What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

[Mock Turtle]

What kind of sense would that make? By that logic, you can literally justify ANY ACTION as a response to terrorism. You would have no qualms whatsoever with America, say, nuking the entire middle east in response to 9/11. Or Israel enacting genocide on the entirety of the Palestine. Or, at the end of world war 2, the allied powers re-opening the death camps and shoving German civilians into them.

Remember, Israel was already breaking rules. They've been illegally occupying Palestinian territory and committing war crimes in Gaza for years. So, your logic justifies Hamas as much as it justifies Israel.

Do you or do you not agree that it is wrong to commit war crimes, even as a response to terrorism or war crimes? Yes or no?

I think this is what is termed the catastrophic scenario - and not really implied - so calm down. By your logic, you seem to be encouraging the behaviour that Hamas are exhibiting. Hide amongst the civilian population and get no appropriate comeback. War crimes are what we decide as such. For example, why are these countries not part of the ICC - being the USA, Russia, China, and Israel amongst others?

Six Countries That Aren’t Part of the International Criminal Court

There are plenty of countries that have refused to join the International Criminal Court. You may be surprised which countries are not ICC members.

nomadcapitalist.com

And how countries compare as to war crimes:

Category:War crimes committed by country - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do I think it is wrong to commit war crimes? I do in theory, but in reality we often have to react as to what others do, and hence we have to decide as to letting others dictate what we do or we do that being necessary to defeat them.

I haven't seen any answers so far as to what Israel should have done/should do in this situation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think this is what is termed the catastrophic scenario - and not really implied - so calm down. By your logic, you seem to be encouraging the behaviour that Hamas are exhibiting.

No, I am categorically not. I have no possible idea how you can get the impression that my position - that is explicitly opposed to deliberately harming civilians - can be considered to be encouraging the behaviour of Hamas in harming and killing civilians. How does that logic work, exactly?

Hide amongst the civilian population and get no appropriate comeback. War crimes are what we decide as such. For example, why are these countries not part of the ICC - being the USA, Russia, China, and Israel amongst others?

Six Countries That Aren’t Part of the International Criminal Court

There are plenty of countries that have refused to join the International Criminal Court. You may be surprised which countries are not ICC members.

nomadcapitalist.com

And how countries compare as to war crimes:

Category:War crimes committed by country - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is just whataboutism. What we are talking about right now are the war crimes and terrorism of Hamas and the Israeli state, and the justifications posed for them. I am of the opinion that no circumstances can arise in which the civilian population of a state or region are deliberately targeted for harm or death. You are of the opinion, apparently, that deliberately targeting civilians can be fine if we decide it's fine, which gives you no moral position with which to object to Hamas. Your position is, considered as objectively as possible, a pro-terrorist and pro-war crime position.

Do I think it is wrong to commit war crimes? I do in theory, but in reality we often have to react as to what others do, and hence we have to decide as to letting others dictate what we do or we do that being necessary to defeat them.

So, war crimes are fine then if you decide to do them, and it's wrong to judge any war crimes committed whatsoever if the state determines those war crimes are necessary. So, if Hamas decides killing Israeli civilians is necessary to defeat Israel, who are we to dictate what they do?

No. I will not accept this. You're excusing the targeting of civilians, which is every bit as much a justification for Hamas killing civilians as it is a justification for Israel deliberately committing war crimes in Gaza.

I haven't seen any answers so far as to what Israel should have done/should do in this situation.

I have already stated, multiple times, that a reasonable military response to Hamas is appropriate. What I have yet to see is any answer as to why committing war crimes against the civilian population of Gaza is a necessary step in the war against Hamas. The whole excuse of "Hamas hide behind human shields" is not an argument that supports specifically targeting those human shields.

