What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

[ImmortalFlame]

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

A specific military intervention targeting Hamas.

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 initially responded to my posts, not the other way around. You have asserted that I have "twisted your words", which I demonstrably haven't. You, meanwhile, have been openly misrepresenting and misinterpreting my arguments. You have accused me of being against military intervention or reprisal for Hamas, and even had the gall to accuse me of "encouraging Hamas". I won't take that.

Apologise.

Wrong again - I hate such deaths wherever they occur and to whoever.

Cool. Stop excusing them as either necessary or equatable to collateral damage, then.

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.

I've said it repeatedly. A targeted military intervention against Hamas. Instead, Israel decided to do war crimes.

Let's say someone were to respond to Hamas' terrorism by, instead of explicitly and unambiguously condemning it, repeatedly asking "Well, what else could they have done?" and constantly suggesting that what Hamas did was similar to "collateral damage". Would you think that person was engaging in good faith with the subject at hand, or would you think that person is implicitly excusing the murder of thousands of civilians?

That's what you're doing. I'm condemning Israel for engaging in war crimes targeting millions of civilians, and in response you repeatedly pose the question "What else could they have done?" or something similar, as if war crimes should be an accepted and necessarily military response. They're not. That's why they're war crimes.

Not to mention the fact that your argument is nonexistent. You have yet to provide a single argument that supports the bizarre notion that collectively punishing the millions of civilians who live in Gaza provides any kind of necessary military advantage to Israel. You don't have an argument.

You just want to distract from war crimes. Weirdly, though, you think only the war crimes of Hamas deserve a response, ignoring the fact that you explicit logic here excuses Hamas just as much as it excuses Israel.

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.

Israel is responsible for war crimes. You are excusing them. They are responsible for them, and yet here you are blaming Hamas.

I can't believe you can't see your own hypocrisy here.

 

[Mock Turtle]

A specific military intervention targeting Hamas.

Great. And if they hide within the civilian population you would target them?

You initially responded to my posts, not the other way around.

Never said I didn't.

Cool. Stop excusing them as either necessary or equatable to collateral damage, then.

Never have. I just was on a different track than you were - as to finding a solution that works. Still waiting.

I've said it repeatedly. A targeted military intervention against Hamas. Instead, Israel decided to do war crimes.

Oh dear. How does one target a cowardly, cynical group that hides amongst the civilian population?

Let's say someone were to respond to Hamas' terrorism by, instead of explicitly and unambiguously condemning it, repeatedly asking "Well, what else could they have done?" and constantly suggesting that what Hamas did was similar to "collateral damage". Would you think that person was engaging in good faith with the subject at hand, or would you think that person is implicitly excusing the murder of thousands of civilians?

But you are the one who was constantly mentioning no war crimes should be committed and yet seemingly providing no solutions as to countering what Hamas did. Nah, terrorism will always be around and we should just accept this.

That's what you're doing. I'm condemning Israel for engaging in war crimes targeting millions of civilians, and in response you repeatedly pose the question "What else could they have done?" or something similar, as if war crimes should be an accepted and necessarily military response. They're not. That's why they're war crimes.

Not to mention the fact that your argument is nonexistent. You have yet to provide a single argument that supports the bizarre notion that collectively punishing the millions of civilians who live in Gaza provides any kind of necessary military advantage to Israel. You don't have an argument.

You just want to distract from war crimes.


Israel is responsible for war crimes. You are excusing them. They are responsible for them, and yet here you are blaming Hamas.

I can't believe you can't see your own hypocrisy here.

Well, the same goes here, given your attitude will see much of the same I fear.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well no doubt you will have it in for all those who defeated the Germans and Japan in WWII, given that a lot of civilians were killed in this conflict. But was there any other way at that time? Carpet bombing of cities or the use of nuclear weapons, for example.

Do you think the firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justified? Can they be disregarded because the enemy was equally brutal? Mass killings of civilians is wrong, whoever the perpetrator and whatever the motive.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Great. And if they hide within the civilian population you would target them?

I would not target civilian areas or populations without sufficient justification or evidence supporting such an action, and steps taken to ensure the safety and protection of as many civilians as I could.

