What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

[ImmortalFlame]

I can't see them not retaliating with force, just as so many other countries would have done.

I'm not arguing against them retaliating with force. I've explicitly stated that reasonable force against Hamas is justified. What I am arguing against in their committing war crimes against the civilians in Gaza.

The rest unfortunately comes along with such.

War crimes are not part of the package of a military response. Blockading and starving over 2 million civilians is not a necessary military step.

Perhaps Hamas should have figured this into their 'calculations'.

Personally, I believe they did. Hamas don't care about the civilians of Palestine any more than Israel do, and they knew their attacks would probably spur Israel on to commit further war crimes against Palestinians. They want animosity between Israel and Palestine to escalate as it serves to bolster their aims.

If not then they are being rather cynical - as to using the Gaza population as 'sob material' - that is, trying to manipulate public opinion in the easiest way possible, given we all hate innocent deaths. Hamas escalated the conflict - so they are actually the cynical ones. Why couldn't they find another way rather than showing their brutality and inhumane nature?

Because they're violent Jihadists. They're not looking for a peaceful solution; they're looking to escalate what they see as a holy war. That doesn't mean that Israel's response to them should be to do even worse crimes of inhumanity against a civilian population.

Again, we're talking about war crimes and atrocities. Right now, the argument is not whether what Hamas did was "reasonably justified" or not - that ship has sailed, we're all on board the "killing babies and massacring civilians is not a valid response to oppression" boat. The question is why this logic does not extend further than Hamas. Right now, the logic being engaged in is not "Killing civilians is bad, under any circumstances", but "Killing civilians is bad, unless it's fine, actually", which serves to justify Hamas as much as it would justify Israel's response.

If we agree that there are no circumstances under which civilians should be TARGETED for war crimes, then what Israel is doing right now must be condemned rather than excused off the back of Hamas. If we believe what Hamas did was NOT justified, then we have no basis on which to ignore or downplay what is Israel is CURRENTLY doing.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm not arguing against them retaliating with force. I've explicitly stated that reasonable force against Hamas is justified. What I am arguing against in their committing war crimes against the civilians in Gaza.


War crimes are not part of the package of a military response. Blockading and starving over 2 million civilians is not a necessary military step.


Personally, I believe they did. Hamas don't care about the civilians of Palestine any more than Israel do, and they knew their attacks would probably spur Israel on to commit further war crimes against Palestinians. They want animosity between Israel and Palestine to escalate as it serves to bolster their aims.


Because they're violent Jihadists. They're not looking for a peaceful solution; they're looking to escalate what they see as a holy war. That doesn't mean that Israel's response to them should be to do even worse crimes of inhumanity against a civilian population.

Again, we're talking about war crimes and atrocities. Right now, the argument is not whether what Hamas did was "reasonably justified" or not - that ship has sailed, we're all on board the "killing babies and massacring civilians is not a valid response to oppression" boat. The question is why this logic does not extend further than Hamas. Right now, the logic being engaged in is not "Killing civilians is bad, under any circumstances", but "Killing civilians is bad, unless it's fine, actually", which serves to justify Hamas as much as it would justify Israel's response.

If we agree that there are no circumstances under which civilians should be TARGETED for war crimes, then what Israel is doing right now must be condemned rather than excused off the back of Hamas. If we believe what Hamas did was NOT justified, then we have no basis on which to ignore or downplay what is Israel is CURRENTLY doing.

I'm probably more in agreement over much of this but I still don't know what else Israel could have done or what the outcome will be. We probably have to admit that war hasn't changed that much from earlier times even if we do have the various agreements as to behaving in a better manner than we ever did. War has always been horrible, especially for any civilians caught up in such.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm probably more in agreement over much of this but I still don't know what else Israel could have done or what the outcome will be.

Again, there is absolutely no justification for the blockade of Gaza. It's not a necessary military strategy. They always had the option of NOT doing a blockade that could potentially kill millions of civilians.

We probably have to admit that war hasn't changed that much from earlier times even if we do have the various agreements as to behaving in a better manner than we ever did. War has always been horrible, especially for any civilians caught up in such.

War is horrible, but WAR CRIMES are avoidable. Just as Hamas' terrorism is unnecessary, Israel's war crimes against Gaza are unnecessary. We do not help towards a solution if we acknowledge the crimes of one as barbarity and the crimes of the other as a necessity.