Once again, your position is that having terrorism or war crimes inflicted upon you serves as sufficient justification for committing war crimes and terrorism in turn. This logic objectively justifies Hamas.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, I am categorically not. I have no possible idea how you can get the impression that my position - that is explicitly opposed to deliberately harming civilians - can be considered to be encouraging the behaviour of Hamas in harming and killing civilians. How does that logic work, exactly?

It is encouraging, in the sense that if it works for Hamas, and where they managed to get away without being severely damaged, then others might do so - and they often do so, as to hiding amongst the civilian population. The fact that terrorists tend to go for innocent civilians by the easy means of suicide bombing tends to shown this too - going one step further in not being able to punish the perpetrator. And guess what belief system might encourage such acts - with a nice reward in some afterlife perhaps.

This is just whataboutism. What we are talking about right now are the war crimes and terrorism of Hamas and the Israeli state, and the justifications posed for them. I am of the opinion that no circumstances can arise in which the civilian population of a state or region are deliberately targeted for harm or death. You are of the opinion, apparently, that deliberately targeting civilians can be fine if we decide it's fine, which gives you no moral position with which to object to Hamas. Your position is, considered as objectively as possible, a pro-terrorist and pro-war crime position.

Of course I'm not encouraging targeting the civilian population. All I'm saying is that the true cause of any action should be known - and not some explanation via the causal chain to any origins - and hence blame this. The Israelis unfortunately have to act in a way that will harm the civilian population in order to get at Hamas.

So, war crimes are fine then if you decide to do them, and it's wrong to judge any war crimes committed whatsoever if the state determines those war crimes are necessary. So, if Hamas decides killing Israeli civilians is necessary to defeat Israel, who are we to dictate what they do?

No. I will not accept this. You're excusing the targeting of civilians, which is every bit as much a justification for Hamas killing civilians as it is a justification for Israel deliberately committing war crimes in Gaza.

I would encourage others not to kill over their beliefs, religious ones or others.

I have already stated, multiple times, that a reasonable military response to Hamas is appropriate. What I have yet to see is any answer as to why committing war crimes against the civilian population of Gaza is a necessary step in the war against Hamas. The whole excuse of "Hamas hide behind human shields" is not an argument that supports specifically targeting those human shields.

Once again, your position is that having terrorism or war crimes inflicted upon you serves as sufficient justification for committing war crimes and terrorism in turn. This logic objectively justifies Hamas.

I'm not a war strategist so I don't know what Israel thinks they have to do or what others hope to achieve by their actions. I would hope that people look at their beliefs and as to what such might lead them into doing though.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is encouraging, in the sense that if it works for Hamas, and where they managed to get away without being severely damaged, then others might do so - and they often do so, as to hiding amongst the civilian population. The fact that terrorists tend to go for innocent civilians by the easy means of suicide bombing tends to shown this too - going one step further in not being able to punish the perpetrator. And guess what belief system might encourage such acts - with a nice reward in some afterlife perhaps.

Once again, I have said repeatedly that I am in favour of a reasonable military response to Hamas. How much clearer do you want me to be? On what planet does "I don't think Israel should commit war crimes against a civilian population of millions" translate to "I think Hamas should not receive punishment when they commit acts of international terrorism"?

Am I missing something?

Of course I'm not encouraging targeting the civilian population.

Yes, you are. You are explicitly stating that Israel has "no other option" than to commit explicit war crimes against a civilian population and that it is a reasonably justified response to crimes against them. You are encouraging the targeting of civilians.

All I'm saying is that the true cause of any action should be known - and not some explanation via the causal chain to any origins - and hence blame this. The Israelis unfortunately have to act in a way that will harm the civilian population in order to get at Hamas.

Please explain to me how an illegal blockade, cutting off supplies to over two million civilians, is necessary to "get at Hamas". You keep asserting that it is, but I have yet to see an argument as to why.

I would encourage others not to kill over their beliefs, religious ones or others.

Cool. So when are you going to encourage Israel to stop engaging in collective punishment?

