What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Based on what? Nearly half of Gaza's population is UNDER 15, so who exactly is deserving of punishment here? (SOURCE: International Database)

By this logic, since military service is mandatory in Israel, couldn't Hamas argue that there are no civilians in Israel, since all Israeli citizens are, at one time or another, potential military combatants?

 

[Debater Slayer]

You give more leeway to friends and family.

Not when it comes to others' lives and basic rights, unless one lets politics and tribalism utterly cloud their sense of fairness and justice.

Do you think the Russian military should also give more leeway to its "family and friends" who are killing civilians and committing war crimes in Ukraine?

 

[Little Dragon]

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?

Palestinians were not threatened with extermination by Israel. Until now. Therefore, Hamas did not need to commit atrocities. To protect Palestine. Instead, it has done the opposite. The sword of Damocles now hangs above Gaza.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

So, literally, war crimes and genocide are fine as long it's in the name of "protecting your nation".

Hamas apparently agree with you.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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

"High percentage" is vague and needs strong evidence to back it up if one is to assert it, and you said, "I would assume." This is not a matter for assumption, though; it's an assumption that, if followed by anyone in a relevant position of power, could enable the bombing and killing of civilians.

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

How is this logic different from Putin's, then, or the logic of any other warmonger or imperialist who decides to pursue their nation's interest "at home and abroad" without any regard for moral considerations?

 

[Little Dragon]

Do you think the Russian military should also give more leeway to its "family and friends" who are killing civilians and committing war crimes in Ukraine

I think if Russia had been a close British ally, then it would have been far more difficult ethically and with regard to mutual treaties, to help Ukraine. Luckily however we are not allies.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So, literally, war crimes and genocide are fine as long it's in the name of "protecting your nation".

Hamas apparently agree with you.

Putin and Xi Jinping also agree. Once one accepts that kind of logic, they easily find themselves in the company of those kinds of characters.

 

[Little Dragon]

How is this logic different from Putin's, then, or the logic of any other warmonger or imperialist who decides to pursue their nation's interest "at home and abroad" without any regard for moral considerations?

It's the same logic every nation state government has to consider. Putin is annexing territory. That is not what I was alluding to by citing protecting interests at home and abroad.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think if Russia had been a close British ally, then it would have been far more difficult ethically and with regard to mutual treaties, to help Ukraine. Luckily however we are not allies.

At least you're straightforward about it. The only thing I can say is that I absolutely and overwhelmingly disagree. I think it would be more difficult geopolitically and economically to oppose an ally who engaged in aggression against another nation, but not morally, at least not as a citizen who was not in a position of power and whose public stances couldn't make or break an alliance with another nation. Then again, I also know that geopolitics is often immoral or amoral, so its reality is often quite ugly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Palestinians were not threatened with extermination by Israel.

Israel has been engaging in seizing Palestinian territory for 70 years. Palestine is literally shrinking as Israel is growing, and that's to say nothing of the human rights abuses that have been ongoing in occupied territories for decades. Palestinians are being kicked out of their homes and losing their rights. Is it really that surprising that those people might feel threatened by Israel?

Until now. Therefore, Hamas did not need to commit atrocities.

I agree. But you don't, apparently, because you believe committing atrocities is justified if you feel threatened.

To protect Palestine. Instead, it has done the opposite. The sword of Damocles now hangs above Gaza.

Because Israel chose to respond to war crimes with more war crimes. Israel has the power to de-escalate tension, and while I agree that a specific military response to Hamas is justified and appropriate to deter future incursions, I don't believe blockading millions of people - in direct contravention of international law - is justified. Especially not if your position, as it has been for several posts now, is that committing such war crimes serves as reasonable justification for MORE WAR CRIMES.

Again, you seem very willing to justify Israel's war crimes and ignore or dismiss the fact that this logic also justifies Hamas.

Personally, I'm not a fan of either.

 

[Little Dragon]

So, literally, war crimes and genocide are fine as long it's in the name of "protecting your nation".

Yes. I would go to any length to hypothetically protect my nation, IF it was absolutely necessary, and if I didn't, it would be a guaranteed disaster for my people. I make no apology for that. None.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's the same logic every nation state government has to consider. Putin is annexing territory. That is not what I was alluding to by citing protecting interests at home and abroad.

Annexation of territory can advance a nation's interests, but even if we talk about protecting rather than advancing it, Russian propaganda has repeatedly tried to sell the invasion as "protecting" Russia from NATO. It's false, hyperbolic, and hostile propaganda, but it is the basis on which many people justify the invasion.

And of course, the CCP has also tried to justify its genocide of the Uyghurs by citing "threats" to Chinese society and government. A lot of hostile and warmongering rhetoric relies on rebranding aggression as "protection," as in the so-called "War on Terror."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. I would go to any length to hypothetically protect my nation, IF it was absolutely necessary, and if I didn't, it would be a guaranteed disaster for my people. I make no apology for that. None.

Once again, this is identical to the logic of Hamas. You're justifying terrorism, and you very explicitly don't care about civilian deaths. So, why are you pretending to?

 

[Little Dragon]

But you don't, apparently, because you believe committing atrocities is justified if you feel threatened.

Incorrect, The threat has to be clear and present and imminent.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Incorrect, The threat has to be clear and present and iminent.

Israel is erasing Palestine from the map and literally committing war crimes against them.

That's a very clear, present and direct threat. Once again, your logic can just as easily be used to justify the terrorism of Hamas as it can be to justify the military intervention of Israel.

 

[Little Dragon]

Once again, this is identical to the logic of Hamas. You're justifying terrorism, and you very explicitly don't care about civilian deaths. So, why are you pretending to?

They're doing it wrong it then...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They're doing it wrong it then...

Ah, of course. Israel does the "good" kind of mass killings, human rights violations and war crimes.

Also, gotta love how this conversation has gone so far.

"What Israel did is a justified response to war crimes."
"So, you think killing civilians can be justified?"
"What? No! Why would you think that? That's disgusting! I'm furious! How dare you imply that I don't care about civilian deaths! You monster!"
"Okay, do you think war crimes are bad?"
"Yes."
"Do you think Israel's war crimes are bad?"
"Kind of. But anything can be justified to protect your homeland."
"So, you think killing civilians is justified if you believe it will protect your homeland?"
"Yes."

 

[icehorse]

I will ask again: what does that have to do with what I said? Explain, precisely, the connective relevant tissue between the statement "Israel have blockaded Gaza and cut-off food, clean water, fuel and power for 2.3 million people, which is explicitly a war crime" and "Jordan and Egypt also do things to restrict how Palestinians live". Where, exactly, is the omission?

If you had said something like "Israel, Egypt, and Jordan all place heavy restrictions on Palestinians..." that would be a more balanced assessment of the situation.

By focusing only on Israel, you convey a warped view of the reality.

 

[icehorse]

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

says the crown prince of virtue signaling, ha!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you had said something like "Israel, Egypt, and Jordan all place heavy restrictions on Palestinians..." that would be a more balanced assessment of the situation.

By focusing only on Israel, you convey a warped view of the reality.

How is that the case when we're explicitly discussing Israel?

"Hey, which do you think is better; football or tennis?"
"Football."
"That's a lie by omission! You didn't even mention snooker, bowling or hockey! I call bias!"