Why Has Israel Killed 40,000 Civilians In Gaza?

[Brickjectivity]

I'm talking about political systems and see Islam as one but not Christianity.

Are you sure about that .. hasn't it just morphed into something else?

The Group of Seven (G7) is an intergovernmental political and economic forum consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States;
...
The concept of a forum for the capitalist world's major industrialized countries emerged before the 1973 oil crisis. On 25 March 1973, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, George Shultz, convened an informal gathering of finance ministers from West Germany (Helmut Schmidt), France (Valéry Giscard d'Estaing), and the United Kingdom (Anthony Barber) before an upcoming meeting in Washington, DC.
G7 - Wikipedia

The Holy Roman Empire is gone. Made possible because Christianity has no scripture requiring churches to control laws. Instead all of the countries you mention practice separation of church from the state. They don't even put your religon on your ID card, and you don't have to say what it is for employment or to run for public office or to join the military or pay taxes. I don't know of any exceptions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well it really is so obvious,maybe protest the antagonist.

You realise the reason people protest Israel is because we're sending weapons to Israel while it's committing war crimes, right? People don't generally protest against terrorist groups because they, believe or not, aren't entirely receptive to international pressure from civilians. I don't know if you noticed, but perhaps we could conclude that Hamas don't really care about international pressure the day they killed over a thousands civilians. Meanwhile, Israel - the ones who are currently engaging in inflicting mass death and committing war crimes - are doing so with the direct aid of nations we are members of, as so protesting our country's complicity in these crimes may actually have an effect.

This isn't rocket science.

Casualties are a product of war,if you don’t want casualties don’t go to war.

The issue is when those casualties are a result of war CRIMES. There's a difference, as I have always maintained, between civilian deaths that are a result of inevitable collateral damage in an otherwise justified conflict, and civilian deaths that are a direct consequence of either deliberately targeting, or otherwise showing utter disregard for the lives of, civilians. As I have demonstrated, the IDF is engaging in the awful lot of the latter. Those are the deaths I take issue with. Do you not?

In war they are not crimes.

Wow.

"War crimes don't exist" is a pretty bold argument.

I actually do care,what a pointless waste of life.

I agree.

**** happens in war,propaganda is more abundant.

What about war CRIMES?

First you have to establish they did,your sources, etc.

I have provided dozens of sources.

What I see is “Israel commit war crimes” but Hamas ie Palestinians are victims,the reality is Hamas slaughtered 1400 unarmed revellers at a peace concert,raped and opened the stomachs of pregnant women,this is very telling about “pro Palestine” movement,it’s never mentioned.

Congratulations. You just acknowledged that both sides are capable of inflicting war crimes on each other.

Now, would you care to explain to me why what Hamas did - which I agree is a war crime - justifies Israel committing war crimes in response?

Let me know the result of the multiple alleged cases of war crimes and the judgement.

Literal head in the sand argument, there. I see you're pretty quick to judge obvious war crimes when Hamas engages in them, but dozens of pages totalling hundreds of sources reporting on the war crimes of Israel suddenly requires thorough investigation.

Oh no,you are right,we shouldn’t mention a terrorist organisation that governs Gaza,we should all hate Israel.

I didn't say don't mention it. I'm asking why you keep bringing it up when it's irrelevant to whether or not Israel committing war crimes is justified.

I'll make it easy for you:

1) Hamas are bad and engage in war crimes.
2) _______________________________________________
3) Therefore, Israel committing war crimes is justified.

Could you fill in the blank, please?

You need to go further back than that,basically you need to research more,a good starting point is the Muslim brotherhood,Hassan al Banna,sayyid Qutb,the PLO,the Hebron massacre.

Why stop there? We could go back to the beginning of all of time and show that the real culprit was the first man to throw a rock at another.

In what way does that justify war crimes being carried out NOW?

Why not just say “I hate Jews Zionists and Israelis” you have it all covered then just like Hamas and the PLJ.

Because I don't, and the fact that you would insinuate that I do should be incredibly embarrassing and shameful for you.

Poor question,civilians die in wars.

