Israel-Hamas Thread II

[o_mlly]

Is that your argument? Israel has more innocent people so relatively speaking they can be excused for the numbers they kill. Am I meant to take that seriously?

Strawman.

 

[o_mlly]

You certainly don't expect us to take you seriously.

No, not "us". Just you and all those who blather on in this thread about evil Israel who is conducting a just war against a criminally unjust aggressor and who have not taken the time to understand the accepted humanitarian rules of doing so.

 

[o_mlly]

Hamas had zero hope of winning against Israel.

As usual, your arguments are based on your own misguided opinions. Or, you must have an inside source in Gaza. Who in Hamas told you of this despair?

What's the worst possible scenario in any given situation for Israel? One, that they lose the support of their friends.

Are you serious, "lose friends"? How about annihilation?

You are the elder authority in the extended Bradski clan. The McCoys on the other ridge profess their hate for Bradski's and their commitment to wipe you and yours off the face of the earth. Over the years, the McCoys acting on their pledge have secretly attacked the Bradskinians murdering, kidnapping, maiming and worse innocent Bradskinians. The clan wants you, their leader, to protect them from anymore such mayhem. You say, "Well, you know we might lose the support of the Hatfield's if we kill any innocent McCoys in protecting ourselves and you know "you can't destroy a terrorist group" so just lean back and try to enjoy life".

 

[o_mlly]

And that still doesn't give anyone the right to kill non combatants

You really need to read up on ius in bello, right conduct in a just war.

 

[o_mlly]

... good grief, you can't destroy a terrorist group.

Al-Qaeda? We don't read too much about them anymore.

 

[o_mlly]

That's just silly. Where, if anywhere, did you discover such a rule?

Do yourself a favor and search ius in bello.

Israel has killed more innocent people already, and is killing more by the day.

If Israel targeted any innocent people then you would have a point. That Israel did so has not been shown so you don't.

 

[wing2000]

Sorry, but it takes a lot more than someones opinion (as this article is) to dissuade me. I have seen enough things in this life that there is little that surprises me......especially the actions of a terrorist group such as hamas.

....perhaps you can explain how a Palestinian who just had his or her family wiped out by an Israeli bomb will not have further motivation to join in resisting Isreal?

 

[wing2000]

Whoever Blesses Israel will be blessed, whoever curses Israel will be cursed.
So, if they turn to the Creator....
“I have told you,” replied Jesus, “and you do not believe it. What I have done in my Father’s name is sufficient to prove my claim, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep recognise my voice and I know who they are. They follow me and I give them eternal life. They will never die and no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. And no one can tear anything out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are One.”

What are you suggesting?

 

[essentialsaltes]

We know the barbarism, savagery, and dishonesty of Hamas. I have seen no evidence that these reported portrayals are not staged.

Have you seen any evidence at all that supports Israel's assertion about ambulances?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do yourself a favor and search ius in bello.

I didn't think you could support your ridiculous assertion about "numerical estimates of innocent lives" as coming from some outside authority.

 

[essentialsaltes]

U.S. vetoes U.N. cease-fire resolution; aid system in Gaza near collapse​

The United States for the third time vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza, ensuring its failure. Britain abstained, but the other 13 members of the council, including close U.S. allies such as France and Japan, approved the measure.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Israel needed to do more to reduce civilian casualties, describing “a gap” between “the intent to protect civilians, and the actual results that we’re seeing on the ground.”

His comments echoed those of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin who held a call with his Israeli counterpart, Thursday, Yoav Gallant. Austin “urged increased efforts to protect civilians in Gaza, increase delivery of humanitarian assistance, and curb extremist settler violence in the West Bank,” according to a readout.

The vote followed an emotional debate Friday morning in which U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said it had become impossible to distribute humanitarian aid to civilians in southern Gaza, where many were starving and under relentless Israeli attack.

“We do not have a humanitarian operation in southern Gaza that can be called by that name anymore,” U.N. aid coordinator Martin Griffiths said Thursday, adding that plans for relief were “in tatters.”

“Civil order is breaking down in Gaza — the streets feel wild, particularly after dark — some aid convoys are being looted and UN vehicles stoned. Society is on the brink of full-blown collapse,” White wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

The Israeli military said it had attempted an unsuccessful hostage rescue mission in Gaza on Friday, which led to two soldiers being “seriously injured.”

