What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

[ImmortalFlame]

See you around on the boards!

Just saying, they're big fans of "vengeance" too. You also seem to not care if innocent civilians are targeted for death as "retaliation", either.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Resistance actions? Not just wanton slaughter. Is that how you would conduct a resistance campaign then?

I explicitly stated that I DON'T consider it to be a genuine resistance campaign. I said that's how they JUSTIFY it.

And don't pretend you care about wanton slaughter when you just shrugged off Israel cutting off food and power to 2.3 million people.

 

[F1fan]

I would do the same thing. I would order my troops to go in and eliminate or capture the killers of my people. No doubt. No problem. If I didn't, I'd be a terrible leader and ought to be removed from office. Regardless of history.

I think in the big picture you are correct. If Israel did nothing how could anyone expect Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel? Life in Israel would come to a stand still, and as we know societies need stability and order. A military response seems the only option, as Hamas are terrorists, not a political organization that can be reasoned with.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think in the big picture you are correct. If Israel did nothing how could anyone expect Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel? Life in Israel would come to a stand still, and as we know societies need stability and order. A military response seems the only option, as Hamas are terrorists, not a political organization that can be reasoned with.

To be clear, what I said was war crimes. He's explicitly stating that he would commit war crimes against the civilians of Palestine in response to Hamas' terrorist incursion.

 

[F1fan]

To be clear, what I said was war crimes. He's explicitly stating that he would commit war crimes against the civilians of Palestine in response to Hamas' terrorist incursion.

OK, I agree with you that cutting off power and food is a huge error on Israel's part. 1. it is a humanitarian issue since there are civilians who have no responsibility for what Hamas has done, and 2. the moral indifference by Israel will justify not supporting them at a time they need it most.

I could see Israel agree to give supplies if Hamas stops the rockets.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK, I agree with you that cutting off power and food is a huge error on Israel's part.

I think to call it an "error" suggests an honest mistake. This is a deliberate war crime.

1. it is a humanitarian issue since there are civilians who have no responsibility for what Hamas has done, and 2. the moral indifference by Israel will justify not supporting them at a time they need it most.

I could see Israel agree to give supplies if Hamas stops the rockets.

That's a war crime. You can't deprive millions of civilians access to food, water, healthcare, travel and energy and hold them hostage until a violent, military terrorist organisation agrees to cease violence. It would be the equivalent of America in response to 9/11, instead of enacting a military intervention designed to target Al Qaeda, instead decided to repeatedly and deliberately shell civilian targets in Afghanistan until the leaders of Al Qaeda handed themselves over.

I'm not saying you're trying to justify it, I just think it really bares repeating. It's all pretty disgusting.

 

[LuisDantas]

When someone is wrong, the interlocutor corrects them, normally.

The interlocutor never says "you're wrong" without saying the correct answer.

It would be unfair in a debate.

Yeah.

We are not having a debate, you and me. Make no mistake.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah.

We are not having a debate, you and me. Make no mistake.

I see.
Well, in a Political Debates thread, I debate.
It would be weird if I didn't.

 

[LuisDantas]

I hope you realize the implications of what I post.

Everyone has biases, even you.
So accusing others of bias is meritless criticism.
Tis better to stick to the issues than resort to ad hominem.

This is good.

Forgive me for wanting to achieve something useful.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see.
Well, in a Political Debates thread, I debate.
It would be weird if I didn't.

It is!

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

This is likely out of desperation. If there is a "good ending" that they could have planned it might be to make the world at least look at them and their issues. Even though doing this puts them in a bad light its possible that is the plan. Though likely I don't think Hamas thinks they will win this fight. Or if they do it probably has something to do with Iran or another major state in the area that has interest in making this a catalyst to start something with Israel. And if Iran or another state is doing something like this it might have something to do with other alliances even beyond this. But Hamas specifically probably doing something to funnel the energy pent up within Palestine from their treatment at the hands of Israel.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You're literally saying it's justified to commit war crimes as a response to terrorism.

Literally.

It's a good thing you're not a world leader.

I mean, seriously, by this logic Hamas are justified. You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to oppose or be upset by what Hamas did.

When a group such as Hamas representing a people commits a war crime in attacking others, and indiscriminately as to victims, haven't they broken the contract for rules of war? And the same applies to hiding weaponry amongst civilians or taking hostages and threatening to kill them. Why must the invaded side abide by such rules when this merely gives the attacking side some advantage? I think that is what many see, even if they also recognise the plight of the Palestinians. And from the perspective of the Israelis, they presumably fear that unless they do destroy Hamas this time around then much the same will occur again sooner or later. Even if there might be other solutions to this issue.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When a group such as Hamas representing a people commits a war crime in attacking others, and indiscriminately as to victims, haven't they broken the contract for rules of war?

Yes. They are also committing war crimes and acts of indiscriminate murder and terrorism.

And the same applies to hiding weaponry amongst civilians or taking hostages and threatening to kill them.

I agree. Those things are also bad.

Why must the invaded side abide by such rules when this merely gives the attacking side some advantage?

So, to be clear, do you believe that the indiscriminate killing of civilians can be justified by the indiscriminate killing of civilians? By that logic, what Hamas did was justified as well.

I think that is what many see, even if they also recognise the plight of the Palestinians. And from the perspective of the Israelis, they presumably fear that unless they do destroy Hamas this time around then much the same will occur again sooner or later. Even if there might be other solutions to this issue.