And when they die of war CRIMES, is that good or bad?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Holy Roman Empire is gone..

Yes .. empires rise and fall.

Made possible because Christianity has no scripture requiring churches to control laws..

No .. it was a major split in Christianity's history .. the Reformation.

Instead all of the countries you mention practice separation of church from the state..

..but the US population is 70% Christian, and you are trying to tell me that that does
not affect its policies?
The G7 is a Western club with its roots in Christianity.

 

[metis]

What about war CRIMES?

Does Hamas commit "war Crimes"? How about the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan or the firebombing against some German cities?

If Hamas surrendered, the conflict would be over-- PERIOD!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Does Hamas commit "war Crimes"?

Yes.

How about the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan or the firebombing against some German cities?

Also bad, yes.

If Hamas surrendered, the conflict would be over-- PERIOD!

Two questions and a statement, and yet I don't see a single explanation as to why Israel committing war crimes is a good thing, nor an answer to my question.

Odd, that. It's almost as if you're of the belief that war crimes being committed in the past justifies war crimes being committed now.

Y'know, like Hamas apparently do.

 

[metis]

Two questions and a statement, and yet I don't see a single explanation as to why Israel committing war crimes is a good thing, nor an answer to my question.

Nope, I never said it was a "good thing", nor did I ever imply that.

Odd, that. It's almost as if you're of the belief that war crimes being committed in the past justifies war crimes being committed now.

Odd that you assumed the above and didn't actually ask me instead.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope, I never said it was a "good thing", nor did I ever imply that.

Okay then, so do you think it's a bad thing when states do war crimes?

Odd that you assumed the above and didn't actually ask me instead.

Since that's what my question was regarding, no assumption was made.

A good sign that you're going to answer a question is if you begin by, y'know, answering a question. The fact that you responded to the question with two irrelevant questions - both of which implied presumptions on my stance regarding Hamas and WW2 - and an irrelevant argument doesn't exactly make it sound like you're receptive to questioning.

On the other hand, responding the way you did certainly DOES seem to imply that you believe war crimes can be justified.

 

[metis]

Okay then, so do you think it's a bad thing when states do war crimes?

Of course. But when some here only blame one side, that's where I have a problem.

I have repeatedly stated on such threads that I cannot and do not support Bibi and his Likud coalition, however we also know what happened pm 10-7 and also who has been pushing and funding Hamas to attack civilians.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course. But when some here only blame one side, that's where I have a problem.

I've repeatedly blamed Hamas for multiple atrocities and their putting of their own civilians in harm's way. Lots of people here have.

The problem is that Israel are the ones doing the vast majority of the harm, and there are multiple posters on here who seem very invested in either downplaying or denying the harm they're doing, or outright engaging in war crime apologia.

Comparatively, I've seen very few people come out and suggest what Hamas did was either reasonable or justified. I'm sure such people exist, but if they wanted to get into this debate they'd get just as much an earful from me as anyone defending Israeli war crimes is.

I have repeatedly stated on such threads that I cannot and do not support Bibi and his Likud coalition, however we also know what happened pm 10-7 and also who has been pushing and funding Hamas to attack civilians.

So when Israel commits war crimes against civilians, is it wrong to point that out - especially in the context of a threat in which multiple people are making the arguments that Israel is not actually engaging in war crimes, or that it IS engaging in war crimes but they're justified?

Now, when are you going to explain to me why pointing out that Hamas have committed war crimes - or that war crimes occurred on the allied side during WW2 - are reasonable responses to the question of whether Israel committing war crimes in Gaza is either reasonable or justified?

 

[metis]

So when Israel commits war crimes against civilians, is it wrong to point that out - especially in the context of a threat in which multiple people are making the arguments that Israel is not actually engaging in war crimes, or that it IS engaging in war crimes but they're justified?

Now, when are you going to explain to me why pointing out that Hamas have committed war crimes - or that war crimes occurred on the allied side during WW2 - are reasonable responses to the question of whether Israel committing war crimes in Gaza is either reasonable or justified?