 

[Little Dragon]

Nor do I believe that Israel's blockade of Gaza is a genuine response to Hamas, but merely an escalation of policies Israel has been engaging in for decades.

Then you are entitled to that belief, opinion, hypothesis.
I judge differently. I believe the Israeli government has come to accept that the only way to effectively neutralize Hamas, is to occupy Gaza with thousands of troops, maybe for years. Whilst slowly but surely eliminating and expelling Hamas from Gaza.
I also think your judgement is probably biased. As you think mine is.

 

[Little Dragon]

Not according to you. You believe that you can justify almost anything if you use the cloak of "the survival of my people". Israel is directly threatening the survival of the Palestinian people for decades, so - BY YOUR LOGIC - Hamas is justified in committing acts of terrorism.

You are ignoring what I said, that's fine.

I said I would only take any action if it was necessary to immediately save my people from utter ruin.
Hamas did not need to do that to save Palestinians from utter ruin. There was no invasion plan before Hamas attacked, no blockades either. No immediate threat to all Palestinian lives.

**mod edit**

 

[Little Dragon]

It's not necessary to commit war crimes against the people of Gaza because of what Hamas did.

And yet, you don't care. Weird that.

I do care, and I am getting sick of your lack of understanding of nuance, I am getting sick of your misrepresentation, and I am getting sick of your false sympathy for Palestinians, when all you do is whine about Israel and barely acknowledge their recent tragedy horror and loss.

If Hamas are destroyed, everyone wins, especially Palestinians, whom Hamas rule with the iron fist.
I hope you can accept that, because that is what is going to happen.

 

[Little Dragon]

We do not help towards a solution if we acknowledge the crimes of one as barbarity and the crimes of the other as a necessity.

Such pithy virtue signalling, As if you had any idea.
I feel sick...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then you are entitled to that belief, opinion, hypothesis.
I judge differently. I believe the Israeli government has come to accept that the only way to effectively neutralize Hamas, is to occupy Gaza with thousands of troops, maybe for years. Whilst slowly but surely eliminating and expelling Hamas from Gaza.
I also think your judgement is probably biased. As you think mine is.

I think committing war crimes is bad, and not a justified response to war crimes or terrorism against you. That's all. There is no bias in my position: it decries Hamas every bit as much as it decries Israeli foreign policy. The problem is that you are CLEARLY biased, because you fail to see that the logic of your argument would just as easily support Hamas' terrorism as it would Israel's war crimes, but you seem to only apply the standard to one side.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are ignoring what I said, that's fine.

I said I would only take any action if it was necessary to immediately save my people from utter ruin.
Hamas did not need to do that to save Palestinians from utter ruin. There was no invasion plan before Hamas attacked, no blockades either. No immediate threat to all Palestinian lives.

Israel is currently engaging in settler colonialism in Palestine, and are currently blockading Gaza. By your logic, that justifies terrorism and civilian deaths.

**mod edit**

 

[Little Dragon]

The problem is that you are CLEARLY biased, because you fail to see that the logic of your argument would just as easily support Hamas' terrorism as it would Israel's war crimes, but you seem to only apply the standard to one side.

Ignore everything that was said again why don't you?

Again and again and again.

No matter, I done my job.

 

[Little Dragon]

Israel is currently engaging in settler colonialism in Palestine,

No excuse, that is not justification for such atrocities, even if they and you think it is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do care,

No, you don't. You've barely mentioned Israel's war crimes and you seem to be doing your utmost to justify or excuse Israel specifically targeting civilians in response to Hamas.

and I am getting sick of your lack of understanding of nuance,

MY lack of nuance? You're the on arguing that basically anything is justified in response to terrorism and violence against civilians, regardless of merit, context or cause. My position has multitudes more nuance than yours.

I am getting sick of your misrepresentation, and I am getting sick of your false sympathy for Palestinians, when all you do is whine about Israel and barely acknowledge their recent tragedy horror and loss.

I've been every bit as critical of Hamas in this thread as I have of Israeli foreign policy, so this whole sentence is just a blatant lie and hypocrisy.

If Hamas are destroyed, everyone wins, especially Palestinians, whom Hamas rule with the iron fist.

