2023 Israel - Hamas war

[wilbers]

Israel have announced a total blockade of the Gaza Strip, explicitly stating that not even food and water will be allowed through. That is hardly "trying to avoid civilian casualties"!

Not that its going to happen, but a full blockade of everything other than water, basic food, and essential medical supplies until hostages released is one option Israel has instead of sending in its army (other than special forces, if that opportunity presents itself).

 

[Yew]

I'm not going to defend everything that Israel does, but it doesn't deliberately kill civilians.

Apart from the air strikes against built up residential areas in Gaza?

 

[JamesT]

Apart from the air strikes against built up residential areas in Gaza?

The areas that Hamas launch their rockets from? https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4055975,00.html

 

[Farigiraf]

The areas that Hamas launch their rockets from? https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4055975,00.html

And the apartment block they bombed to the ground?

 

[DarloRich]

Apart from the air strikes against built up residential areas in Gaza?

this is the problem with this kind of topic - the attempt to draw equivalency.

I am sure that Israeli activities kill civilians. The point is they don't set out explicitly to kill civilians. I repeat - I doubt the Israeli air force is told: fly to Gaza, bomb anything, fly home.

The issue, that perhaps you will acknowledge, is that the terrorist leadership who order attacks base/hide in civilian areas in the hope this will give them protection from retaliation. The base thier equipment in these areas in the hope it will prevent retaliation. It might in the west.

BTW: What should the Israelis do in the face of the murder of thier civilians by terrorists?

 

[GS250]

And the apartment block they bombed to the ground?

Depending on whether you believe it or not.....a warning was given before this building was targeted.

 

[dakta]

I am sure that Israeli activities kill civilians. The point is the don't set out explicitly to kill civilians.

It's inconvenient to acknowledge, but a valid point and if there's anything that warrants repetition this is it. It matters.

Again on yahoo, apparently the terrorists seized mobile phones and used community whatsapp groups to entice people out of their safe rooms to enable them to be shot/kidnapped/etc.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What I've never worked out, is what is in it for many Governments and media outlets to back the Israeli regime thick and thin..

It was the the German Nazi view of "solving the Jewish problem" and its subsequent methodology for dealing with it that led to the deaths of Jews from invaded European countries who ended up in those death camps most certainly raised the view of many countries about Israel and its formation of a country. The Jews as a race have been in that part of the Middle East for eons.

It's inconvenient to acknowledge, but a valid point and if there's anything that warrants repetition this is it.

Is it not the case that both Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza deliberately embed themselves in residential areas?

 

[Herefordian]

And the apartment block they bombed to the ground?

Palestine Tower was used a base by Hamas. Look at the antennae on the roof.

Residents were warned to evacuate before the building was destroyed.

If you take issue with it being destroyed, then I suggest you do so with Hamas.

They're the ones who set up bases in residential areas.

 

[dakta]

I'm not sure how that changes the stance that one side is intentionally targeting civillians where the other is not.

For one side, civllian casualties are preferred to be zero, even if it's not logistically possible. On the other, civillian casualties are a core mission requirement. In fact, it appears it's virtually the only requirement, and the strategy and implementation worked to actively maximise this.

I'm 100% sure the distinction is understood, it just doesn't suit agendas.

Is it not the case that both Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza deliberately embed themselves in residential areas?

 

[Farigiraf]

Depending on whether you believe it or not.....a warning was given before this building was targeted.

Palestine Tower was used a base by Hamas. Look at the antennae on the roof.

Residents were warned to evacuate before the building was destroyed.

If you take issue with it being destroyed, then I suggest you do so with Hamas.

They're the ones who set up bases in residential areas.

Didn't see anything about evacuation, thanks for informing me.
This whole situation is crazy - you hear one crazy event from one, then immediately about the other- "Israel bombed a building in Gaza" (Bad for Israel)-- "Hamas had a headquarters in there" (Good for Israel)-- "Civilians were in there" (Bad for Israel)-- "They were evacuated" (Good(?) for Israel)
Both 'sides' keep on sabotaging themselves and acting childishly

 

[BananaRepublic]

Live TV and video from a couple of hours ago, showing literally hundreds of rockets still being fired by Hamas.
Earlier a Sky news crew visited one of the communities attacked on Saturday.
IDF soldiers were still going house to house finding the bodies of murdered people and searching for booby traps and IED’s.
A children’s playground had been left booby trapped with grenades.

Aerial footage showing the IDF have flattened whole city blocks and they have only just started.

.

 

[Loppylugs]

A sobering thought but this attack coincided with Putin's 71st birthday.

