What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

[Copernicus]

At this point, the US is backing Israel's claim that the Islamic Jihad (not Hamas) operating in Gaza destroyed the hospital when one of their missiles misfired. The evidence supplied by the IDF includes video surveillance and audio by alleged Islamic Jihad fighters admitting that their side caused the explosion. Islamic Jihad then allegedly concocted an immediate propaganda campaign to deflect blame on Israel, which succeeded in derailing Biden's meeting with Arab leaders.

IDF tells world: This is how Islamic Jihad destroyed the Gaza hospital​

Of course, one could always claim that Israel had evidence of rockets being fired from that location near the hospital and fired its own missiles to take out the hostile fire into Israel. One of their own missiles could have gone astray, and then it would be the IDF concocting a propaganda campaign to deflect blame onto the "other team", as Biden so simplistically labelled them. The IDF claims it did not fire any missiles towards that location at that time from air, land, or sea. One can never know who is telling the truth in the midst of a war, and people are prone to believe what they want to believe.

The US is still trying to determine from satellite telemetry whether there is some evidence to corroborate the IDF claims.

 

[Bthoth]

IDF tells world: This is how Islamic Jihad destroyed the Gaza hospital​

Sad use of media

The court yard within the center of the circle of buildings has about a bathtub sized hole and no buildings were destroyed.

The ignorant dumb fffs should not be trusted. See the article title to understand that.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

I'm not attempting to provide comprehensive solutions, just give an opinion on what you asked Immortal Flame for. This is what I think could have been done instead of what the Netanyahu government chose to do--take revenge on the civilian Palestinian Arab population as a way of getting back at Hamas, which doesn't care about that population either. The Israeli population accepted whatever actions their government would take when they elected it and isn't a party to these decisions at the moment. The Palestinians did not elect their current Hamas government, which very deliberately had stopped allowing free elections about a generation ago.

This is very clearly a hostage situation, if there are hostages involved. And Hamas is a terrorist group, just like other groups that hold hostages and threaten to kill them if demands are not met. As for deterrence, we have a historical record that shows these kinds of overwhelming violent responses don't really deter. At best, they just fuel the next attack. If they did deter, Hamas would never have attacked on October 6. That's why you yourself had to admit "not likely, I know". As to finding ways to isolate Hamas, I meant isolate it from the Palestinian Arab population that it rules over. Right now, Israeli policy is to conflate Hamas and its captive population of Palestinian Arabs. The collective blame game.

 

[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.

The verdict for who is to blame is in....

Israel-Gaza live updates: DOD says Islamic Jihad responsible for hospital blast​

"Two U.S. officials told ABC News the Pentagon independently concluded the blast was likely caused by an errant Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that fell short of its target"

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Copernicus]

The verdict for who is to blame is in....

Israel-Gaza live updates: DOD says Islamic Jihad responsible for hospital blast​

"Two U.S. officials told ABC News the Pentagon independently concluded the blast was likely caused by an errant Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that fell short of its target"

MSN

www.msn.com

All the news reports I've been able to find seem to base their information on the IDF intelligence assessment, and the DoD is trying to find evidence to corroborate it. The hospital is located in the northern portion of Gaza that civilians had been ordered to leave, but that obviously wasn't a realistic demand by Israel. The Islamic Jihad may have been using the location near the hospital in the hope that it would deter Israel from bombing or shelling their location, but it is still too soon to be able to say definitively which side was responsible. At this point, hundreds of Palestinians have died in the hostilities even before Israel has launched its ground invasion. The death toll on both sides will be in the thousands before hostilities end.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

My comment was obviously never presented as based on evidence. This is an internet discussion board where people like you and me give their opinions on all sorts of things, so don't make it out to be an attempt to launch a conspiracy theory. The IDF itself is claiming that Islamic Jihad created their own conspiracy to deflect blame onto Israel--a much more likely possibility. And the attack, regardless of whether it was deliberate or accidental, did end up scuttling Biden's meeting with Arab leaders.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My comment was obviously never presented as based on evidence. This is an internet discussion board where people like you and me give their opinions on all sorts of things, ...