I would not blockade an entire city of millions and deprive them of basic necessities, which is a war crime.

Never have.

Yes, you have. You've done it throughout this thread.

I just was on a different track than you were - as to finding a solution that works. Still waiting.

A specific military intervention against Hamas.

Not war crimes.

Oh dear. How does one target a cowardly, cynical group that hides amongst the civilian population?

I dunno. Probably not by doing war crimes against a civilian population, though.

But you are the one who was constantly mentioning no war crimes should be committed and yet seemingly providing no solutions as to countering what Hamas did.

I've said it repeatedly. A specific military intervention against Hamas. War crimes are not that.

Nah, terrorism will always be around and we should just accept this.

And not commit war crimes against civilian populations because of this.

Well, the same goes here, given your attitude will see much of the same I fear.

What hypocrisy? My hypocrisy of being against war crimes and targeting civilians in the case of both Hamas and Israel, compared with your hypocrisy of arguing that we should all be responsible for the crime we commit (except for Israel, because we should blame Hamas whenever Israel do war crimes)?

Yeah. I totally see how we're both on morally equal footing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would not target civilian areas or populations without sufficient justification or evidence supporting such an action, and steps taken to ensure the safety and protection of as many civilians as I could.

That's laudable. It also suggests that you are claiming

1. that there was/is not "sufficient justification or evidence,"
2. that there were no viable "steps taken to ensure the safety and protection."

I apologize if I'm wrong about these implications. Otherwise, I would very much like to see your "sufficient justification or evidence supporting such" claims. Thanks.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's laudable. It also suggests that you are claiming

1. that there was/is not "sufficient justification or evidence,"
2. that there were no viable "steps taken to ensure the safety and protection."

I apologize if I'm wrong about these implications. Otherwise, I would very much like to see your "sufficient justification or evidence supporting such" claims. Thanks.

Not really, since I'm talking specifically about the blockade of Gaza, which isn't a specific military intervention as much as a collective form of punishment and a war crime. There's not really much in the way of required evidence to ensure the safety and protection of the civilians of Gaza when your policy is essentially designed to explicitly target and harm the civilians of Gaza.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There's not really much in the way of required evidence to ensure the safety and protection of the civilians of Gaza when your policy is essentially designed to explicitly target and harm the civilians of Gaza.

I'm left to wonder what's behind your facile distortions.

 

[Bthoth]

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.

So it is possible that a fraction or even the JOKE could have been written by some ONE (1)?

It was not any type of state announcement.

That makes sense as I considered it, just funny.

Did you see the images about the hospital in gaza? The images show a little bathtub sized hole in the court yard with about 4-5 cars that burned out. The hospital buildings are still standing and no way 500 people died by that little impact.
It appears that it could be a failed rocket fired from within gaza. I do not believe it came from Israel. It was too small to be one of theirs.

I hope that sound minds can deescalate the tensions in the streets of the region. The war is ugly and wrong but let's hope the best of both teams can slow down the conflict.

Thanks for the response. My previous comment was observed as a joke to me especially with the reply that was noted in the feed.

Peace

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm left to wonder what's behind your facile distortions.

?? Where is this coming from? What have I distorted?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

?? Where is this coming from? What have I distorted?

... when [Israel's] policy is essentially designed to explicitly target and harm the civilians of Gaza. [emphasis added - JS]

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you think the firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justified? Can they be disregarded because the enemy was equally brutal? Mass killings of civilians is wrong, whoever the perpetrator and whatever the motive.

Nope. But the other side were doing it just as much so I can understand why this occurred. And I don't think the nuclear bombing of Japan should have occurred, but then I wasn't the one making such decisions. I don't have any answers as to combatting war crimes, especially when one group might use these to further their aims knowing the other side might be restricted as to what they can do. That last is my point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A blockade to deprive millions of people in an area populated primarily of civilians of basic resources required to live is an action designed to explicitly target and harm civilians, and is considered a war crime.

 

[England my lionheart]

To focus on the sins of Hamas alone is to
ignore Israel's oppression & mass murder
of Palestinians....which is why Hamas exists
& fights. Israel could seek peace & justice
for Palestinians....but it prefers to do what
it does, ie, unleash vengeance.