 

[Meerkat]

Depending on whether you believe it or not.....a warning was given before this building was targeted.

Don’t know whether the residents got the usual warning texts, but that building definitely got a warning roof knocking - it scared the life out of the Al Jazeera reporter as she had her back to it whilst doing a live to studio piece from the roof of a nearby tower block.

 

[eldomtom2]

I'm not sure how that changes the stance that one side is intentionally targeting civillians where the other is not.

For one side, civllian casualties are preferred to be zero, even if it's not logistically possible. On the other, civillian casualties are a core mission requirement. In fact, it appears it's virtually the only requirement, and the strategy and implementation worked to actively maximise this.

I'm 100% sure the distinction is understood, it just doesn't suit agendas.

"It's not murder, it's manslaughter" is not a great defence.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where are Hamas getting the required items from which are used to fabricate and arm the thousands of rockets they have in their arsenals?

 

[farleigh]

"It's not murder, it's manslaughter" is not a great defence.

Murder is very different from manslaughter.

Taking the UK definition, "Where an unlawful killing is done without an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm".

 

[Starmill]

If you take issue with it being destroyed, then I suggest you do so with Hamas.

I haven't seen anyone who isn't "taking issue" with war crimes such as killing people at a music festival or abducting and then killing hostages, among other serious violence.

Unfortunately none of that changes that destroying these buildings full in the knowledge it will directly kill unarmed civilians is also a terrible war crime. There are plenty alternatives, these are the actions the Netanyahu government has chosen.

I also don't think the post you're quoting is drawing an equivalence in the way you're attempting to reject either.

 

[DarloRich]

Unfortunately none of that changes that destroying these buildings full in the knowledge it will directly kill unarmed civilians is also a terrible war crime.

That isn't a war crime, despite your protestations. The key, as I keep stating, is the word "intentionally". I realise you will dismiss this as mere semantics but they are important. Intentionally killing civilians, intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure ,taking hostages, using civilians as shields etc ARE war crimes

(I would suggest Hamas, were they a nation state, might be guilty of such offences in just the past few days)

Just to be very clear, as you have to be on this board, despite the following being as plain as the nose on your face: BOTH sides have behaved in an abdominal manner over any number of years and their activities have led to an uncountable number of civilian deaths which is an on going tragedy.

There are plenty alternatives, these are the actions rhe Netanyahu government has chosen.

OK - they have chosen the wrong options. Could you suggest some other options?

"It's not murder, it's manslaughter" is not a great defence.

Agreed - but still a defence and that is important at law ( which is what must be suggested by accusations of war crimes - Mind you Isreal have never signed the declaration so..............)

 

[yorkie]

Israel are clearly trying to avoid civilian casualties, Hamas deliberately targeted civilians, the elderly, and children.

Of course there is no "equivalence"; we are talking a terrorist group on one hand vs an actual state on the other!

A state that that is illegally occupying and oppressing people and regularly retaliates by killing vastly more people than the opposition is hardly in a strong position to claim much of a moral highground.

No state can justifiably fight terrorists by terrorising / punishing the civilian population.

That isn't a war crime, despite your protestations. The key, as I keep stating, is the word "intentionally". I realise you will dismiss this as mere semantics but they are important. Intentionally killing civilians, intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure ,taking hostages, using civilians as shields etc ARE war crimes

(I would suggest Hamas, were they a nation state, might be guilty of such offences in just the past few days)

Just to be very clear, as you have to be on this board, despite the following being as plain as the nose on your face: BOTH sides have behaved in an abdominal manner over any number of years and their activities have led to an uncountable number of civilian deaths which is an on going tragedy.

The state of Israel is in a permanent state of breaching the law in some way or another; whether it is a war crime or merely occupying territory illegally.

I don't know exactly whethe or not what Israel is currently doing is a war crime or not, but it sure looks like it.

OK - they have chosen the wrong options. Could you suggest some other options?

All states should adhere to all relevant laws. It is not up to any specific individual to say what any state should do specifically so I am puzzled as to why you appear to be doing so.

Palestine Tower was used a base by Hamas. Look at the antennae on the roof.

Residents were warned to evacuate before the building was destroyed.

If you take issue with it being destroyed, then I suggest you do so with Hamas.

They're the ones who set up bases in residential areas.

If terrorists occupied the same block of flats as yourself, would you be okay with it being destroyed?

 

[dakta]

"It's not murder, it's manslaughter" is not a great defence.

I won't echo what the other posters have already responded with on that, except say I agree with them.

But I will say this again, it doesn't detract from the fact that one side is actively targeting and killing civilians whereas the other isn't doing that targeting.