Not all opinions are created equal.

 

[Copernicus]

Not all opinions are created equal.

I respect your opinions, Jay, especially when they have something of substance to contribute rather than merely snipes at people who post opinions that disagree with your own.

The main substance of my remark was that the Biden summit would be derailed by the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital bombing, and that has happened, whether it was accidental or intentional. Both sides have blamed the other side for the atrocity, and credibility seems to depend largely on what people reading the news want to believe. The hospital attack is predictably being blamed squarely on Israel in the Arab world, so it is worth looking at what they say about the IDF account. Sources like Al Jazeera claim that this hospital and others received warnings from Israel to evacuate or face bombing, and they cite news accounts in Western media about terrorist tunnels underneath hospitals, schools, and other non-military locations. In the face of the evacuation warning, many Palestinians were nevertheless flocking to hospitals for shelter, thinking that they would be less likely to be bombed. So the implication is that Israel did this to carry out its threat and then tried to deflect blame, as it has in the past. The effect in the Muslim world is that the Israeli ground invasion, coming on the heels of hundreds of Palestinian deaths, is going to be a more devastating shock than it would have been before the hospital atrocity. That will tend to rally Muslim opposition against Israel. The invasion will not end future violent attacks on Israel. Quite the opposite.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

But again, this logic justifies Hamas just as much as it justifies Israel. You cannot reasonably say that war crimes are a reasonable action to deter future crimes, or in response to past war crimes, without also implicitly justifying Hamas terrorism in response to Israeli war crimes in the past. Innocent people should not suffer for the actions of either Hamas or the Israeli state, and if you're willing to suspend that principle in the case of one then there is every reason to suspend it for the other.

It's almost as if you are saying we can't actually do anything about such acts

No, it's not!

Again, you seem to be alleging that WAR CRIMES are the only possible response to terrorism other than "letting them get away with it". I just don't understand this mentality. If I were to argue that Hamas' actions were a justified response to Israeli war crimes and aggression, do you think it would be reasonable for me to respond to people saying "they didn't have to murder and kidnap civilians" by saying "well, it's almost as if you're saying they can't actually do anything about Israel's war crimes and colonialism."

No. I'm saying, and I have been saying repeatedly, that a reasonable military response is justified (arguably absolutely essential, even). What I am arguing is that Israeli WAR CRIMES are unnecessary and unjust, which is a position I don't find particularly controversial. To allege or imply that the only alternative to committing war crimes is to let terrorists get away with terrorism is explicitly an endorsement of war crimes. I will not accept this any more than I will accept that the only alternative to committing acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians is letting the Israeli state get away with illegal occupation and war crimes.

If we force ourselves to believe that war crimes are the only alternative to no action whatsoever, we are essentially excusing the murder of civilians as a valid military tactic, and implicitly justifying the crimes of both the Israeli state and Hamas.

- 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

Again, this is not an argument in support of war crimes. You cannot use the crimes of death squads to justify explicitly targeting civilian populations. And look carefully at the logic you're using. You're essentially arguing that it doesn't matter if Israel engages in war crimes against civilians, it doesn't justify war crimes against them. You're using the same logic as I am, you're just only using it one way. According to your logic, Israel committing war crimes against others does not serve as moral justification for them to be the victims of war crimes - and yet you argue that when they ARE the victims of war crimes, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that them committing war crimes against others is the only option.

I believe all war crimes are unjustified. I believe deliberately targeting civilians is unjustified. I believe Israel has a right to self defence and that an aggressive response to Hamas is justified - but that this does not mean that any and all responses, especially ones that deliberately and disproportionately harm civilians, are reasonable and justified.

Again, this is the logic you yourself are using. It doesn't matter what Israel may have done - it doesn't justify the crimes against them. I am merely including Gaza and Palestine in this logic, which is something you - for some reason - don't seem to want to do.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But again, this logic justifies Hamas just as much as it justifies Israel. You cannot reasonably say that war crimes are a reasonable action to deter future crimes, or in response to past war crimes, without also implicitly justifying Hamas terrorism in response to Israeli war crimes in the past. Innocent people should not suffer for the actions of either Hamas or the Israeli state, and if you're willing to suspend that principle in the case of one then there is every reason to suspend it for the other.

