What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

[icehorse]

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

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

Well we probably all agree that war is bad. Was the allies bombing of Berlin "bad"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well we probably all agree that war is bad. Was the allies bombing of Berlin "bad"?

Did you notice another word after the word "war" in that sentence?

 

[metis]

One of the news reports I heard yesterday is that the U.S. will review satellite images, which may take some time they say.

 

[Mock Turtle]

?? 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"?

I assumed military targeting.

This is why I'm having 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?

Perhaps seen by the Israelis as applying pressure to the civilian population, and hopefully it won't come to massive loss of life, given the options open to them. Not that I agree with this and it's obvious the Gaza population are suffering immeasurably from the Israeli retaliation.

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.

This is true, and applies to so many countries.

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?

Not sure, and such might be asked of many war crimes.

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 think, judging from the atrocity apparently committed by them, that Hamas knew exactly what result would come about, and they are probably still gloating over this.

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

Nor me to be honest but I'm not sure what options were available to them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I assumed military targeting.

Right, but I'm saying military targeting can be justified, but what Israel has engaged in isn't just military targeting. I've explicitly been condemning their war crimes.

Perhaps seen by the Israelis as applying pressure to the civilian population, and hopefully it won't come to massive loss of life, given the options open to them.

"Putting pressure on the civilian population" is basically just a nice way of saying "collective punishment". Would you abide by someone describing Hamas' incursion as "perhaps seen by Hamas as applying pressure to the civilian population, and hopefully prevent future war crimes"?

Not that I agree with this and it's obvious the Gaza population are suffering immeasurably from the Israeli retaliation.

Correction: They're suffering not just from retaliation, but from explicit war crimes.

This is true, and applies to so many countries.

Right, so I don't think suggesting the roles of the Palestinian citizenry in implying they have some moral responsibility to throw off their controlling party is especially helpful. I could just as easily argue that it is the Israeli people's responsibility, because they should have ousted their far-right government who continually commit war crimes. I feel it's unhelpful to blame the masses for the actions of the state (or, at the very least, their controlling militant powers).

Not sure, and such might be asked of many war crimes.

You're not sure whether to blame Israel for Israeli war crimes?

Do you blame Hamas for Hamas' incursion and slaughter of thousands of Israelis?

I think, judging from the atrocity apparently committed by them, that Hamas knew exactly what result would come about, and they are probably still gloating over this.

I think so too, but unfortunately what either of us think may simply not translate to the frame of reference for Islamic militant Jihadists. They could just as easily been operating under the presumption they would have been martyred at the border and "got lucky".

Nor me to be honest but I'm not sure what options were available to them.

I will always argue that war crimes are not a viable military option unless your goal is explicitly collective punishment.

 

[Little Dragon]

Do you think the firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justified?

Arguably yes. The bombing of Dresden was a strategic decision, not an act of vengeance. Churchill ordered the fire bombing raid in order to infuriate and enrage Hitler, and critically, encourage him to switch to bombing our cities.

British military intelligence had reasoned that if the Luftwaffe continued as it was, concentrating on bombing UK RAF bases, then eventually the UK would lose it's air force, which would be game over, for the UK. The German army, could then be free to invade the UK or at least hold her at bay and concentrate it's own air force, wholly against the Soviet Union. If the UK had been invaded, then a US build up of forces on the UK later on, would not have been possible, therefore no D day landings. No victory for the allies.

Regarding Japan, the alternative to two nuclear strikes, was mass bombardment and a ground invasion, by US forces. The death doll for both sides, would be in the millions, for the Japanese, many millions, as they would have fought on to the bitter end, as demanded by their fierce loyalty to the emperor and their ancient warrior code. Such losses were deemed unacceptable by the US military.

These are both decisions made. To prevent a greater evil, in the eyes of the decision makers.

It's not pretty, it's not humane. However it was arguably, necessary. Therefore arguably, justified.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Right, but I'm saying military targeting can be justified, but what Israel has engaged in isn't just military targeting. I've explicitly been condemning their war crimes.