This also is not even close to a response to the argument I made. It's very clear: if you believe war crimes, civilian targeting and collective punishment are reasonable responses to acts of terrorism or further war crimes, civilian targeting and collective punishment, you are making an argument that justifies Hamas' incursion.

I'm not a war strategist so I don't know what Israel thinks they have to do or what others hope to achieve by their actions. I would hope that people look at their beliefs and as to what such might lead them into doing though.

In other words, you have absolutely no idea how or why Israel's committing war crimes against, and threatening the lives of, millions of civilians would aid in any military way whatsoever to the destruction of Hamas, but you're just going to keep assuming it does somehow because...?

Weird how killing civilians is obviously not acceptable in one instance, even when considered in the broader context of the conflict, but killing civilians is "the only way" in another instance, regardless of the broader context. That seems an extremely convenient hypocrisy.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Once again, I have said repeatedly that I am in favour of a reasonable military response to Hamas. How much clearer do you want me to be? On what planet does "I don't think Israel should commit war crimes against a civilian population of millions" translate to "I think Hamas should not receive punishment when they commit acts of international terrorism"?

Am I missing something?

I think you are missing how Israel might do this without some collateral damage, particularly when Hamas seemingly have made it their modus operandi to hide amongst the civilian population. I mean, the dirty tactics of war must have been studied studiously by Hamas and similar even if it tends to degrade their overall position as to representing some superior belief system.

Yes, you are. You are explicitly stating that Israel has "no other option" than to commit explicit war crimes against a civilian population and that it is a reasonably justified response to crimes against them. You are encouraging the targeting of civilians.

Not true. I have never said it was the only option, but that Hamas hardly leave them many options open to them. Given that Hamas are the cowardly ones. Hamas are the ones encouraging the targeting of civilians by hiding amongst them.

Please explain to me how an illegal blockade, cutting off supplies to over two million civilians, is necessary to "get at Hamas". You keep asserting that it is, but I have yet to see an argument as to why.

As I stated I'm no military tactician, but possibly to put pressure on Hamas or even to inspire some resistance against this regime within the people. Asking, why should we suffer for the aims of Hamas perhaps.

Cool. So when are you going to encourage Israel to stop engaging in collective punishment?

I would encourage all sides to live together peacefully and put aside their particular beliefs that might cause divisions.

So, in what way do you believe committing war crimes against the civilians in Gaza is necessary in the war against Hamas? Explain that.

Well Hamas committed the first crime against Israel and the second against those who live in Gaza. Explain that.

 

[Estro Felino]

By the way, I am realizing that the same people who think Donbas people have no right to self-determination and should live under the aegis of the Kievan Government unwillingly, even if they are Russians and not Ukrainians

are the same people who think Palestinians should have a state on their own.

Double standards unleashed...mesdames et messieurs.

I believe that any nation has the right to independence and self-determination. Arabs, Russian minorities, Armenians, Georgians, etc etc.
Any nation.
No doublestandardism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think you are missing how Israel might do this without some collateral damage,

I am losing patience rapidly.

We are not talking about "collateral damage". We are talking about deliberately and specifically TARGETING a civilian population through blockades and preventing access to basic supplies.

Can you PLEASE stop pivoting and strawmanning. I am aware collateral damage happens in war. I'm fine with that (well, not "fine", but I am aware that it is virtually impossible to avoid civilian casualties in almost any war). What I am NOT fine with is Israel engaging in TARGETING civilian populations, which is an objective WAR CRIME.

Why can't you debate this? I've been extremely clear about what I accept and what I object to, so for you to suddenly shift the discussion as if what I have been objecting to this whole time is "collateral damage" can only be a result of you either not reading my posts or deliberately engaging in bad faith. Which is it?

particularly when Hamas seemingly have made it their modus operandi to hide amongst the civilian population.

That's not an excuse to specifically target civilians. I've said this repeatedly. A person using another as a human shield does not therefore justify killing millions of potential human shields. This is not a morally controversial position.