But you are basically saying the same, as to determinism being involved, such that what Hamas have done was determined by past actions but where the response from Israel could be said to be much the same - determined by what Hamas did.

No, it's not!

Again, you seem to be alleging that WAR CRIMES are the only possible response to terrorism other than "letting them get away with it". I just don't understand this mentality. If I were to argue that Hamas' actions were a justified response to Israeli war crimes and aggression, do you think it would be reasonable for me to respond to people saying "they didn't have to murder and kidnap civilians" by saying "well, it's almost as if you're saying they can't actually do anything about Israel's war crimes and colonialism."

No. I'm saying, and I have been saying repeatedly, that a reasonable military response is justified (arguably absolutely essential, even). What I am arguing is that Israeli WAR CRIMES are unnecessary and unjust, which is a position I don't find particularly controversial. To allege or imply that the only alternative to committing war crimes is to let terrorists get away with terrorism is explicitly an endorsement of war crimes. I will not accept this any more than I will accept that the only alternative to committing acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians is letting the Israeli state get away with illegal occupation and war crimes.

If we force ourselves to believe that war crimes are the only alternative to no action whatsoever, we are essentially excusing the murder of civilians as a valid military tactic, and implicitly justifying the crimes of both the Israeli state and Hamas.


Again, this is not an argument in support of war crimes. You cannot use the crimes of death squads to justify explicitly targeting civilian populations. And look carefully at the logic you're using. You're essentially arguing that it doesn't matter if Israel engages in war crimes against civilians, it doesn't justify war crimes against them. You're using the same logic as I am, you're just only using it one way. According to your logic, Israel committing war crimes against others does not serve as moral justification for them to be the victims of war crimes - and yet you argue that when they ARE the victims of war crimes, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that them committing war crimes against others is the only option.

I believe all war crimes are unjustified. I believe deliberately targeting civilians is unjustified. I believe Israel has a right to self defence and that an aggressive response to Hamas is justified - but that this does not mean that any and all responses, especially ones that deliberately and disproportionately harm civilians, are reasonable and justified.

Again, this is the logic you yourself are using. It doesn't matter what Israel may have done - it doesn't justify the crimes against them. I am merely including Gaza and Palestine in this logic, which is something you - for some reason - don't seem to want to do.

What I am asking is - what is an appropriate, effective response to terrorists like Hamas and all the rest, and especially when like the former they are allied to a particular region or country, when they know that those they attack are constrained by rules of war when they aren't themselves. And especially when they tend to get so many supporters all around the world merely because they happen to be Muslims. Why aren't the majority of Muslims up in arms (figuratively) and wailing as to the victims of these cowardly, cynical terrorists and doing something about it?

 

[Mock Turtle]

All the news reports I've been able to find seem to base their information on the IDF intelligence assessment, and the DoD is trying to find evidence to corroborate it. The hospital is located in the northern portion of Gaza that civilians had been ordered to leave, but that obviously wasn't a realistic demand by Israel. The Islamic Jihad may have been using the location near the hospital in the hope that it would deter Israel from bombing or shelling their location, but it is still too soon to be able to say definitively which side was responsible. At this point, hundreds of Palestinians have died in the hostilities even before Israel has launched its ground invasion. The death toll on both sides will be in the thousands before hostilities end.

Looking at the evidence, it looks very much like the Israeli version is the correct one, but of no interest to the Palestinian supporters who will always tend to see Israel as being guilty, and Hamas might have inflated the deaths so as to make it look worse. Perhaps when it is proven to be a Hamas or PIJ misfiring missile then the death count will come down miraculously. And it is more likely to be a misfiring rocket from them - not being that reliable - rather than one from Israel, which has no reason to look worse than they already are in many eyes for their siege of Gaza.