True, but can't really comment as to what strategies they are constrained by. If they are carrying out a war crime then it should be recognised as such. What will this do though - given most know how Hamas operate? Just let Hamas get away with their actions?

"Putting pressure on the civilian population" is basically just a nice way of saying "collective punishment". Would you abide by someone describing Hamas' incursion as "perhaps seen by Hamas as applying pressure to the civilian population, and hopefully prevent future war crimes"?

Don't know as to this, but committing a war crime in the first place might be seen as lowering the threshold for retaliation by the victim, as often seen in other such crimes. Could this too be placed upon the aggressor?

Correction: They're suffering not just from retaliation, but from explicit war crimes.

Most probably.

Right, so I don't think suggesting the roles of the Palestinian citizenry in implying they have some moral responsibility to throw off their controlling party is especially helpful. I could just as easily argue that it is the Israeli people's responsibility, because they should have ousted their far-right government who continually commit war crimes. I feel it's unhelpful to blame the masses for the actions of the state (or, at the very least, their controlling militant powers).

No, I don't think it is likely either, and this could apply to so many nations where the authorities seemingly are in power and not being there by a reasonable and valid democratic vote.

You're not sure whether to blame Israel for Israeli war crimes?

Do you blame Hamas for Hamas' incursion and slaughter of thousands of Israelis?

If such are designated as war crimes presumably I would have to.

I think so too, but unfortunately what either of us think may simply not translate to the frame of reference for Islamic militant Jihadists. They could just as easily been operating under the presumption they would have been martyred at the border and "got lucky".


I will always argue that war crimes are not a viable military option unless your goal is explicitly collective punishment.

As I mentioned to another, I don't normally engage in debates, and especially as to subjects where I don't have any special interest, with this being one, and as to not knowing much about the history of war crimes, even if I understand most of what might be considered as such. Presumably these have evolved during various conflicts and might still evolve. Will it make any difference to those who disregard them though - as to making them culpable?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just finished reading a (somewhat disjointed) opinion piece on Biden's visit in Haaretz. Briefly, it argues:

• First, the United States seems to have concluded that it needs to closely supervise events. Ostensibly, the prime U.S. interest is to “prevent the spread of the conflict” and contain possible escalation. To that end, it feels that, simultaneous with an outpouring of support, it needs to check Israel. ...
• Second, this [is] a show of no-confidence in the quality of Israel’s decision-making and anxiety over the absence of a clear strategy or exit strategy. The Americans support, fully understand and justify a fierce Israeli retaliation. This is about restoring a diminished deterrence as much as it is about getting justice.

The sentence that I found most interesting was:

This is how Thomas Friedman put it in The New York Times: “Biden must realize that Benjamin Netanyahu is unfit to manage this war as a rational player.”​

 

[icehorse]

This is how Thomas Friedman put it in The New York Times: “Biden must realize that Benjamin Netanyahu is unfit to manage this war as a rational player.”

Sorry Mr. Friedman, but ALL world leaders are irrational and dishonest players.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry Mr. Friedman, but ALL world leaders are irrational and dishonest players.

^ speaking of irrational ...

 

[Little Dragon]

Sorry Mr. Friedman, but ALL world leaders are irrational and dishonest players.

Be fair, they are all politicians.

 

[Little Dragon]

^ speaking of irrational ...

Hissss...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

True, but can't really comment as to what strategies they are constrained by. If they are carrying out a war crime then it should be recognised as such. What will this do though - given most know how Hamas operate? Just let Hamas get away with their actions?

Once again, I have to call you out for a false conflation, here. The dichotomy you are creating is the following:

Either, 1) Israel commits war crimes in Gaza, or 2) lets Hamas "get away" with their incursion.

This is simply not an accurate way of describing the response to literally any military action. In no way, shape or form is Israel being forced into a position when it has to choose between committing war crimes and not reacting to Hamas aggression. I fundamentally reject the notion that the war crimes committed by the Israeli state are the ONLY ALTERNATIVE to no retaliation whatsoever. Again, this logic - if applied to Hamas - serves to explicitly EXCUSE and JUSTIFY war crimes.

