his civilians...:yes:"

If the consequences of no air strikes are better than the consequences of air strikes, then yes: don't do the air strikes. Do air strikes make things better? If they do, show me.

... which doesn't necessarily mean that Israel should do nothing. Maybe take other military actions (interdicting Hamas' supply of weapons before it gets into Gaza, for instance), maybe pursue non-violent actions.

It's dishonest to portray this situation as one where there's only one option. There are other options; you just don't like them.

 

[metis]

It's even more sad because the only reason for those numbers is that Israel decided to open/return fire. It's a tragic waste of human life that could have been avoided on both sides if Israel had a clue.

So, Hamas has no responsibility to its own people, and its trying to kill innocent civilians in Israel is quite acceptable?

And if your country were attacked in a way that Israel has been, what would you recommend your government do? Don't come back and tell us what you wouldn't want your government to do but tell us what you would want them to do. I've asked this question to around five people here, and you were one of them, but I never get an answer back-- just more attacks on how "evil" Israel is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They don't each have to be able to wipe out a country for a war to be necessary. They shoot one hundred rockets a day. If only one of those is a threat to any one life (civil or military) under a Prime-Minister's jurisdiction, than it is his responsibility to neutralize that threat.

Is it also Hamas' responsibility to neutralize threats to citizens of Gaza?

 

[Mycroft]

They don't each have to be able to wipe out a country for a war to be necessary. They shoot one hundred rockets a day. If only one of those is a threat to any one life (civil or military) under a Prime-Minister's jurisdiction, than it is his responsibility to neutralize that threat.

Why don't you just admit that the cold, hard numbers indicate that the Hamas rockets are ineffective and no threat to Israel that warrants its response beyond attempts at peaceful negotiation?

If someone is firing a ping pong ball at my Navy Destroyer, I don't blow him away.

 

[dantech]

It's even more sad because the only reason for those numbers is that Israel decided to open/return fire. It's a tragic waste of human life that could have been avoided on both sides if Israel had a clue.

Other than the solution that has been applied, there are two other options:

1)send in troops (which Israel did and ended up losing soldiers because of it)
2)Just let it happen because the Iron Dome is so sophisticated, and when combined with Hamas' poor rockets, the threat is really minimal.

So which one are you suggesting?

 

[metis]

If the consequences of no air strikes are better than the consequences of air strikes, then yes: don't do the air strikes. Do air strikes make things better? If they do, show me.

Do you condone the possible use of U.S. air strikes against ISIS forces?

Israel uses airstrikes to try and destroy Hamas' estimated 7000 rockets and missiles they have left. Don't you feel that Hamas has any responsibility to its own people? And they just broke another cease-fire, btw.

 

[Mycroft]

So, Hamas has no responsibility to its own people, and its trying to kill innocent civilians in Israel is quite acceptable?

If you believe Hamas to be a terrorist group like you seem to think, why do you think they would live up to it? And that being the case why do you not think that it is in Israel's best interest to live up that responsibility for them? You're talking about innocent life like its chattel. Are you so disconnected from the value of palestinian life by Israeli propaganda? Because let me remind you that disconnnecting people from the value of the lives of certain types of people (known as dehumanisation) using propaganda is exactly how the Holocaust began.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohrtFuxUzZE

And if your country were attacked in a way that Israel has been, what would you recommend your government do?

I would want them to ocate the terrorists (should there actually be any) and establish a comprehensive military strategy for removing them that minimises the danger to any and all surrounding civilians. If the area is heavily populated by civilians, then a ground combat taskforce must be sent in to neutralise the terrorists. Possible special ops/sniper involvement. Anything that allows me to simply take out only the terrorists and safeguard the lives of the civilians.

But you never, ever drop a bomb on a hospital full of civilians to kill a handful of terrorists.

 

[Mycroft]

Other than the solution that has been applied, there are two other options:

1)send in troops (which Israel did and ended up losing soldiers because of it)

Well yeah. That will happen in war.

2)Just let it happen because the Iron Dome is so sophisticated, and when combined with Hamas' poor rockets, the threat is really minimal.

So which one are you suggesting?

2. Because the Hamas rockets clearly do diddly squat.

 

[dantech]

If the consequences of no air strikes are better than the consequences of air strikes, then yes: don't do the air strikes. Do air strikes make things better? If they do, show me.

If if if...
What if the consequences of air strike actually is better, for Israel. Shouldn't Israel do it? Why don't you show me that no airstrike is better? We know the results with an airstrike, do you know the ones without? What happened was, Israel sent troops in, and few of them died. These few soldiers are the Prime-minister's responsibility. Hamas terrorists aren't. Palestinians who elected Hamas terrorists aren't either.

... which doesn't necessarily mean that Israel should do nothing. Maybe take other military actions (interdicting Hamas' supply of weapons before it gets into Gaza, for instance), maybe pursue non-violent actions.

You can't fight violence with non-violence. As for the weapons, you think they "allowed" them to get in? They're contraband.

It's dishonest to portray this situation as one where there's only one option. There are other options; you just don't like them.