Who is to blame for Gaza hospital bomb - we scrutinise the evidence

Hamas have blamed the deaths on an Israeli airstrike. Israeli have blamed a jihadist group’s failed rocket.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But you are basically saying the same, as to determinism being involved, such that what Hamas have done was determined by past actions but where the response from Israel could be said to be much the same - determined by what Hamas did.

This isn't determinism. I'm condemning what Hamas did and saying it ISN'T justified by prior war crimes or the actions of the Israeli state, because I fundamentally believe that you cannot justify targeting civilians, even as a response to war crimes and atrocities inflicted upon you. This is why I can both condemn Hamas and say that their actions were neither morally nor rationally justified by the circumstances and condemn Israel for reacting to Hamas' actions with more actions that I do not believe are morally or rationally justified. YOU are the one arguing that they CAN be justified, so you have no basis whatsoever to condemn Hamas' actions when they target civilians.

What I am asking is - what is an appropriate, effective response to terrorists like Hamas and all the rest, and especially when like the former they are allied to a particular region or country, when they know that those they attack are constrained by rules of war when they aren't themselves.

I'm not a military strategist, but war crimes are not justified. If we're throwing rules out of the window, then you have no basis on which to even condemn Hamas. It's just "They murdered my wife, so I see nothing wrong with killing their entire family". This logic simply doesn't work to do anything other than justify the murder of civilians.

And especially when they tend to get so many supporters all around the world merely because they happen to be Muslims.

What relevance does that have? What does that have to do with whether or not committing war crimes against civilians in Gaza is justified?

Why aren't the majority of Muslims up in arms (figuratively) and wailing as to the victims of these cowardly, cynical terrorists and doing something about it?

Again, what relevance does that have? In what way does this excuse genocide?

 

[Mock Turtle]

This isn't determinism. I'm condemning what Hamas did and saying it ISN'T justified by prior war crimes or the actions of the Israeli state, because I fundamentally believe that you cannot justify targeting civilians, even as a response to war crimes and atrocities inflicted upon you. This is why I can both condemn Hamas and say that their actions were neither morally nor rationally justified by the circumstances and condemn Israel for reacting to Hamas' actions with more actions that I do not believe are morally or rationally justified. YOU are the one arguing that they CAN be justified, so you have no basis whatsoever to condemn Hamas' actions when they target civilians.

I'm not doing so. I am asking for effective answers to such acts that remove any advantages they might gain.

I'm not a military strategist, but war crimes are not justified. If we're throwing rules out of the window, then you have no basis on which to even condemn Hamas. It's just "They murdered my wife, so I see nothing wrong with killing their entire family". This logic simply doesn't work to do anything other than justify the murder of civilians.


What relevance does that have? What does that have to do with whether or not committing war crimes against civilians in Gaza is justified?


Again, what relevance does that have? In what way does this excuse genocide?

Why, because a religious belief seems to be rather involved. These terrorists seemingly accepting an afterlife and hence willing to carry out acts in pursuance of their aims and gladly dying for such, or as to treating others not having the same beliefs as being of no worth. Perhaps this aspect needs to be looked at as to war crimes. And this besides the fact that religious differences are the ultimate causes of these acts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not doing so. I am asking for effective answers to such acts that remove any advantages they might gain.

No, your logic has repeatedly been used to downplay or dismiss war crimes as some kind of necessity. My argument is that they are not.

Do you have any effective answer to how Hamas should have answered Israeli war crimes that don't involve them, too, engaging in war crimes or mass civilian deaths? Would you say them engaging with the problem in a way that DIDN'T break international law, or incur the deaths of civilians, would be giving Israel an "advantage"? Does that justify them killing innocent civilians?

Why, because a religious belief seems to be rather involved. These terrorists seemingly accepting an afterlife and hence willing to carry out acts in pursuance of their aims and gladly dying for such, or as to treating others not having the same beliefs as being of no worth. Perhaps this aspect needs to be looked at as to war crimes. And this besides the fact that religious differences are the ultimate causes of these acts.

Are you applying this logic to Israel as well?