They do not have any justification for the blockade of Gaza. It does not serve, nor has it served, any reasonable military advantage against Hamas. It has increased tension, harmed millions of civilians, and caused international outrage against Israel. They could have pursued action against Hamas without engaging in war crimes, just as the majority of armed conflicts throughout history have done.

Don't know as to this, but committing a war crime in the first place might be seen as lowering the threshold for retaliation by the victim, as often seen in other such crimes. Could this too be placed upon the aggressor?

It could be placed on either, due to Israel's committing of war crimes for decades. If we are to argue that one side committing war crimes against the other "lowers the bar", then we can't even condemn Hamas for what they did a week ago. We have to have a firm base on which to say that X or Y response to given act is either justified or not, and committing war crimes (that is, actions intended to harm or kill civilian populations) seems a fairly obvious place to draw the line. If we can condemn Hamas for their indiscriminate murder of Israeli citizens, allegedly justified by them as a response to decades of illegal Israeli occupation and war crimes, then we can equally condemn Israel for it's blockade of Gaza in response to those murders, even if they allegedly justify them as a response to Hamas.

If we agree that what Hamas did was barbaric and unjust, then we MUST acknowledge that there are responses to certain injustices that ARE unjustified, and I (and international law) agree that what Israel has done in Gaza fits that description.

No, I don't think it is likely either, and this could apply to so many nations where the authorities seemingly are in power and not being there by a reasonable and valid democratic vote.

Yes, but we're talking specifically about Gaza.

If such are designated as war crimes presumably I would have to.

Depriving civilian populations of basic supplies, medical aid and power is a war crime by definition.

As I mentioned to another, I don't normally engage in debates, and especially as to subjects where I don't have any special interest, with this being one, and as to not knowing much about the history of war crimes, even if I understand most of what might be considered as such. Presumably these have evolved during various conflicts and might still evolve. Will it make any difference to those who disregard them though - as to making them culpable?

It makes a difference to the civilians affected. I don't really care if the person I am fighting against doesn't care for civilian casualties - that would never morally justify ME committing to carrying out an explicit extermination of civilians. You cannot use that as an excuse to DELIBERATELY put civilians in the line of fire. There is a meaningful and significant difference between a coordinated military effort against a specific military target that happens to harm civilians in a collateral fashion, and simply disregarding this whole idea wholesale and deciding "well, since they don't care about international law, I don't see any reason not to genocide millions of civilians within their borders".

 

[icehorse]

^ speaking of irrational ...

Well they all support the myth of endless economic growth, and avoid dealing with ecological overshoot. I'd say that those two flaws alone make them irrational.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I might be incredibly naive, and I don’t actually know that much about the guy. But I see no reason to distrust Biden’s motives at this point. Not sure he can achieve much, but he has to try; America can’t in all decency, wash it’s hands of this conflict. And I say that as a European who is usually deeply suspicious of US foreign policy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well they all ...

Keep digging -- and make sure to have a No-True-Scotsman quip or two to whip out when needed.

 

[icehorse]

Keep digging -- and make sure to have a No-True-Scotsman quip or two to whip out when needed.

For one world leader to accuse another of irrationality is gobsmackingly ironic, end of.

 

[Bthoth]

I might be incredibly naive, and I don’t actually know that much about the guy. But I see no reason to distrust Biden’s motives at this point. Not sure he can achieve much, but he has to try; America can’t in all decency, wash it’s hands of this conflict. And I say that as a European who is usually deeply suspicious of US foreign policy.

I agree for the most part. I explained to my friend last night that the congress and senate have a huge amount of blind politicians that will never go against israel. Biden's hands are tied to just comply and remain the face of the USA without having any power to do a darn thing.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Once again, I have to call you out for a false conflation, here. The dichotomy you are creating is the following:

Either, 1) Israel commits war crimes in Gaza, or 2) lets Hamas "get away" with their incursion.