I mean, the dirty tactics of war must have been studied studiously by Hamas and similar even if it tends to degrade their overall position as to representing some superior belief system.

We're not talking about war, we're talking about WAR CRIMES against a CIVILIAN POPULATION.

Not true. I have never said it was the only option,

You have repeatedly implied there were no other options.

but that Hamas hardly leave them many options open to them.

Like there. Just there. You're implying it's the only option.

Committing war crimes is NEVER "the only option". It's absurd to suggest otherwise.

Given that Hamas are the cowardly ones. Hamas are the ones encouraging the targeting of civilians by hiding amongst them.

And Israel are specifically targeting those civilians. When the police sniper responds to a terrorist taking hostages by deliberately shooting all the hostages, are we seriously going to sit around debating how the sniper "had no choice"? No.

As I stated I'm no military tactician, but possibly to put pressure on Hamas or even to inspire some resistance against this regime within the people. Asking, why should we suffer for the aims of Hamas perhaps.

And do you believe it is okay to punish millions of people for the crimes of, at most, a few thousand? Yes or no?

I would encourage all sides to live together peacefully and put aside their particular beliefs that might cause divisions.

And what do you think doing war crimes and potentially killing millions of people would do to the chances of that happening? Do you think the chance for peaceful co-existence go up or down when one or both sides commit themselves to eradicating the civilian population of the other?

Well Hamas committed the first crime against Israel and the second against those who live in Gaza. Explain that.

You're seriously going to ignore all the crimes committed by the state of Israel leading up to Hamas' incursion? I make no argument that supports violent terrorist actions against civilian populations in response to prior terrorist actions - you are the one doing that. According to your logic, Hamas are justified by the decades of illegal occupation and war crimes in Gaza, because killing civilians is fine if you think it's a reasonable response to those things.

I don't. I think what Hamas did is disgusting. And I also think war crimes and the targeting of civilian populations are also disgusting. That's why I condemn Hamas.

You, meanwhile, don't seem to mind war crimes and think targeting civilians can be necessary. And yet you condemn Hamas for... targeting civilians and committing war crimes.

So, you tell me: who has the actual consistent position, here?

And, once again, you use this pivot to avoid addressing the actual issue: which is how committing war crimes against the people in Gaza will possibly aid in fighting Hamas, which is something you have explicitly been arguing. I have never once argued that Hamas' incursion was reasonable or justified because, unlike you, I believe you cannot justify killing civilians based on the prior crimes of states or groups. I have a consistent, anti-civilian killing position. You claim to be against killing civilians, but, somehow in this specific case, you feel it is necessary. But you have yet to be able to articulate even the slightest shred of an argument as to WHY. All you have done is point to other atrocities and play the blame game.

I blame Hamas when they commit war crimes and acts of terrorism.

I blame Israel when they commit war crimes and acts of terrorism.

I fail to see how your position - to blame one and excuse the other - is in any way a moral position.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am losing patience rapidly.

Time to put me on your ignore list perhaps. I'm fed up with this too - given you are consistent in twisting my words. But please explain some options that Israel might have considered.

 

[Bthoth]

As an Iranian who has spent most of my time inside Iran, I can answer your question very well.

OK...... What I write next is based on what I considered a joke and condone no such acts

but i would like to ask a person of Iran, just in case i read it wrong (as comedy)

A claim/comment/post was made that 'Iran wants Donald Trump, dead or alive!"

and one of the replies was, 'Anything I can do to help?"

????

 

[Copernicus]

Time to put me on your ignore list perhaps. I'm fed up with this too - given you are consistent in twisting my words. But please explain some options that Israel might have considered.

Unfortunately, all of its better options are already far behind in hindsight. Israel created the conditions inside of Gaza that gave rise to this horrible revenge attack by Iran-sponsored Hamas. Everyone was happy to ignore those conditions until they exploded in a massive terrorist atrocity. Now the question should be whether any kind of retaliation is going to help or make matters worse. Cutting off the water supply to Gaza, ordering a mass exodus of Palestinians from northern Gaza, and blowing up city blocks in Gaza may make some Israelis feel that they are settling scores, but are those effective tactics?

