What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

[Little Dragon]

Your posturing should impress no one

Well what should and should not be in your little paradigm, is not necessarily what is and what is not. You can like it, or not.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

All actions have consequences, Hamas massacred innocents, including babies and the elderly. There has to be a response to that. If blockading Gaza puts pressure on Hamas and or harms their defensive capacity, then it is of strategic value to do so. If not, then it is just punishment.

I'm not the smartest person on the planet, but I just have a sinking feeling that an invasion would backfire, larger actors may get involved, and opinion may turn. But the reality is, they are probably going to do something, and are already by cutting off resources, so whatever goal they are trying to reach, they'd better reach it without messing it completely up. I'm crossing my fingers that this doesn't trigger Iran to come out and do something, and then the USA, and then Russia etc... I just think a lot could go wrong with this, and I don't want to wake up as a pile of radioactive ash

By doing nothing except strengthening the defenses against this happening once more, I think Israel would retain a kind of moral upper-hand. The residual energy of the poor behavior done to it, would perhaps eat itself, to a degree. I don't know. I'm horrified though, by all of the news on this

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is your misguided and erroneous conclusion. A conclusion you are welcome to have, your opinion of me personally, your laughable judgement, means absolutely nothing to me.

Literally two posts later, emphasis mine:

All actions have consequences, Hamas massacred innocents, including babies and the elderly. There has to be a response to that. If blockading Gaza puts pressure on Hamas and or harms their defensive capacity, then it is of strategic value to do so. If not, then it is just punishment.

Israel's IDF forces are massed up against Gaza and preparing for an all out invasion, to launch seek and destroy operations against Hamas vermin., hiding in their ratways.

Flush that putrid terrorist filth out of their tunnels and apartments and any other building they may be using operationally.

Israel has no option but to do this, if it wants to stop Hamas from doing what it did again, anytime soon.

Know this Mr/Mrs Bleeding heart. I will rejoice at the sight of every dead Hamas fighter. I will toast the IDF and in my eyes they will have redeemed their failure to protect, one by one. A mountain of dead Hamas, is what will result, Gods willing. As for palestinian citizens, I would urge them to give information about Hamas activities in Gaza, to assist the IDF in exterminating the terrorists. That way they can help end this sooner, and limit the collateral damage.

Victory to Israel, death to Hamas.

You are literally excusing war crimes. Seriously. Cutting off power, food and water to 2.3 million civilians is a literal war crime. It is not justified retaliatory violence for what Hamas did any more than what Hamas did can be considered justified retaliatory violence for what Israel has been doing for decades.

You don't have a moral position here. Your position is literally that war crimes are a just response to war crimes, which is just as much a defence of Hamas as it is a defence of Israel; hence why my argument is that you are being selective in your outrage and that you do not care about civilian deaths. You clearly don't if you're willing to state that committing war crimes against the people of the Gaza strip is explicitly justified because of the "strategic value" against Hamas.

That is a disgusting position to hold, and - objectively - an endorsement of deliberately targeting and punishing civilians for the actions of terrorist groups and/or authorities. Literally, it's the exact same logic Hamas use to justify their terrorism, mass murder and incursions.

How are you having difficulty seeing this?

 

[Little Dragon]

I'm crossing my fingers that this doesn't trigger Iran to come out and do something, and then the USA, and then Russia etc... I just think a lot could go wrong with this, and I don't want to wake up as a pile of radioactive ash

You'd be right. Things can escalate. However, I am not sure Iran is willing to risk being the first to throw nuclear stones. We shall see. The ugly truth is, a new era of war and turmoil is starting.

 

[Little Dragon]

You are literally excusing war crimes. Seriously. Cutting off power, food and water to 2.3 million civilians is a literal war crime. It is not justified retaliatory violence for what Hamas did any more than what Hamas did can be considered justified retaliatory violence for what Israel has been doing for decades.

It is against the Geneva convention. Yes. It would be just be revenge or punishment if it wasn't strategically advantageous. Yes.

However, I again, state, that I do not condone, withholding basic utilities and food.