I'm not portraying it as a one option conflict. There's millions of solutions to every problem. However, in this particular case, the solution chosen by Netanyahu is the best one for his country, for his civilians, and for the ones he's responsible for.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you condone the possible use of U.S. air strikes against ISIS forces?

If they have to blow up a bunch of civilians to do it, then probably not.

Israel uses airstrikes to try and destroy Hamas' estimated 7000 rockets and missiles they have left. Don't you feel that Hamas has any responsibility to its own people? And they just broke another cease-fire, btw.

As I said earlier, responsibility isn't a zero-sum game. Hamas' despicable actions don't give the IDF carte blanche to ignore the civilian toll of their air strikes.

 

[Mycroft]

If if if...
What if the consequences of air strike actually is better, for Israel.

But of course the consequences are better FOR Israel. It doesn't care if palestinians die. It just wants that Natural Gas.

 

[dantech]

Other than the solution that has been applied, there are two other options:



Well yeah. That will happen in war.

And you being okay with that....

Tell me, would you risk your own and your kids' lives to kill 100 people who have been targeting you with poorly made explosives by trying to extract these 100 people from a crowd of 1000 ? Or would you just press a button, putting you and your kids out of harms way, knowing the result would be that these 100 people would end up dead and their weapons destroyed, along with an unpredetermined(is that a word?) amount of innocent people who you could warn of the attack beforehand, and hope that they won't be there when it happens?

2. Because the Hamas rockets clearly do diddly squat.

How many people have died from Gaza rockets into Israel? | Mondoweiss
I'll say it again, It doesn't matter how many lives are in danger. One Israeli life to Netanyahu should be worth 100000000 lives of anyone else who is a danger to that one life. The same could be said for Hamas. One Palestinian life for Hamas should be worth 100000000 lives of any other people who is a danger to that one life.

The difference? Hamas doesn't care about Palestinian life. They hate Israelis more than they love each other, which is why they continue to fire in the first place.

 

[metis]

If you believe Hamas to be a terrorist group like you seem to think, why do you think they would live up to it? And that being the case why do you not think that it is in Israel's best interest to live up that responsibility for them? You're talking about innocent life like its chattel. Are you so disconnected from the value of palestinian life by Israeli propaganda? Because let me remind you that disconnnecting people from the value of the lives of certain types of people (known as dehumanisation) using propaganda is exactly how the Holocaust began.

What a moronic and dishonest stereotype of what you "think" I believe. I have spent time with Palestinians both here in the States and in Israel, so your pathetic lie speaks "highly" of your own level of prejudice. Disgusting.

I have repeatedly stated that Hamas is the single biggest enemy of the Palestinians in Gaza, and experts estimated that before this recent conflict, their popularity was down to about 15%. Why? Because instead of building a better life for their own people, they chose instead to purchase more and more offensive weapons.

I would want them to ocate the terrorists (should there actually be any) and establish a comprehensive military strategy for removing them that minimises the danger to any and all surrounding civilians. If the area is heavily populated by civilians, then a ground combat taskforce must be sent in to neutralise the terrorists. Possible special ops/sniper involvement. Anything that allows me to simply take out only the terrorists and safeguard the lives of the civilians.

But you never, ever drop a bomb on a hospital full of civilians to kill a handful of terrorists.

If we did the above, the carnage would actually be worse on both sides, so you really haven't thought it through very carefully at all. Obviously you haven't even listened to American military strategists either as the kind of fighting you're suggesting is brutal because of a group like Hamas occupies civilian buildings and houses, which forces these to be destroyed.

So, during WWII, do you believe that America and the Allies were entirely morally reprehensible with the bombing they did on Germany and Japan?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If if if...
What if the consequences of air strike actually is better, for Israel.

I didn't say "better for Israel", I just said "better".

Shouldn't Israel do it? Why don't you show me that no airstrike is better?

Because I'm not proposing to kill anyone.

You're the one advocating the course of action that kills huge numbers of people. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that it's the right thing to do.

If we can't tell whether killing people will make things better, then the moral, ethical thing to do is to not kill people.

We know the results with an airstrike, do you know the ones without? What happened was, Israel sent troops in, and few of them died. These few soldiers are the Prime-minister's responsibility. Hamas terrorists aren't. Palestinians who elected Hamas terrorists aren't either.

They are, actually. I'll accept that the Israeli government has a greater responsibility to its own citizens than others, but fundamental respect for human life, wherever it happens to be, is at the core of the morality of any decent person.

You can't fight violence with non-violence.

Except for all the times that we have.

As for the weapons, you think they "allowed" them to get in? They're contraband.

They're contraband, not magic. They're physical objects that take people to move them. They're also products that cost a significant amount of money... money that often flows through the banks of Israel's allies. Both of these facts suggest alternatives for stopping them that don't involve blowing up schools.

I'm not portraying it as a one option conflict.

Yes, you are.

There's millions of solutions to every problem. However, in this particular case, the solution chosen by Netanyahu is the best one for his country, for his civilians, and for the ones he's responsible for.

Your disregard for non-Israeli lives is clear, yes.