Mass murder?,hardly,Hamas have had enough chances at peace but they’ve never been interested,eradicating Israel is the only aim,here’s their favourite chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free”,you see they’re just like Isis,they want a caliphate.

America and their allies have killed almost half a million civilians in Iraq afghanistan Syria and nobody gives a crap but if Israel kills a 100 its mass murder.

I would recommend reading the Hamas charter and history of the region and the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on the region for a better understanding of why Hamas and peace is oil to water.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope. But the other side were doing it just as much so I can understand why this occurred.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

I think there's a meaningful difference between understanding why something occurred as a response in specific circumstances and explicitly attempting or implying justification for those actions. This may be where our wires have been getting crossed.

In this case, I would argue that it is not necessarily surprising that Israel responded to Hamas' terrorism as they did, as they have been engaging in similar actions for decades anyway. It's hardly a twist in the tale, so to speak. I think it would be beyond naive for anyone to suggest that Hamas genuinely believed they would somehow affect meaningful political change by killing thousands of innocent Israelis and kidnapping hundreds more, and I don't think it's beyond reasonable doubt to consider that they knew their actions would lead to a response by Israel of increased war crimes against civilians. I mean, it's not like Hamas cares about Palestinian civilians.

And I don't think the nuclear bombing of Japan should have occurred, but then I wasn't the one making such decisions. I don't have any answers as to combatting war crimes, especially when one group might use these to further their aims knowing the other side might be restricted as to what they can do. That last is my point.

I'm not so sure Hamas' incursion was carried out on the presumption that Israel would be even-handed in response. While I am loathe to pretend I could ever deduce the motivations behind religious extremist militants, I believe increased war crimes against the Palestinian people may have been a predicted and expected (maybe, though perhaps conspiratorially, intended) consequence of their actions.

To be clear, I just don't think this excuses either side. I could come up with some illustrative analogies to expound on this, but I feel any analogy I could conjure up would be unable to encompass the nightmarish web of horrors and scale of death of either the actions of Hamas or the response of war crimes.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I would not target civilian areas or populations without sufficient justification or evidence supporting such an action, and steps taken to ensure the safety and protection of as many civilians as I could.

But you would do it, oh well, what are you complaining about. Haven't Israel tried to move those at risk into safer areas?

I would not blockade an entire city of millions and deprive them of basic necessities, which is a war crime.

Could well be a war crime.

I dunno. Probably not by doing war crimes against a civilian population, though.

But you still haven't provided a solution to an enemy that hides within the civilian population. Apart from the obvious one of the civilians revolting and kicking the militants out, given these militants aren't actually working so as to preserve their lives by merely intent on furthering their aims, whatever these are.

What hypocrisy? My hypocrisy of being against war crimes and targeting civilians in the case of both Hamas and Israel, compared with your hypocrisy of arguing that we should all be responsible for the crime we commit (except for Israel, because we should blame Hamas whenever Israel do war crimes)?

Yeah. I totally see how we're both on morally equal footing.

Israel is just as responsible for their actions as any others. Hamas has to take the blame for this latest horror, even as to their own population being at risk - because they hide within the population. I still haven't seen any other reasonable actions that Israel might have taken though, even if the ones they have chosen are probably the riskiest to themselves and to the poor Palestinians.

 

[icehorse]

Remember, Israel was already breaking rules. They've been illegally occupying Palestinian territory and committing war crimes in Gaza for years.

Says who, the UN?

 

[Little Dragon]

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

It started with the first tribes.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

I think there's a meaningful difference between understanding why something occurred as a response in specific circumstances and explicitly attempting or implying justification for those actions. This may be where our wires have been getting crossed.

In this case, I would argue that it is not necessarily surprising that Israel responded to Hamas' terrorism as they did, as they have been engaging in similar actions for decades anyway. It's hardly a twist in the tale, so to speak. I think it would be beyond naive for anyone to suggest that Hamas genuinely believed they would somehow affect meaningful political change by killing thousands of innocent Israelis and kidnapping hundreds more, and I don't think it's beyond reasonable doubt to consider that they knew their actions would lead to a response by Israel of increased war crimes against civilians. I mean, it's not like Hamas cares about Palestinian civilians.