Already, the justification seems to be that Gazans should have done something to restrain their Hamas rulers, although it isn't clear how or what they should have done. They were living in what could be called a very large concentration camp with armed guards that were openly hostile to negotiations with Israel. So cutting off their supply of water and ordering them to flee their homes might not have been the most effective way for Israel to remedy the situation.

This is a hostage situation, so Israel needs to deal with it the way that governments deal with hostage situations all around the world--start with negotiations. That doesn't mean you give in to all the demands of the kidnappers, but you don't go charging in with guns blazing. Provide humanitarian aid to Palestinian Arabs and stop making them feel like they are abandoned and that nobody cares for them. Find ways to isolate Hamas. At the same time, Israel has to find ways to target the mobile rocket launchers, take out drones, and start to use their own drones to do it. Drones have changed the way wars are conducted, and Israel is just as able as any other country to use them effectively. Bombarding cities with missiles and airstrikes will kill a lot of civilians and not do much to stop Hamas or diminish what little popular support they have. Meanwhile, the trucks containing missile launchers are not stationary targets.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just as Hamas' terrorism is unnecessary, Israel's war crimes against Gaza are unnecessary.

I understand your concerns and appreciate your position, but does it matter what we think?

Netanyahu will do whatever he wants that he can. Unless he softens his response or somebody can prevent him from doing what he likes, it appears that he will bring the wrath and fury of his god upon what he views as a scourge: "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them." - Ezekiel 25:17 (via Pulp Fiction in my case)

If that happens, it appears that tens of thousands of Palestinians will die, and all hostages that can't escape or aren't extracted will be killed, and acts of terrorism around the world will be on the rise (they already are in Brussels [Muslim violence] and the States [anti-Muslim violence]). Some will approve and many disapprove, but all any of us can do is watch and see what happens.

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 doubt they want what you want. The Israeli Jews want these people who want them dead exterminated first and will understand their response as justified in the name of survival even if others call them war crimes. They're likely not looking to minimize civilian casualties, and I suspect that almost nobody's innocent in their eyes. Many of the women will have sons and brothers in Hamas who they hide and protect. If allowed to, many of these children will grow up to hate Jews and some will become terrorists to try to kill them.

When the Israelis advise the civilians to leave the north, they understand that few can, and doubt they want them gone when the bombs fall there, but they have to feign interest in values that they don't hold to be able to claim to have given fair warning.

 

[Copernicus]

Biden is taking a terrible risk in going to Israel and Jordan to try to mediate. Both sides are blaming the other for bombing that hospital in Gaza, which was initially blamed on Israel. I wouldn't put it past Hamas to have done it themselves to ruin Biden's chances of success. Abbas was supposed to be part of a meeting with him in Jordan, but he pulled out after the hospital was blown up. Either side could be lying about who was responsible. And this event will make it more likely that Biden could be targeted for assassination. The security arrangements for his visit must be extremely difficult. I can see Blinken doing shuttle diplomacy, but I wonder if it was a wise idea for Biden to jump into the fray like this. Very risky.

 

[We Never Know]

Biden is taking a terrible risk in going to Israel and Jordan to try to mediate. Both sides are blaming the other for bombing that hospital in Gaza, which was initially blamed on Israel. I wouldn't put it past Hamas to have done it themselves to ruin Biden's chances of success. Abbas was supposed to be part of a meeting with him in Jordan, but he pulled out after the hospital was blown up. Either side could be lying about who was responsible. And this event will make it more likely that Biden could be targeted for assassination. The security arrangements for his visit must be extremely difficult. I can see Blinken doing shuttle diplomacy, but I wonder if it was a wise idea for Biden to jump into the fray like this. Very risky.