 

[rjs330]

If they weren't before this mess started then they may well be now. And that still doesn't give anyone the right to kill non combatants. In any given war the citizens of one country will be supporters of their own military. But an atrocity by one country doesn not allow you to kill citizens of another.

People can bleat about the fact that they are not specifically being targeted, and that seems to be some morally twisted mental gymnastics that allows people to say it's justified, but the death toll is horrendous. And you argue about the figures because you know that and you don't want to admit that you think that number of innocent dead is acceptable.

It's not. No matter how bad you paint Hamas, no matter if populations are juggled in some fatuous attempt to justify it, no matter what heinous acts are reported to have been done by Hamas, Israel has overstepped what any reasonable person would accept as a morally acceptable response. You know this as a fact.

I think reasonable people understand why it is happening and that there isn't any other way. Not until someone invents a magic Has seeking bullet.

The difficulty you have is that does not make them combatants

It doesn't matter if Hamas is living fighting and staging among them. If Hamas is there then Hamas is a legitimate military target and the citizens are acceptable collateral damage. That's why it's a war crime to hide and fight among civilians. In this case the civilians may be Hamas supporters, providing them support and shelter. While they may not be actively carrying a gun they are providing support of all kinds. The rules of war recognize this. If you have a rule like this and then tell the army you cannot hit a military target because their are non-combatants present you have nullified the rule and created a new rule that says it's okay to hide and fight from non-combatant locations and there are no consequences to anyone for doing that. You might as well not have the rule.

 

[rjs330]

Face it a major population was ordered to move by Israel. Forced relocation, stop trying to blame a bogey man

Hamas is real. They are not imaginary. Maybe that part of your problem.

 

[rjs330]

Nope. Barbaric terrorism

Nope rules of war. Hamas is the only barbarian here.

No. Prison camps should not be bombed by the occupier (defacto occupier)

Already been proven a false narrative.

Being there on other people's land is the cause.

Your argument is supporting terrorism.

Being there on other people's land is the cause.

They most definitely are if the Hamas infiltrates the camps. Were Palestinians running to the Israelis pointing out all the locations where Hamas is hiding and helping them take them out? I don't believe I heard that. That would be a better way to help get rid of Hamas. Maybe it's because 70% of them.suppoet Hamas.

So do not use bullets until you find who needs to be shot

Illogical and foolish position.

Nope, merely labeling hospitals and apartments etc as Hamas is ridiculous And a lie

Maybe, maybe not. If Hamas is there then it's not. And we heard from people that Hamas WAS at the hospital. So it's not a lie.

Those who drop bombs on them

Nope Hamas and their supporters did. It's an easy thing to prove. If Hamas wasn't there there would be no bomb.

No. A highly populated are should not be bombed.

That's your opinion. Opinion is irrelevant in this case. Because the rules of war say otherwise.

False. Calling babies hamas positions is a lie.

No it's reality. If Hamas is there then it's a Hamas position. It's illogical to say otherwise.

No, selected ones only

We all see your bias. It's pretty clear.

 

[o_mlly]

I didn't think you could support your ridiculous assertion about "numerical estimates of innocent lives" as coming from some outside authority.

I don't think you can be persuaded as it seems you are dug into the wrong notion that Israel is the unjust aggressor.

Proportionality requires that the innocent lives saved by the use of force against a legitimate military target be greater than the innocent lives lost as unavoidable collateral damage.

Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified? page for Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership at USNA.edu. Updated Fri Mar 14 09:17:47 EDT 2025.

www.usna.edu

International law and just war theory only insist that the anticipated collateral damage — the “merely foreseen” secondary effects — must be “proportionate” to the military advantage sought in attacking the legitimate military target. This sense of proportionality is the second jus in bello criterion; it has to do almost entirely with the foreseen but unintended harm done to noncombatants and to noncombatant infrastructure.

On Proportionality in War | National Review

Although passions can carry us beyond proportionality in war, Israel has repeatedly demonstrated caution and exceptional patience with its enemies.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't think you can be persuaded as it seems you are dug into the wrong notion that Israel is the unjust aggressor.

That is not my position, but I do thank you for providing those links.

How does that rule accord with the current situation? Apart from the occasional random rocket, Hamas is no longer in a position to kill any innocent non-combatants at all.

Israel has already killed more innocent non-combatants than Hamas killed in its initial terrorist attack.

Israel is not saving any innocent lives at this point. Hamas has no real way to threaten any. However, Israel continues to kill innocent lives every day. And has killed more in total than Hamas.