I'm not so sure Hamas' incursion was carried out on the presumption that Israel would be even-handed in response. While I am loathe to pretend I could ever deduce the motivations behind religious extremist militants, I believe increased war crimes against the Palestinian people may have been a predicted and expected (maybe, though perhaps conspiratorially, intended) consequence of their actions.

To be clear, I just don't think this excuses either side. I could come up with some illustrative analogies to expound on this, but I feel any analogy I could conjure up would be unable to encompass the nightmarish web of horrors and scale of death of either the actions of Hamas or the response of war crimes.

I don't know what to make of these aggressions. I think you have some good points though, and war crimes are much the same for the poor people involved. I wasn't really attempting to defend war crimes but it was more about what options were available to one side facing such.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But you would do it, oh well, what are you complaining about.

Do you see no difference between saying "I would do a specific military intervention with an emphasis on protecting civilians" and "I would cut off access to essential resources for millions of civilians"?

This is why I've had difficulty believing you're taking this in good faith. Do you or do you not acknowledge the difference between targeting civilian areas in military operations designed to minimise civilian casualties and conducting the war crime of collective punishment by preventing essential supplies and power from reaching a civilian population of millions? I really would like you to stick to the subject of Israel's war crimes against Gaza without conflating them with specific military intervention against Hamas, as I feel these two things are not equatable.

Haven't Israel tried to move those at risk into safer areas?

I'm talking about the blockade, not the forced relocation (which has also been condemned as illegal, and exit routes have been struck with missiles).

Could well be a war crime.

No, it is. It's just explicitly and unambiguously a war crime.

But you still haven't provided a solution to an enemy that hides within the civilian population.

That's not my job. I'm not the IDF.

All I'm saying is "war crimes are unnecessary and bad".

Apart from the obvious one of the civilians revolting and kicking the militants out, given these militants aren't actually working so as to preserve their lives by merely intent on furthering their aims, whatever these are.

There's a problem with that, being that the militants are... militants. They have both the political and physical power. You can't exactly blame a civilian population for overthrowing the people who have all the guns and infrastructure at their disposal. And it's especially not easy when you're a people faced with constant bombardment, war crimes and violent reprisal from an infinitely more powerful force on your doorstep. Those people have a hard enough time living day-to-day, let alone expecting them to unite under a revolutionary revolt against the militant army that a large number of them probably believe is the only thing keeping them from being genocided after decades of propaganda and oppression. It's not that simple.

Israel is just as responsible for their actions as any others.

Good. So, whose fault is it when Israel responds to terrorist actions by committing war crimes? Who has the greater power to have Israel NOT do war crimes? Is it Israel or Hamas?

Hamas has to take the blame for this latest horror, even as to their own population being at risk - because they hide within the population.

I blame them greatly, and I think it's reasonable to believe they expected (if not intended) this outcome, but it needn't BE an expected outcome if Israel were not so utterly willing to commit war crimes against Gaza. The power to NOT respond with war crimes lies with Israel, and yet they rarely exercise that option.

I still haven't seen any other reasonable actions that Israel might have taken though, even if the ones they have chosen are probably the riskiest to themselves and to the poor Palestinians.

I have yet to see in what way blockading the civilians in Gaza is a reasonable action.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't know what to make of these aggressions.

I will say that is probably a more honest response than mine. I can pretend that I believe Hamas knew what they were doing and expected Israel to respond the way they did, but that presumes a degree of rationale that I simply cannot in good conscience ascribe to religious militants who don't care about the survival of innocents, or even their own preservation.

I think you have some good points though, and war crimes are much the same for the poor people involved. I wasn't really attempting to defend war crimes but it was more about what options were available to one side facing such.

Thank you, I feel like you and I are finally moving in the direction of a more fruitful discussion. As I've said to other posters previously, this is - to say the least - an inflamed, sore and extremely emotional subject with a multitude of often conflicting factors that are layered into the very core of it, so I can hardly be surprised that tempers flare on all sides when a transgression against the other is perceived. I don't believe anyone here would wilfully excuse war crimes, and I certainly do not believe anyone here wishes to provide carte blanche for either Hamas or Israel to engage in any number or degree of atrocities.