They will find out who blew up that hospital.
But getting them to release who is responsible might be like pulling teeth.
The outcome will only make the war worse.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Time to put me on your ignore list perhaps. I'm fed up with this too - given you are consistent in twisting my words. But please explain some options that Israel might have considered.

Not doing war crimes against a civilian populations of millions. That's an option. If your response to war crimes is legitimately "What else could they do?" then you're not really well equipped to be a part of any discussion that involves condemning either Israeli foreign policy or Hamas.

And I have not twisted your words once. You have repeatedly asserted that I am against military intervention (I am not), that I am talking about collateral damage in war (I am not), that I am against any reprisal for Hamas (I am not), or that I "encourage Hamas" (I do not).

You, meanwhile, argue that war crimes are a reasonable and expected response to terrorism. That is, objectively, your position.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand your concerns and appreciate your position, but does it matter what we think?

I think it matters what we endorse and are willing not to speak out against. If we silence ourselves with regards to war crimes, we do a disservice to ourselves and the subjects of war crimes. This is kind of like arguing if it matters what we think about the holocaust. Sure, what we think may not have any material impact on whether or not the holocaust happens, but I don't think you would turn your head at the prospect of thinking ill of someone who attempts to justify the holocaust.

Netanyahu will do whatever he wants that he can. Unless he softens his response or somebody can prevent him from doing what he likes, it appears that he will bring the wrath and fury of his god upon what he views as a scourge: "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them." - Ezekiel 25:17 (via Pulp Fiction in my case)

If that happens, it appears that tens of thousands of Palestinians will die, and all hostages that can't escape or aren't extracted will be killed, and acts of terrorism around the world will be on the rise (they already are in Brussels [Muslim violence] and the States [anti-Muslim violence]). Some will approve and many disapprove, but all any of us can do is watch and see what happens.

I doubt they want what you want. The Israeli Jews want these people who want them dead exterminated first and will understand their response as justified in the name of survival even if others call them war crimes. They're likely not looking to minimize civilian casualties, and I suspect that almost nobody's innocent in their eyes. Many of the women will have sons and brothers in Hamas who they hide and protect. If allowed to, many of these children will grow up to hate Jews and some will become terrorists to try to kill them.

When the Israelis advise the civilians to leave the north, they understand that few can, and doubt they want them gone when the bombs fall there, but they have to feign interest in values that they don't hold to be able to claim to have given fair warning.

This is all, sadly, probably true. I believe we have a duty to call out this lack of humanity when we see it expressed, however. What we are seeing is a rationalisation of the above attitude that intends to downplay or dismiss war crimes, and it's a form of rhetoric I will not abide in conversations about war and atrocities, for the same reason I would not abide anyone attempting to justify Hamas' terrorism.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

It’s hardly new, and I don’t think it ever stopped. It needs to stop now though. Humanity is at a crossroads

 

[mohammad568]

OK...... What I write next is based on what I considered a joke and condone no such acts

but i would like to ask a person of Iran, just in case i read it wrong (as comedy)

A claim/comment/post was made that 'Iran wants Donald Trump, dead or alive!"

and one of the replies was, 'Anything I can do to help?"

????

In Iran, there are many military forces that act differently, and only these military forces support the Islamic regime. The main military groups are Iran's National Army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Police of Iran, the Basij, and many other militant groups. All of them have been commanded by the Leader of Iran. They are all about 1.000.000 people. Suppose that every person has 3 other members family who support them. That means overall 4,000,000 people inside Iran support terrorists. Iran has nearly 85.000.000 people. That means 4.7% of people inside Iran are trying to kill Donald Trump while the other 95.3% are majority-silenced or opposed to the Islamic government.
Just search for 2009 protests, 2016 protests, 2018 protests, 2022 protests, etc inside Iran. Millions of Iranians opposed to Islamic regime.
The majority of Iran's people don't want to kill Donald Trump but the Islamic regime (that has occupied Iran since 1979) wants to do such terrorist activities.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wouldn't put it past Hamas to have done it themselves to ruin Biden's chances of success.