Personally, I don't really care. If someone commits war crimes against a civilian population of religious people who believe morally questionable things, that doesn't justify the war crimes. It's not illegal or an offence punishable by death to have even extremist religious beliefs.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, your logic has repeatedly been used to downplay or dismiss war crimes as some kind of necessity. My argument is that they are not.

Well it was a bit pointless to simply admit that war crimes are always wrong since that doesn't get us very far, as to providing solutions to this issue.

Do you have any effective answer to how Hamas should have answered Israeli war crimes that don't involve them, too, engaging in war crimes or mass civilian deaths?

But you are still here on the determinist track. Hamas shouldn't exist, as per all such terrorist groupings - given that they rubbish their own beliefs by their own actions. They kill and act with no morals so why should they not expect this to ripple out, affect so many, and get returns as to what they do - even as to those who they regard as being 'their' people? I am not arguing this is right or should be the result, only what is likely to happen.

Are you applying this logic to Israel as well?

Unfortunately it applies to many religious beliefs, and as to why I am quite irreligious. I certainly don't have any favouritism with regards such beliefs, apart from those that tend to cause the least harms. Islam just happens to be the one seemingly causing the most issues at the present time.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well it was a bit pointless to simply admit that war crimes are always wrong since that doesn't get us very far, as to providing solutions to this issue.

You think pointing out that war crimes are bad is wrong... when people are using logic that justifies war crimes?

If we agree that war crimes are wrong, then we should acknowledge Israel's wrongdoing and stop selectively applying our outrage. We ought to stop this ridiculous pandering that rightly calls out Hamas for their murdering of civilians but gives Israel a free pass to conduct whatever atrocities it wishes.

But you are still here on the determinist track.

No, I'm not making an argument based on determinism. I've never done that. I'm making a MORAL argument.

Hamas shouldn't exist, as per all such terrorist groupings - given that they rubbish their own beliefs by their own actions. They kill and act with no morals so why should they not expect this to ripple out, affect so many, and get returns as to what they do - even as to those who they regard as being 'their' people?

Okay then, Israel should just nuke Palestine. Hamas are bad, so who cares? Since Hamas are bad, we can justify literally any action whatsoever.

Also, do you not think that this is another example of your selective logic? Hamas was founded as a direct consequence of Israeli foreign policy (SOURCE: How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas - WSJ.com), so this argument that Hamas "shouldn't exist" sort of goes against your argument here. If Hamas shouldn't exist, then you also believe that just because something bad happening is a consequence of a prior act doesn't necessarily justify that happening. Just because Hamas commit atrocities against Israelis doesn't mean that war crimes against Gaza should exist.

I am not arguing this is right or should be the result, only what is likely to happen.

And my argument is that we shouldn't merely ACCEPT that, but we should BE AGAINST IT. If we want to call out war crimes, call out war crimes by both Hamas and Israel. If you want to be against civilian killing, do not implicitly JUSTIFY targeting civilians for death and committing war crimes as a means of stopping the bad people. If you want to advance the position that states shouldn't be responding to injustices against them with crimes against humanity, stop throwing up your hands and asking "what else could be done?" when people say that Israel's crimes against humanity are not justified and equating the specific targeting of civilians for war crimes with "collateral damage" or necessary military intervention.

This is not the difficult, dreaded algebra of necessity. It is a perfectly reasonable, moral, human stance that war crimes should be called out. Not excused. Not determined to be "necessary". Not ignored.

Unfortunately it applies to many religious beliefs, and as to why I am quite irreligious. I certainly don't have any favouritism with regards such beliefs, apart from those that tend to cause the least harms. Islam just happens to be the one seemingly causing the most issues at the present time.

Again, this is an irrelevance. We're talking about war crimes committed by the Israeli state and Hamas. I don't care if there are religious motivations on either side. Foremost, I care about calling out war crimes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The main substance of my remark was that the Biden summit would be derailed by the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital bombing, and that has happened, whether it was accidental or intentional. Both sides have blamed the other side for the atrocity, and credibility seems to depend largely on what people reading the news want to believe.