If you want to argue that point, argue that point - just saying that other people are getting killed isn't arguing the point, collateral is something that's been present in a lot of wars, it sucks, but it doesn't make killing innocents with intent any less vile, acceptable, justifable or whatever.

If terrorists occupied the same block of flats as yourself, would you be okay with it being destroyed?

It'd be one of those situations that would totally and completely suck, but somehow...despite being a situation you could hardly think could get worse yet remain a notch above being strip naked, raped, killed and paraded.

I don't see anyone saying it's a positive, but I'm glad some people at least can differentiate.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't know exactly whethe or not what Israel is currently doing is a war crime or not, but it sure looks like it.

that is your opinion. The legal definition is what counts. My opinion is that I don't think the activities of Israel meet the definition of war crimes in this regard. I think the recent activities of Hamas would were they to be held to that standard.

The state of Israel is in a permanent state of breaching the law in some way or another; whether it is a war crime or merely occupying territory illegally.

TBH the continued occupation of Palestinian land and displacement of those residents is closer to a war crime than those activities suggested above - I don't know enough to determine the threshold in that regard.

 

[Parjon]

If someone tries to kill you, you are entitled to use reasonable force to stop them. Including if it's necessary to kill them to prevent them from killing you.

Hamas et al have consistently stated their intent, and have demonstrated they mean it.

Going on about the occupation is meaningless in this sense. How can the Israelis do anything other than totally defend themselves against those who would do them harm. How could they ever entertain ceding anything to those with such a stance? It would be suicide, and this has always been the case.

It is interesting that those trying to claim equivalence between the acts of Israel in defending their citizens right to peaceful life and Hamas' violent attempts to kill them, that they also try to portray this as a non-equivalent David Vs Goliath situation. Where despite everything, Hamas get to be terrorists but the Israelis have to show "restraint".

Hamas in fact have a 40,000 in number army, a massive arsenal - funded by Iran - and who knows what else. They also won the elections in Gaza. Collective punishment is wrong, sure, but there is also such a thing as collective responsibility. It is notable that the Israelis still send out warnings of impending operations despite all this.

 

[yorkie]

that is your opinion. The legal definition is what counts.

The state of Israel appears to have little regard for the law. A state should be above that.

Your opinion is that the following are legal actions...?

'Where do we go?' - Nowhere safe in Gaza as Israeli strikes intensify

Rimal, Gaza City's wealthiest area, was a safe haven before a wave of Israeli strikes overnight.

www.bbc.co.uk

"I lost everything. My apartment, where my five children lived, was here in this building. My grocery shop below the building was destroyed," Mohammed Abu al-Kass told me while carrying his daughter Shahd in the street.

Its 2.2 million residents are running out of food, fuel, electricity and water, after Israel's government ordered a "complete siege" and cut off all of Gaza's supplies in response to Hamas's attack.

That has forced most of the 200,000 people who have fled their homes to take shelter in UN-run schools. Some have fled in fear, while others have seen their homes destroyed by air strikes.

'I wish I could be a normal child living with no war'

Children in Gaza have been expressing their longing for an end to the air strikes.

www.bbc.co.uk

Children in Gaza have been expressing their longing for an end to the air strikes by Israel, following rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel on Saturday.

Watch: Driving through Gaza streets hit by Israeli strikes

More than 500 people have died since Israel began striking the area in response to attacks from Hamas.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is what the streets of Gaza look like after the area was hit by Israeli strikes.

Doctor in Gaza: I woke up to sounds of explosions

British doctor Abdul Qadir Hammad was in Gaza a day before Hamas launched its deadly attack on Israel.

www.bbc.co.uk

Shutting off electricity, food and water will be "devastating for the civilian population and the hospitals," he said. "It will cause a humanitarian disaster."

My opinion is that I don't think the activities of Israel meet the definition of war crimes in this regard. I think the recent activities of Hamas would were they to be held to that standard.

Yes the actions of Hamas are clearly war crimes, but Israel is a state and should act accordingly; two wrongs do not make a right and no state can justify war crimes to act in such a manner.

 

[Herefordian]

I haven't seen anyone who isn't "taking issue" with war crimes such as killing people at a music festival or abducting and then killing hostages, among other serious violence.

Unfortunately none of that changes that destroying these buildings full in the knowledge it will directly kill unarmed civilians is also a terrible war crime. There are plenty alternatives, these are the actions the Netanyahu government has chosen.

I also don't think the post you're quoting is drawing an equivalence in the way you're attempting to reject either.

The reason Israel is destroying these buildings is because Hamas use them as bases.

Israel has provided a warning for residents to evacuate and allowed for that to happen.