I made my points and why, but that's not good enough for you, so have a nice day. Maybe next time you won't make assumptions but instead have the basic courtesy to ask.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I made my points and why, but that's not good enough for you, so have a nice day. Maybe next time you won't make assumptions but instead have the basic courtesy to ask.

Go on then, what assumptions did I make that I didn't subsequently question you on?

Meanwhile, you implied I only blamed "one side" despite my numerous statements to the contrary. Are you going to apologise for your hypocrisy?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Does Hamas commit "war Crimes"? How about the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan or the firebombing against some German cities?

If Hamas surrendered, the conflict would be over-- PERIOD!

Never!
All I see is a post repeatedly mentioning Hamas .. as if they are the only people in the Muslim
world who dislike the state of Israel's policies.
..and then, of course Iran .. another 'unreasonable population' .. and then we have Al-Qaeda,
Islamic state and myriads more.

One would think that they are all brainless, barbaric idiots .. but interestingly enough, the IRA
had a lot of support in the US .. that's politics for you.

..but I remind everybody why the IRA is not such a big threat to the UK these days. People
actually sat down and aired their grievances.
Israel is not interested in that .. they think they can be victorious through war.

 

[metis]

Never!
All I see is a post repeatedly mentioning Hamas .. as if they are the only people in the Muslim
world who dislike the state of Israel's policies.
..and then, of course Iran .. another 'unreasonable population' .. and then we have Al-Qaeda,
Islamic state and myriads more.

Your mindset is all too replicated with all too many in the Arab world, which is also a clear indication why Israel has had to defend themselves as all nations do!

 

[Debater Slayer]

Are you saying it is 40,000 definite civilians or all casualties including soldiers?

The number of civilians killed is almost certainly higher (as the link I excerpted from earlier touched on) because, aside from the lack of journalists to document the death toll, there are many missing people, primarily under the rubble of bombed buildings. The 40,000 is the total toll, based on what I have read, and back in April, Israeli military officials said that a two-to-one civilian-to-militant ratio of deaths was "more or less right":

Approximately two civilians have been killed for every dead Hamas fighter in the Gaza Strip, senior military officials said Monday, adding that the IDF was deploying high-tech mapping software to try to reduce noncombatant deaths.

Asked about media reports that 5,000 Hamas fighters had been killed, one of the senior officials told reporters at a briefing, “The numbers are more or less right.”

IDF officials: 2 civilian deaths for every 1 Hamas fighter killed in Gaza

IDF believes some 5,000 terrorists killed so far; says new high-tech mapping software should help to further reduce civilian casualties as war moves into crowded southern Gaza

www.timesofisrael.com

If this ratio is correct and still holds today, this means that the IDF has killed over 26,000 civilians, per their own confirmation of the cited ratio—assuming the ratio is not even higher. These are just the deaths; the numbers of injuries have widely been reported as more than double that number.

Its a relatively small military force for 2.3 million people given that they train the children to be warriors and given that fighting Israel is touted as very important in their society.

What percentage of Gazan children are "trained to be warriors," though, and what is the source of this claim?

Also, a vast number of Gazans have now either lost someone to the IDF's bombing or grown up watching family, friends, or others they knew get killed in similar circumstances, There are many historical examples where radicalism and militancy only became more emboldened due to attempts to address primarily sociopolitical and economic issues through blunt military force. The US' "War on Terror" was a clear example of this, where two wars that cost trillions of dollars contributed to the rise of new terrorist groups like ISIS and left the situation no better than it was when the wars started. Months ago, the US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, touched on the strategic problems inherent in "[driving the civilian population] into the arms of the enemy":

He also said he's pressed Israel to dramatically expand Gaza's access to humanitarian aid, adding that he expected more deliveries of aid "in the days ahead."

"In this kind of a fight, the center of gravity is the civilian population. And if you drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat," Austin said, drawing on his experience as a four-star general overseeing the battle against Islamic State militants.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/civilians-are-center-gravity-gaza-war-us-defense-secretary-2023-12-02/

I think the most reliable way to disempower Hamas would be to address the underlying sociopolitical and economic issues that have enabled it to reach power in the first place. I don't doubt that doing so would be a long and difficult process, but the alternative is simply untenable and unsustainable if the goal is to achieve a peaceful coexistence in the region.