Layering conspiracy theories on a horrific event is irresponsible. It undermines evidence-based clarity precisely when and where it is most needed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not doing war crimes against a civilian populations of millions. That's an option. If you response to war crimes is legitimately "What else could they do?" then you're not really well equipped to be a part of any discussion that involves condemning either Israeli foreign policy or Hamas.

No, I asked as to what reasonable options were open to Israel.

And I have not twisted your words once. You have repeatedly asserted that I am against military intervention (I am not), that I am talking about collateral damage in war (I am not), that I am against any reprisal for Hamas (I am not), or that I "encourage Hamas" (I do not).

Judging by your word count becoming inflationary you seemed more intent on simply demolishing any arguments I presented. But until you mentioned it, I was not aware of being in a debate forum. I have enough wisdom not to get involved in such issues and debates. My comments are generally my view as to how I see the world and whatever is being discussed, so my mistake there.

You, meanwhile, argue that war crimes are a reasonable and expected response to terrorism. That is, objectively, your position.

Wrong again - I hate such deaths wherever they occur and to whoever. Those citing and loudly proclaiming the commandment 'Thou shall not commit war crimes', which is a really simple and obvious point to make, seemingly don't have anything that will deter, prevent, or punish those who do commit certain war crimes (the ones like Hamas or others rather than nation states), and rather difficult in one case, that of suicide bombers (mostly being Islamic extremists these days). The point I have been trying to make is as to what should any attacked side do when one side continually does this (commit such war crimes) and how do they make sure that those who do this don't gain an advantage from doing so.

But then you might just point to the past, and as to which I would not accept, since we should always be responsible for each action we take - including and especially the last one. Hamas, take note.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Unfortunately, all of its better options are already far behind in hindsight. Israel created the conditions inside of Gaza that gave rise to this horrible revenge attack by Iran-sponsored Hamas. Everyone was happy to ignore those conditions until they exploded in a massive terrorist atrocity. Now the question should be whether any kind of retaliation is going to help or make matters worse. Cutting off the water supply to Gaza, ordering a mass exodus of Palestinians from northern Gaza, and blowing up city blocks in Gaza may make some Israelis feel that they are settling scores, but are those effective tactics?

Already, the justification seems to be that Gazans should have done something to restrain their Hamas rulers, although it isn't clear how or what they should have done. They were living in what could be called a very large concentration camp with armed guards that were openly hostile to negotiations with Israel. So cutting off their supply of water and ordering them to flee their homes might not have been the most effective way for Israel to remedy the situation.

This is a hostage situation, so Israel needs to deal with it the way that governments deal with hostage situations all around the world--start with negotiations. That doesn't mean you give in to all the demands of the kidnappers, but you don't go charging in with guns blazing. Provide humanitarian aid to Palestinian Arabs and stop making them feel like they are abandoned and that nobody cares for them. Find ways to isolate Hamas. At the same time, Israel has to find ways to target the mobile rocket launchers, take out drones, and start to use their own drones to do it. Drones have changed the way wars are conducted, and Israel is just as able as any other country to use them effectively. Bombarding cities with missiles and airstrikes will kill a lot of civilians and not do much to stop Hamas or diminish what little popular support they have. Meanwhile, the trucks containing missile launchers are not stationary targets.

Is this supposed to be a comprehensive answer as to what to do when one side uses war crimes regularly (the past hurt dictates such) and which doesn't fall into determinist thinking, given that what Israel has done, is doing, would seem to apply also. And such measures as you described have to be accepted by the Israeli population. And it's not just a hostage situation, given they also have to deter Hamas or others from doing such again. Not likely I know, but such is the aim of so many militant Islamic groupings. As to the bold, how does one ever do this when such groups tend to be so slippery and not accountable ever.