That doesn't justify Israeli war crimes. Again, what Israel are doing now is explicitly a war crime against a civilian population. You cannot use one war crime to justify another, that's not how morals work.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes.


I agree.


So, to be clear, do you believe that the indiscriminate killing of civilians can be justified by the indiscriminate killing of civilians? By that logic, what Hamas did was justified as well.

Of course I don't, but how can one deter one side from doing this and hence giving a reason for the other side to retaliate appropriately.

That doesn't justify Israeli war crimes. Again, what Israel are doing now is explicitly a war crime against a civilian population. You cannot use one war crime to justify another, that's not how morals work.

I know how morals work. Hamas have shown they are rather selective as to theirs. And such also reflects on their religious beliefs too.

 

[Bthoth]

When a group such as Hamas representing a people commits a war crime in attacking others, and indiscriminately as to victims, haven't they broken the contract for rules of war? And the same applies to hiding weaponry amongst civilians or taking hostages and threatening to kill them. Why must the invaded side abide by such rules when this merely gives the attacking side some advantage? I think that is what many see, even if they also recognise the plight of the Palestinians. And from the perspective of the Israelis, they presumably fear that unless they do destroy Hamas this time around then much the same will occur again sooner or later. Even if there might be other solutions to this issue.

The perfect word to observe what israel is doing:

Machiavellian

It means that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of getting it is acceptable. The idea is ancient, but it was not meant to justify unnecessary cruelty.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The perfect word to observe what israel is doing:

Machiavellian

It means that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of getting it is acceptable. The idea is ancient, but it was not meant to justify unnecessary cruelty.

What might the word be for what Hamas are doing?

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

When a group such as Hamas representing a people commits a war crime in attacking others, and indiscriminately as to victims, haven't they broken the contract for rules of war? And the same applies to hiding weaponry amongst civilians or taking hostages and threatening to kill them. Why must the invaded side abide by such rules when this merely gives the attacking side some advantage? I think that is what many see, even if they also recognise the plight of the Palestinians. And from the perspective of the Israelis, they presumably fear that unless they do destroy Hamas this time around then much the same will occur again sooner or later. Even if there might be other solutions to this issue.

Just to put things into perspective right now. The death toll is 10,712 vs 1,330 prior to this engagement since the year 2000. Over 6000 of the Palestinian deaths have been since the 2008 conflict. In the last 15 years only 380 Israeli deaths have been confirmed before this attack. And as of right now Israel has already killed more Palestinians in their counteroffensive than they lost in the initial attack a few days ago.

I'm not saying what Hamas did was at all acceptable and that Israel should do nothing. But in order to set up actual security for their nation they need to work statecraft and build up Palestine rather than attempt to constantly pressure and crush them.

Chart: 6,407 Palestinians and 308 Israelis Killed in Violence in Last 15 Years

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course I don't, but how can one deter one side from doing this and hence giving a reason for the other side to retaliate appropriately.

Well, one idea may be to stop the seventy-years long exercise of settler colonialism, displacement, the bombardment of Gaza and the humanitarian crimes against the people of Palestine. I mean, I'm not saying that this would make religious extremism evaporate overnight, but it may at least give a lot of people a lot less reason to believe they have to rely on supporting explicit militaristic religious extremists in a desperate bid to survive.

I know how morals work. Hamas have shown they are rather selective as to theirs. And such also reflects on their religious beliefs too.

Yes, both Hamas and the Israeli government are - to say the least- "selective" in their morals. The point is that the logic you employed in that post can be just as easily employed to justify what Hamas did as much as what Israel is doing.

Personally, I believe both are unjustified. I don't believe the Israeli people should suffer for the ongoing colonial efforts of their government, and I don't believe the people of Palestine should suffer because of a controlling military extremist group committing terrorist atrocities in the name of alleged "resistance". I'm not selective in my condemnation. I can recognise that the atrocities committed by Hamas as both morally disgusting and utterly contra-effective to the goal of Palestinian emancipation (because, frankly, I don't think Hamas give two hoots about genuinely freeing the Palestinian people), while still acknowledging that Hamas' power and militancy is a direct consequence of Israeli expansion that is in contravention of international law. And I can certainly say that committing a war crime does not justify committing another war crime.

 

[icehorse]

That's all? You'd never look at the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict and say "what did anyone expect" when an extremist military group arises out of an oppressed people and commits terrorist acts under a veil of fighting against their oppressors?

You don't think seventy years of oppression and war crimes might contribute to that happening somewhat?

Thank goodness for such an unbiased, multi-faceted summary of the situation

 

[Mock Turtle]

Just to put things into perspective right now. The death toll is 10,712 vs 1,330 prior to this engagement since the year 2000. Over 6000 of the Palestinian deaths have been since the 2008 conflict. In the last 15 years only 380 Israeli deaths have been confirmed before this attack. And as of right now Israel has already killed more Palestinians in their counteroffensive than they lost in the initial attack a few days ago.

I'm not saying what Hamas did was at all acceptable and that Israel should do nothing. But in order to set up actual security for their nation they need to work statecraft and build up Palestine rather than attempt to constantly pressure and crush them.

Chart: 6,407 Palestinians and 308 Israelis Killed in Violence in Last 15 Years

Very sad. And often the case when people are fighting against a superior force. Along with this must be added all the rockets and such sent into Israel, hence their side not being blameless.