USA citizens aren't trained as soldiers from childhood, and most never perform military service at any time in our lives. It is a possible career path but only one of many. Therefore our smaller percentage makes sense, but secondly it makes sense because a smaller percentage is needed since the population is large. A million strong is strong enough for most purposes.

I agree, and as you pointed out, Hamas militants are indeed a tiny fraction of Gaza's population. This is another reason I find it so indefensible when someone tries to conflate Gazans with Hamas. That and the IDF is a state military that possesses highly advanced technology, nukes, extensive funding both from the Israeli government and other countries, and extensive political support from Israel's allies. The greater ability to effect change is in the Israeli government's hands. It's not the sole actor in the region (Israel-Palestine), but it is by far the strongest and most substantially supported one.

Thank you for correcting me about wealth and what Muslims think about it.

Thanks for being receptive to more nuance regarding that.

The thing is that there's a large range of diversity in opinions among Muslims, although there are, of course, still mainstream opinions and minority ones. We're talking about around two billion people, after all, so there's bound to be a vast array of opinions among Muslims on all sorts of issues, including the interpretations of the religion. I don't claim to know what "Muslims" think about anything, as a general group, aside from the belief that Allah is God and Muhammad is his messenger.

Also, regarding the subject of Islamic economics, I wanted to respond to another post here:

Saudi Arabia receives military support from the USA and sells oil but economically it is unbalanced. It currently is pursuing a plan to decrease its dependence upon oil by 2030. This target is very ambitious, but I hope it is successful. Its unlikely since it is using Islam compliant banking. Were it any other political system it could use modern banking, and it could secure plenty of investment to help make its 2030 Vision come true.

Most licensed banks in Saudi Arabia deal in interest and engage in non-Islamic banking practices. They exist in parallel to Islamic ones; neither type of bank replaces the other. For a few examples, here are the websites of three large banks in Saudi Arabia, where the interest rates for some types of financing are listed:

Finance & Saving Pricing | Saudi National Bank

www.alahli.com

https://www.saib.com.sa/en/prices-financing-and-savings-products

Prices of financing and savings products | SAB

www.sab.com

There's also this:

Despite the trend in the Saudi Arabian banking market to convert to full-fledged Islamic Banks, only four among the 12 local licensed banks are considered to be pure Islamic[1] banks:

• Al-Rajhi Bank Saudi Arabia
• Al Jazeera Bank
• Al-Bilad Bank
• Alinma Bank

According to scholar of international finance, Ibrahim Warde, the two largest Islamic banking groups, Dar al-Maal al-Islami and al-Baraka Bank, have not been able to obtain licenses to operate commercial banks in Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that they are both owned by prominent Saudis. In 1985, the al-Rajhi Banking and Investment Company was authorized to engage in interest-free banking, but on the condition that it did not use the word "Islamic" in its name.[2]

Saudi Arabia does not officially recognize the concept of Islamic banking. The logic is that if one bank is recognized as an Islamic institution then all others, by implication, would be un-Islamic. The official line was that all banks operating in Saudi Arabia were by definition Islamic.[2]

Islamic banking in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are more foreign banks in Saudi Arabia than there are domestic ones, too, so there are even more banks that deal in interest aside from the local ones.

If people are told by the UN and by official news sites that there is a genocide then that is the information they will act on.

The USA certainly has been involved in destructive behavior, and these can be another motivation to undermine the USA, using its position on the security council and its support for Israel. We are talking though about over a hundred different representative each with their own motivations.

My real concern is the UN accusation of genocide which is misleading, as it suggests an intent to kill 2.3 million people. Considering all the funding sent to aid Gaza, the use of which is misreported and which is instead used for weaponry, the Gaza Health Ministry seems somehow connected to both Hamas and the UN. The UN pleads stupidity and ignorance about the funding. They somehow don't notice so much money disappearing into weaponry. Amazing how disinterested everyone has been in where all this aid money has been going. The Ministry of Health hasn't been short on funds at all? Then perhaps they have not been part of the subterfuge.