This is simply not an accurate way of describing the response to literally any military action. In no way, shape or form is Israel being forced into a position when it has to choose between committing war crimes and not reacting to Hamas aggression. I fundamentally reject the notion that the war crimes committed by the Israeli state are the ONLY ALTERNATIVE to no retaliation whatsoever. Again, this logic - if applied to Hamas - serves to explicitly EXCUSE and JUSTIFY war crimes.

They do not have any justification for the blockade of Gaza. It does not serve, nor has it served, any reasonable military advantage against Hamas. It has increased tension, harmed millions of civilians, and caused international outrage against Israel. They could have pursued action against Hamas without engaging in war crimes, just as the majority of armed conflicts throughout history have done.


It could be placed on either, due to Israel's committing of war crimes for decades. If we are to argue that one side committing war crimes against the other "lowers the bar", then we can't even condemn Hamas for what they did a week ago. We have to have a firm base on which to say that X or Y response to given act is either justified or not, and committing war crimes (that is, actions intended to harm or kill civilian populations) seems a fairly obvious place to draw the line. If we can condemn Hamas for their indiscriminate murder of Israeli citizens, allegedly justified by them as a response to decades of illegal Israeli occupation and war crimes, then we can equally condemn Israel for it's blockade of Gaza in response to those murders, even if they allegedly justify them as a response to Hamas.

If we agree that what Hamas did was barbaric and unjust, then we MUST acknowledge that there are responses to certain injustices that ARE unjustified, and I (and international law) agree that what Israel has done in Gaza fits that description.


Yes, but we're talking specifically about Gaza.


Depriving civilian populations of basic supplies, medical aid and power is a war crime by definition.


It makes a difference to the civilians affected. I don't really care if the person I am fighting against doesn't care for civilian casualties - that would never morally justify ME committing to carrying out an explicit extermination of civilians. You cannot use that as an excuse to DELIBERATELY put civilians in the line of fire. There is a meaningful and significant difference between a coordinated military effort against a specific military target that happens to harm civilians in a collateral fashion, and simply disregarding this whole idea wholesale and deciding "well, since they don't care about international law, I don't see any reason not to genocide millions of civilians within their borders".

I'm afraid you are not getting through to me, as to what Hamas did, the options open to counter such, to deter them in the future, or to punish them for this, and especially when they have already committed war crimes and continue to do so by hiding within the civilian population. It's almost as if you are saying we can't actually do anything about such acts - hence essentially encouraging them. Why wouldn't we see more of this when these people see how Israel is being so hounded - see below. Israel might indeed be acting illegally as you say but where are the answers as to their predicament?

Hezbollah death squad of 5,000 fighters 'planning copycat Hamas raid on Israel'

Israeli intelligence experts say a 5,000-strong Hezbollah death squad, the Radwan 125 unit, has trained to smash through security walls before killing and kidnapping Israelis

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Bthoth]

I'm afraid you are not getting through to me, as to what Hamas did, the options open to counter such, to deter them in the future, or to punish them for this, and especially when they have already committed war crimes and continue to do so by hiding within the civilian population. It's almost as if you are saying we can't actually do anything about such acts - hence essentially encouraging them. Why wouldn't we see more of this when these people see how Israel is being so hounded - see below. Israel might indeed be acting illegally as you say but where are the answers as to their predicament?

Hezbollah death squad of 5,000 fighters 'planning copycat Hamas raid on Israel'

Israeli intelligence experts say a 5,000-strong Hezbollah death squad, the Radwan 125 unit, has trained to smash through security walls before killing and kidnapping Israelis

www.mirror.co.uk

Lebanon is by majority of christian population. Let's hope that the rogue do not end up causing the same problem as what happened to GAZA.

What gets me, is if the HEZ do directly cross into israel, the new target could end up as Iran. About 40 million.

I'm getting tired of the labels being used by trying to make the war bigger based on the acts of the rogue.