I do condone, going in with thousands of troops and tanks, and destroying Hamas, before they repeat their latest atrocities.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

^ empty jingoistic virtue signaling -- no one should be impressed by such chest-thumping.

Clearly we just don't understand. See, what Hamas did was bad because it's bad to specifically target and kill innocent civilians, even if it's claimed to be in response to injustice, violence and war crimes. Meanwhile, what Israel is doing is fine, because it's totally okay to specifically target and kill innocent civilians, especially if it's claimed to be in response to injustice, violence and war crimes.

The subtlety of this is woefully lost on us, apparently.

 

[Little Dragon]

That is a disgusting position to hold, and - objectively - an endorsement of deliberately targeting and punishing civilians for the actions of terrorist groups and/or authorities.

If I thought violating the Geneva convention was absolutely necessary, I would do it. However in this situation, I don't think the benefit of cutting off supplies in order to mess up Hamas, is worth the suffering it will cause. Instead, I think thousands of well trained troops, will do the job, without such tactics, needed. We shall see.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is against the Geneva convention. Yes. It would be just be revenge or punishment if it wasn't strategically advantageous. Yes.

It isn't strategically advantageous to cut off food, water, medicine and power to millions of civilians.

However, I again, state, that I do not condone, withholding basic utilities and food.

Cool, so when are you going to condemn Israel for war crimes and acknowledge that your attitude of justifying or ignoring war crimes committed by one side, or implying that it is justified to commit war crimes in response to war crimes, isn't exactly helpful?

I do condone, going in with thousands of troops and tanks, and destroying Hamas, before they repeat their latest atrocities.

Grand. So, to be clear, we agree that a military response to Hamas - specifically - can be justified.

Now, if we could settle the issue of why, instead of just doing that, Israel is explicitly attempting to commit war crimes against a civilian population of millions (a severe escalation of what they have been doing for decades) we might be on solid footing for once.

 

[Little Dragon]

The subtlety of this is woefully lost on us, apparently.

Israel is also a democratic ally. The only Jewish majority nation on Earth.

Palestine, is not an ally or a nation state , it is a country or region, under the death grip of Hamas. A terrorist organisation, that instigated the last round of horrific mass violence.

It is not complicated.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If I thought violating the Geneva convention was absolutely necessary, I would do it.

So, you explicitly believe targeting civilians with violence CAN be justified?

However in this situation, I don't think the benefit of cutting off supplies in order to mess up Hamas, is worth the suffering it will cause.

Great! So are you going to condemn Israel for their explicit war crimes and human rights violations and acknowledge that your position, therefore, is just as much a justification of Hamas' actions as it is for Israel's? I mean, I think it's a bit weird for you to explicitly state that you believe violating the Geneva convention is okay if "absolutely necessary" when you're clearly only applying this logic to one side and not the other.

Instead, I think thousands of well trained troops, will do the job, without such tactics, needed. We shall see.

That would be preferable. But it doesn't excuse the fact that your logic has been, at best, dismissing the threatened mass murder of millions of people.

 

[Little Dragon]

So, you explicitly believe targeting civilians with violence CAN be justified?

Yes. In total war. A city or factory or farm etc are all valid military targets. (Israel is NOT fighting a total war here)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Israel is also a democratic ally. The only Jewish majority nation on Earth.

Why does that matter? They can still be in the wrong, and when they commit war crimes we should call them out for it.

Palestine, is not an ally or a nation state , it is a country or region, under the death grip of Hamas. A terrorist organisation, that instigated the last round of mass violence.

So why should it not matter if a "democratic ally" threatens them with war crimes, blockages, starvation, bombings, and enacts a decades-long process of settler colonialism to take their land?

This is sounding very close to explicit endorsement of imperialism. "Our side is allowed to steal land, violate the Geneva convention and engage in ethnic cleansing. Everyone else isn't."

It is not complicated.