Evidence exists and is being studied. See, for example:

• Gaza hospital: What video, pictures and other evidence tell us
• US says initial independent review shows no evidence of bomb strike on Gaza hospital
• The devastating Gaza hospital blast is shrouded in uncertainty. Here's what we know, and what we don't

Independent reviews of the evidence appears to suggest and errant Islamic Jihad missile. Muddying the waters with ad hoc conspiracy theories serves neither the victims nor the Israelis. It's simply propagating "alternative facts" consistent with one's biases and, as such, differs little methodologically from the claims being propagated by Hamas.

What concerns me is what I consider an incontrovertible fact:

• Opinion -- Israel was judged guilty of bombing a Gaza hospital before the evidence was in

which concludes:

In sum, I am not suggesting that anyone should uncritically accept whatever Israel says. But that same skepticism should certainly extend to Hamas, a terrorist organization that is not noted for its devotion to either honesty or human decency. The “battle of the narrative” is more important than ever. That makes it all the more imperative that the world — journalists especially — not echo the claims of either side without first checking them out.​

 

[wellwisher]

This conflict appears to be rooted in Israeli expansion into neutral territory, as more and more foreign born Jews immigrant to Israel. This migration and development is displacing and/or putting the squeeze on the native population, who are not Jews. There has been a reluctance to give the Palestinians their own state, with immigration making that potential state smaller and smaller, with each year of delay.

This bring to mind the town where I work. It used to be a small quaint farm town with old families. Being quaint, developers starting to be build upper scale housing, to drawing in well off couples, who wanted to raise their families in a small town setting, close to their work in the city. This steady migration and then the needed infrastructure, such as bigger schools, caused property taxes to rise, which then drove out the native population, who could no longer afford to live there. It was not diabolical, but the newbies, seeking a better life, unintentionally created an economic problem for the older families who had lived there for many generations.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You think pointing out that war crimes are bad is wrong... when people are using logic that justifies war crimes?

If we agree that war crimes are wrong, then we should acknowledge Israel's wrongdoing and stop selectively applying our outrage. We ought to stop this ridiculous pandering that rightly calls out Hamas for their murdering of civilians but gives Israel a free pass to conduct whatever atrocities it wishes.


No, I'm not making an argument based on determinism. I've never done that. I'm making a MORAL argument.


Okay then, Israel should just nuke Palestine. Hamas are bad, so who cares? Since Hamas are bad, we can justify literally any action whatsoever.

Also, do you not think that this is another example of your selective logic? Hamas was founded as a direct consequence of Israeli foreign policy (SOURCE: How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas - WSJ.com), so this argument that Hamas "shouldn't exist" sort of goes against your argument here. If Hamas shouldn't exist, then you also believe that just because something bad happening is a consequence of a prior act doesn't necessarily justify that happening. Just because Hamas commit atrocities against Israelis doesn't mean that war crimes against Gaza should exist.


And my argument is that we shouldn't merely ACCEPT that, but we should BE AGAINST IT. If we want to call out war crimes, call out war crimes by both Hamas and Israel. If you want to be against civilian killing, do not implicitly JUSTIFY targeting civilians for death and committing war crimes as a means of stopping the bad people. If you want to advance the position that states shouldn't be responding to injustices against them with crimes against humanity, stop throwing up your hands and asking "what else could be done?" when people say that Israel's crimes against humanity are not justified and equating the specific targeting of civilians for war crimes with "collateral damage" or necessary military intervention.

This is not the difficult, dreaded algebra of necessity. It is a perfectly reasonable, moral, human stance that war crimes should be called out. Not excused. Not determined to be "necessary". Not ignored.


Again, this is an irrelevance. We're talking about war crimes committed by the Israeli state and Hamas. I don't care if there are religious motivations on either side. Foremost, I care about calling out war crimes.

Enough said on my part, so cheerio.

 

[metis]

There has been a reluctance to give the Palestinians their own state, with immigration making that potential state smaller and smaller, with each year of delay.

Jordan is a "Palestinian state".

Also, Israel was not the one who initiated the assault on civilians as we saw a couple of weeks ago that's clearly an act of terrorism.