It is not, as far as I know, a war crime to destroy empty buildings which are legitimate military targets.

It is tragic and unacceptable that innocent Palestinians have either died or lost their homes as a result.

However, the blame for that lies solely with Hamas for setting up bases in densely populated areas.

 

[yorkie]

If someone tries to kill you, you are entitled to use reasonable force to stop them. Including if it's necessary to kill them to prevent them from killing you.

Both sides could use that argument perpetually.

Hamas et al have consistently stated their intent, and have demonstrated they mean it.

Going on about the occupation is meaningless in this sense. How can the Israelis do anything other than totally defend themselves against those who would do them harm. How could they ever entertain ceding anything to those with such a stance? It would be suicide, and this has always been the case.

If you were in the position Palestinians are in, you'd just accept it?

It is interesting that those trying to claim equivalence between the acts of Israel in defending their citizens right to peaceful life and Hamas' violent attempts to kill them, that they also try to portray this as a non-equivalent David Vs Goliath situation. Where despite everything, Hamas get to be terrorists but the Israelis have to show "restraint".

Who is claiming "equivalence"? There is absolutely no equivalence here at all.

Hamas in fact have a 40,000 in number army, a massive arsenal - funded by Iran - and who knows what else. They also won the elections in Gaza. Collective punishment is wrong, sure, but there is also such a thing as collective responsibility. It is notable that the Israelis still send out warnings of impending operations despite all this.

So you'd be happy for your home to be destroyed if warning was given? Do you also concede that, despite the 'warnings', many are killed and seriously injured?

The reason Israel is destroying these buildings is because Hamas use them as bases.

Israel has provided a warning for residents to evacuate and allowed for that to happen.

It is not, as far as I know, a war crime to destroy empty buildings which are legitimate military targets.

It is tragic and unacceptable that innocent Palestinians have either died or lost their homes as a result.

However, the blame for that lies solely with Hamas for setting up bases in densely populated areas.

I refer you to my post above.

 

[DarloRich]

Your opinion is that the following are legal actions...?

Yes - I realise that is both distasteful and upsetting but accurate in my opinion. The key is intention.

( BTW - I have read all of those articles today - they are awful, truly horrible.)

 

[Parjon]

Both sides could use that argument perpetually.

If you were in the position Palestinians are in, you'd just accept it?

Who is claiming "equivalence"? There is absolutely no equivalence here at all.

So you'd be happy for your home to be destroyed if warning was given? Do you also concede that, despite the 'warnings', many are killed and seriously injured?


I refer you to my post above.

If I was in the Gaza area, being the person I am today, I would be totally opposed to Hamas. Just as I was totally opposed to the (by comparison, civilised!) IRA. Of course i fully accept if I lived in Gaza I would probably be indoctrinated in various ways to believe all kinds of extremist nonsense. Their actions are the absolute opposite of those who want a sustainable, liveable situation.

Would I accept my home being destroyed because children murdering terrorists were in it??

I would likely have been the one to tip the authorities off.

It's impossible for the Israelis to avoid collateral casualties. But to their credit they try.

Unlike the murderous, racist, xenophobic and extremist in many other ways Hamas.

 

[yorkie]

If I was in the Gaza area, as myself as I am, I would be totally opposed to Hamas. Just as I was totally opposed to the (by comparison, civilised!) IRA. Of course i fully accept if I lived in Gaza I would probably be indoctrinated in various ways to believe all kinds of extremist nonsense.

Would I accept my home being destroyed because children murdering terrorists were in it??

I would likely have been the one to til the authorities off.

Yeah, right; I don't think you would actually be quite so willing to have your home destroyed like that. It's easy to say something like that on a forum but would you really accept being left with no home, and being denied basic amenities and provisions? Say yes if you want but I do not believe it.

From one of the links I provided above:

"I lost everything. My apartment, where my five children lived, was here in this building. My grocery shop below the building was destroyed," Mohammed Abu al-Kass told me while carrying his daughter Shahd in the street.

You'd really be content to be in that position, simply on the basis that terrorists happened to be closeby?

 

[Coolzac]

Yeah, right; I don't think you would actually be quite so willing to have your home destroyed like that. It's easy to say something like that on a forum but would you really accept being left with no home, and being denied basic amenities and provisions? Say yes if you want but I do not believe it.

From one of the links I provided above:

You'd really be content to be in that position, simply on the basis that terrorists happened to be closeby?

Let's change things a bit. If you were Israel, what would you do to solve the wider conflict?

It's easy to criticise but harder to actually come up with a solution. Israel has tried to resolve things in the past but got nowhere, and I think now has given up.