I agree, it's morally very simple. Israel has been violating international law for decades with relatively little international response, and Hamas has utilised the obvious antagonism generated by these actions to seize power in a state threatened with extinction and used continuing imperialism as justification for war crimes and human rights abuses. Both far-right Israeli foreign policy and Hamas have created this situation, and the civilians of both Palestine and Israel are suffering because of it.

The question is: How does either Israel or Hamas committing MORE atrocities against the civilian populations of either (or both) states present a solution to this issue?

 

[Little Dragon]

I mean, I think it's a bit weird for you to explicitly state that you believe violating the Geneva convention is okay if "absolutely necessary" when you're clearly only applying this logic to one side and not the other.

It depends. If it has to be done else total defeat or mass death of my people. Then I wouldn't hesitate to support or commit to such action. I would assume full responsibility. Otherwise, no I wouldn't.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. In total war. A city or factory or farm etc are all valid military targets. (Israel is NOT fighting a total war here)

You seem to be desperate to avoid dealing with the specific thing Israel did and keep trying to talk about very different examples.

I'm talking specifically about preventing access, BY A CIVILIAN POPULATION, to medicine, clean water, healthcare and power, and keeping them blockaded, which is explicitly a war crime.

We are not talking about a "valid military target" here. We are talking, very explicitly, about a CIVILIAN POPULATION OF MILLIONS.

Are they ALL Hamas soldiers? Is every building in the Gaza strip a Hamas fortress? I mean, I know that's what the Israeli far-right wants to believe. They've been caught lying about stuff like that in the past to justify bombing press outposts reporting on human rights abuses in Gaza in the past.

 

[Little Dragon]

Why does that matter? They can still be in the wrong, and when they commit war crimes we should call them out for it.

You give more leeway to friends and family. That's it really. We need Israel on side. We have little choice. Call it imperialism, I call it geopolitics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It depends. If it has to be done else total defeat or mass death of my people. Then I wouldn't hesitate to support or commit to such action. I would assume full responsibility. Otherwise, no I wouldn't.

So, to be clear, if you believe that your people are threatened with total defeat or mass death, you'd think committing human rights abuses against civilian populations would be justified?

And, if so, what are you condemning Hamas for, exactly?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You give more leeway to friends and family. That's it really. We need Israel on side. We have little choice. Call it imperialism, I call it geopolitics.

So you're literally arguing that it's justified to turn a blind eye to genocide being committed, as long as it's committed by an ally?

What exactly is your moral position, here?

 

[Little Dragon]

Are they ALL Hamas soldiers?

A high percentage of the males over 15, I would assume have some sort of Hamas contact.

 

[Little Dragon]

What exactly is your moral position, here?

Protect my nation and her people and her interests at home and abroad. Morality has nothing to do with it.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I notice how there's such partisan focus on the
side one opposes....as thought that describes
what's going on. That's dysfunctional because
it deflects from addressing what's needed to
end hostilities.
What's the best goal?
1) Crushing Hamas & Palestinians.
2) Pursuing a solution.

To end hostilities, hm. Well the main problem, from what I am dimly trying to understand, is that it actually does not seem to be clear what it is they would be fighting, exactly. It does not look to me like they are up against an army, (to reference the hamas force that did the attack, specifically, and not the non-violent civilians on the Palestinian side) but instead, they are up against a large collection of people who are embodying unrestrained homicidal urges. That's not really an army, it more representative of some kind of idea, that got loose inside humans.

It's like all the lone wolf monsters from the stories you see on our news from time to time, got together and formed a collection. That's not an army

So humans can chase around all the bad people in the world all they want, but where would they conquer ideas, that descend into humans and embody themselves in this way?

You know, people who went to Vietnam, Iraq etc. come home, and sometimes suffer from PTSD. Maybe they made mistakes, or saw things they tried to avoid seeing. Are these attackers in these videos even phased by what they did?

The people doing these things, did not seem to have a flicker of remorse. Instead, they were sneering, before they did unthinkable thing A, and then unthinkable thing B. What is that.

It seems like it may have come from many hardened years of an 'education' of some kind, though I don't know what kind of education. Otherwise, how could they fight like complete cowards, and sneer about it?