The question of whether what has unfolded so far constitutes genocide seems to me separate from whether the reported death tolls are accurate, and I think the number of civilians killed and the ongoing humanitarian disaster are utterly unconscionable either way. The atrocities committed by Hamas against civilians don't justify the atrocities committed by the IDF against civilians, and vice versa.

If the Hamas Ministry of Health has given accurate death statistics all this time good for them.

As the link I cited mentioned, the Gaza Health Ministry's death statistics for past conflicts have been found by other sources and observers to be overall reliable and accurate, which is why I don't think that there is, so far, any basis on which to just dismiss the death toll from the current assault as made-up or exaggerated; if anything, it's an incomplete count given what I mentioned above about people who are still missing or under the rubble.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your mindset is all too replicated with all too many in the Arab world..

Well, I for one, do not want to make enemies of any nation, other than those who
do not have reasonable grievance.

..and I see, along with the UN, that they do.
I cannot fathom why such a "successful" nation like the US would attempt to discredit the UN (the rest of the world), and risk becoming isolated.

Powers and empires rise and fall .. USSR being a case in point.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, I do see that, too. I avoid getting into a conversation like that.

This is in my view the function of Hamas and of all the people stuck in Gaza. They are there to provoke this kind of action from Israel, so that it can be judged. I want the UN to pay for its part in causing this fracas and for continuing to encourage it. I want its self praising web page removed. I want any USA officials who might be involved in the embezzlements of Hamas strung up, defamed and fined until they are on green stamps. Somebody is to blame who is not being held responsible. Somebody allowed aid money to be channeled out of Gaza, didn't hold Hamas to the conditions of this aid. This didn't just happen. But maybe it did.

Perhaps there was a fumble, and so no one knew what was happening to the aid money. Perhaps there is an explanation why the UN allowed the UNRWA schools to do what they did. Still, with that kind of public money I would expect the UN to assign someone to track what became of it.

The US and Israel are both far more powerful than UNRWA, in any case, so I'm not sure what it would achieve to focus more on UNRWA than on either of them when it comes to the question of who has the most ability to change the current situation. If the US and Israel both wanted to work toward a sustainable two-state solution, would they really be unable to do so because of UNRWA? I highly doubt it, especially considering that the US and its allies have been the biggest donors to UNRWA in the first place, so it's not like they don't have major leverage over it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The US and Israel are both far more powerful than UNRWA, in any case, so I'm not sure what it would achieve to focus more on UNRWA than on either of them when it comes to the question of who has the most ability to change the current situation. If the US and Israel both wanted to work toward a sustainable two-state solution, would they really be unable to do so because of UNRWA? I highly doubt it, especially considering that the US and its allies have been the biggest donors to UNRWA in the first place, so it's not like they don't have major leverage over it.

The USA State Department may not be blameless, since it has funded UNRWA. Its Bureau of Populations, Refugees and Migrations ought to know what's going on when it funds things, but apparently it does not. Instead it has a very long document declaring good intentions and that it intends this year (23-24) to at long-last finally, finally, finally work on "Improving the Agency’s capacity to review local textbooks and education materials it uses to identify and take measures to address any content contrary to UN principles in educational materials..." now that there has been a war. Which is a roundabout way of saying it wasn't reviewing them before now or not doing it thoroughly. This sounds to me like twenty years of ignoring complaints about it, but I do not know.

"https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-2024-US-UNRWA-Framework-for-Cooperation-FINAL.pdf"

 

[England my lionheart]

You realise the reason people protest Israel is because we're sending weapons to Israel while it's committing war crimes, right? People don't generally protest against terrorist groups because they, believe or not, aren't entirely receptive to international pressure from civilians. I don't know if you noticed, but perhaps we could conclude that Hamas don't really care about international pressure the day they killed over a thousands civilians. Meanwhile, Israel - the ones who are currently engaging in inflicting mass death and committing war crimes - are doing so with the direct aid of nations we are members of, as so protesting our country's complicity in these crimes may actually have an effect.

This isn't rocket science.