Great. So how does threatening millions of civilians (half of them children) with death do that, exactly?

I hope you can accept that, because that is what is going to happen.

Well, that depends. If Israel end up killing thousands of innocent civilians (something they have shown over the last several decades they are relatively fine with doing), then we're probably never going to see an end to Hamas. Radicalisation tends to be spread by the indiscriminate killing of innocent people by an overwhelming force bent on your removal from your ancestral lands. Both sides should be more than aware of this by now.

 

[Little Dragon]

No, you don't. You've barely mentioned Israel's war crimes and you seem to be doing your utmost to justify or excuse Israel specifically targeting civilians in response to Hamas.


MY lack of nuance? You're the on arguing that basically anything is justified in response to terrorism and violence against civilians, regardless of merit, context or cause. My position has multitudes more nuance than yours.


I've been every bit as critical of Hamas in this thread as I have of Israeli foreign policy, so this whole sentence is just a blatant lie and hypocrisy.


Great. So how does threatening millions of civilians (half of them children) with death do that, exactly?


Well, that depends. If Israel end up killing thousands of innocent civilians (something they have shown over the last several decades they are relatively fine with doing), then we're probably never going to see an end to Hamas. Radicalisation tends to be spread by the indiscriminate killing of innocent people by an overwhelming force bent on your removal from your ancestral lands. Both sides should be more than aware of this by now.

Blah blah...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No excuse, that is not justification for such atrocities, even if they and you think it is.

I have explained, time and time again, that that is NOT my argument. I have never once argued that the violence committed by EITHER side is justified, and even said - at least twice now - that a measured, military response TO HAMAS is justified and reasonable.

Look over my posts again and find one time I have ever argued in favour of Hamas or their terrorism. My argument has always been - from my very first post - that the logic that YOU are using could just as easily be used to defend Hamas terrorism as Israel's response and, as I feel I need to make abundantly clear to you at this point since you clearly are making no honest effort to properly read or understand my arguments, THAT IS A BAD THING.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh please. Don't worry about it.
You've made yourself clear, I don't think there is going to be any agreement between us. Not in a billion years. Shalom.

Not if you have no idea what my argument is, which you clearly don't if you're accusing me of defending Hamas.

Are you dishonest or are you not reading my posts? Which is it?

 

[Little Dragon]

Once again, you revert to actual lying. I have explained, time and time again, that that is NOT my argument. I have never once argued that the violence committed by EITHER side is justified, and even said - at least twice now - that a measured, military response TO HAMAS is justified and reasonable.

Look over my posts again and find one time I have ever argued in favour of Hamas or their terrorism. My argument has always been - from my very first post - that the logic that YOU are using could just as easily be used to defend Hamas terrorism as Israel's response and, as I feel I need to make abundantly clear to you at this point since you clearly are making no honest effort to properly read or understand my arguments, THAT IS A BAD THING.

Then we my friend are ****ing done here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ignore everything that was said again why don't you?

Again and again and again.

No matter, I done my job.

Again, "ignore everything that was said" is a good summation of your position. Apparently, pointing out that your logic supports terrorism means I must support terrorism.

What a wonderful, respectful, honest and nuanced discussion we're having.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then we my friend are ****ing done here.

Because you've realised you're either wrong or being dishonest because I have never actually argued in defence of Hamas?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Again, there is absolutely no justification for the blockade of Gaza. It's not a necessary military strategy. They always had the option of NOT doing a blockade that could potentially kill millions of civilians.

I'm not sure what else Israel could have done as a first reaction. I've not seen any ideas as to what they might have done instead - that would actually do any good.

War is horrible, but WAR CRIMES are avoidable. Just as Hamas' terrorism is unnecessary, Israel's war crimes against Gaza are unnecessary. We do not help towards a solution if we acknowledge the crimes of one as barbarity and the crimes of the other as a necessity.

Hamas destroyed the rules by what they did, and hiding amongst the populace is just so cynical and cowardly that they should take all the blame for whatever happens. Perhaps the Palestinians need to recognise this.

 

[Little Dragon]

Because you've realised you're either wrong or being dishonest because I have never actually argued in defence of Hamas?

Stop protesting. I could infer your implicit support if I was to be unfair. I do not. If I did, I would not respond to you. Period.