What does this rule of proportionality suggest? If zero, or few, lives are being saved in the current situation, how does that justify taking many innocent lives?

 

[truthpls]

Hamas is real. They are not imaginary. Maybe that part of your problem.

Bombing an ambulance or fleeing convoy of people, or apartment buildings pretending you targeted a hamas person is fiction. Totally imaginary.

 

[Philip_B]

I think reasonable people understand why it is happening and that there isn't any other way. Not until someone invents a magic Has seeking bullet.

It doesn't matter if Hamas is living fighting and staging among them. If Hamas is there then Hamas is a legitimate military target and the citizens are acceptable collateral damage. That's why it's a war crime to hide and fight among civilians. In this case the civilians may be Hamas supporters, providing them support and shelter. While they may not be actively carrying a gun they are providing support of all kinds. The rules of war recognize this. If you have a rule like this and then tell the army you cannot hit a military target because their are non-combatants present you have nullified the rule and created a new rule that says it's okay to hide and fight from non-combatant locations and there are no consequences to anyone for doing that. You might as well not have the rule.

I don't have a lot of problems with what you are saying here, however, I do rely on your fourth word 'IF', and having acknowledged that, then there is the sense of what is reasonable. You can not say Gaza is the target and that as Hamas is hiding there, the IDF has the right to kill everyone there. This really would just be another way of invalidating the rules of engagement. I am not saying it is easy, however, nobody gets a blank cheque.

 

[truthpls]

Nope rules of war. Hamas is the only barbarian here.

Blowing up civilians is not 'rules of war'.

Already been proven a false narrative.

Your argument is supporting terrorism.

Yours is actually.

They most definitely are if the Hamas infiltrates the camps.

Hamas grew from the camps one would think, as opposed to infiltrating them. Hamas is a tiny part of the whole population. Just as bank robbers are a tiny part of the population.

Were Palestinians running to the Israelis pointing out all the locations where Hamas is hiding and helping them take them out?

Maybe some in the convoys Israel attacked were about to? We'll never know. Not sure why anyone in the right mind would 'run to the Israelis' though, since that is who is killing them wholesale.

I don't believe I heard that. That would be a better way to help get rid of Hamas. Maybe it's because 70% of them.support Hamas.

They can support Santa if they like. Not our business. In other words they hate their oppressor, Israel. How would they not? But as for supporting Hamas killing babies, I would be surprised if a majority supported that. (or that they even believed the version of events Israel put out about who did what)

Maybe, maybe not. If Hamas is there then it's not. And we heard from people that Hamas WAS at the hospital. So it's not a lie.

Says who, IDF? I heard otherwise on other news services.

Nope Hamas and their supporters did. It's an easy thing to prove. If Hamas wasn't there there would be no bomb.

That is no logic at all. That is like saying if cockroaches were not there, the exterminator would not have nukes the neighborhood.

That's your opinion. Opinion is irrelevant in this case. Because the rules of war say otherwise.

Rules of was that you allude to without a source are all that is irrelevant here.

No it's reality. If Hamas is there then it's a Hamas position. It's illogical to say otherwise.

We all see your bias. It's pretty clear.

Hams hiding in a neighborhood somewhere does not make a neighborhood a Hamas position, sorry. Be honest

 

[RDKirk]

Blowing up civilians is not 'rules of war'.

Yours is actually.

Hamas grew from the camps one would think, as opposed to infiltrating them. Hamas is a tiny part of the whole population. Just as bank robbers are a tiny part of the population.

Maybe some in the convoys Israel attacked were about to? We'll never know. Not sure why anyone in the right mind would 'run to the Israelis' though, since that is who is killing them wholesale.

They can support Santa if they like. Not our business. In other words they hate their oppressor, Israel. How would they not? But as for supporting Hamas killing babies, I would be surprised if a majority supported that. (or that they even believed the version of events Israel put out about who did what)

Says who, IDF? I heard otherwise on other news services.

That is no logic at all. That is like saying if cockroaches were not there, the exterminator would not have nukes the neighborhood.

Rules of was that you allude to without a source are all that is irrelevant here.

Hams hiding in a neighborhood somewhere does not make a neighborhood a Hamas position, sorry. Be honest

The Geneva Conventions permit civilian structures, including hospitals, schools, and religious centers, to be struck if any armed force is using them for any military purposes. In that case, the war crime is attributed to the military that's using them, not the military that struck them.