Well you’re right,terrorist groups are definitely unreceptive to protest,probably result in a new knee configuration,what happened to “we don’t deal with terrorists”,we don’t so why should Israel,although Israel don’t need our 0.1 percent of arms support I would give 100%.

The issue is when those casualties are a result of war CRIMES. There's a difference, as I have always maintained, between civilian deaths that are a result of inevitable collateral damage in an otherwise justified conflict, and civilian deaths that are a direct consequence of either deliberately targeting, or otherwise showing utter disregard for the lives of, civilians. As I have demonstrated, the IDF is engaging in the awful lot of the latter. Those are the deaths I take issue with. Do you not?

The IDF warned of strikes,what more do you expect them to do?,the issue is with the Palestinian government Hamas,they are responsible for their people.

Wow.

"War crimes don't exist" is a pretty bold argument.

The Nuremberg war crimes trials were focused on “war crimes” and prosecuted,where is the justice system that could prosecute Israel that hasn’t done what Israel is doing to protect its people.

I agree.

About time.

What about war CRIMES?

Groundhog day.

I have provided dozens of sources.

All verified of course.

Congratulations. You just acknowledged that both sides are capable of inflicting war crimes on each other.

Nope,casualties.

Now, would you care to explain to me why what Hamas did - which I agree is a war crime - justifies Israel committing war crimes in response?

I dunno,I’ll throw this out there though that deliberately raping a woman with a broken bottle or cutting the stomach open of a pregnant woman,that there are still hostages,that Hamas are the instigators of their peoples doom means there will be casualties.

Literal head in the sand argument, there. I see you're pretty quick to judge obvious war crimes when Hamas engages in them, but dozens of pages totalling hundreds of sources reporting on the war crimes of Israel suddenly requires thorough investigation.

I get the feeling that you just hate Israel and they must be condemned no matter what.

I didn't say don't mention it. I'm asking why you keep bringing it up when it's irrelevant to whether or not Israel committing war crimes is justified.

Overall the IDF have been pretty good,if they didn’t care there really would be a bloodbath.

I'll make it easy for you:

1) Hamas are bad and engage in war crimes.
2) _______________________________________________
3) Therefore, Israel committing war crimes is justified.

Could you fill in the blank, please?

Hamas purposely put their people in harms way.

Why stop there? We could go back to the beginning of all of time and show that the real culprit was the first man to throw a rock at another.

Nah,that’s mythology.

In what way does that justify war crimes being carried out NOW?

You keep pushing the “war crimes” agenda but I’m not buying it.

Because I don't, and the fact that you would insinuate that I do should be incredibly embarrassing and shameful for you.

Oh really?.

And when they die of war CRIMES, is that good or bad?

All unessary deaths are a crime,would you agree?.

 

[England my lionheart]

Never!
All I see is a post repeatedly mentioning Hamas .. as if they are the only people in the Muslim
world who dislike the state of Israel's policies.
..and then, of course Iran .. another 'unreasonable population' .. and then we have Al-Qaeda,
Islamic state and myriads more.

Or,do they just dislike Jews.

A commonality

One would think that they are all brainless, barbaric idiots .. but interestingly enough, the IRA
had a lot of support in the US .. that's politics for you.

And religion.

..but I remind everybody why the IRA is not such a big threat to the UK these days. People
actually sat down and aired their grievances.
Israel is not interested in that .. they think they can be victorious through war.

Hilarious

 

[metis]

Hamas purposely put their people in harms way.

Yep, as Hamas knew what they were doing and how Israel would respond and yet they did it anyway.

Reminds me of a friend who periodically said "It all depends on whose ox is getting gored".

When a country is attacked, they try and defend themselves by destroying the enemy, such as how we in the States responded after 9-11. As someone posted a short while ago, with modern warfare one may assume that probably around 90+% killed will be civilians. Since Hamas imbeds itself in civilian areas while wearing civilian clothes, how else is the IDF to respond? [rhetorical] A Hamas tunnel uncovered last week was in a child's bedroom. This is what Hamas does as you well know.

Has there been some unnecessary atrocities by some on the IDF? Of course there has been. Do I trust Netanyahu, his coalition, and his War Cabinet? Hell no!!!