Israel-Hamas Thread II

[Bradskii]

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

Try to maintain a connection with reality in the discussion. Hamas has zero chance of annihilating Israel. On their own. They were even losing support amongst the Palestinians.

Not any more.

 

[RDKirk]

I listened to the Saudi Arabia Foreign Minister interviewed yesterday by PBS. Toward the end of the interview, the PBS reporter asked the question I'd hoped for, a question about the nearly successfully concluded non-aggression agreement between Israel, Saudi Arabia, and several other Sunni Muslim states.

As I expected, the Saudi minister said that given the current war, there couldn't be such an agreement. It means Saudi Arabia will have to continue with multi-front hostility and won't be able to focus its full attention on its proxy war with Iran. That's a win for Iran.

But the Saudi minister brought up something that caught me by surprise. In concert with Saudi Arabia's desire to reach a non-aggression accord with Israel, he brought up the "two-state solution" for Israel and the Palestinians. That was the first time I'd heard any authoritative Muslim government official speak in support of a two-state solution.

 

[RDKirk]

You'd think that this would be a blazingly obvious fact even to the most politicaly naive observer. Hamas had zero hope of winning against Israel. Absolutely none whatsoever. But isn't there anyone in their military who can string a few observations together and run a war game scenario matching what has happened? And the result of it?

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

Well, you can get out your Sharpie and put two very large ticks in those boxes.

I've mentioned this before, maybe not in this thread.

Hamas committed specific atrocities on Oct 7 that had no effect on reducing Israel's military capabilities, but seem expressly designed to provoke the maximum outrage among Israelis and the most brutal retaliation and loss of Palestinian civilian life. Knowing Israel, they could have no other expectation.

Why would they do that? Certainly not just to cost Israel the support of friends. The only objective that makes sense for Hamas is an expectation that a sufficiently brutal Israeli retaliation would draw the other Muslim nations into open war with Israel.

But that didn't happen. Who probably convinced Hamas into such a crazy scheme? I'm betting Hezbollah, which is a proxy of Iran.

Something else, though, did happen: Saudi Arabia's plan to disengage from hostilities with Israel was scuttled. That means Saudi Arabia must continue to look over their shoulders at Israel while they prosecute their proxy war with Iran.

In this 5D chess match, Iran is the only player who's winning.

 

[RDKirk]

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

Those lofty thoughts are not actually the jot and tittle of Geneva Convention, however.

 

[expos4ever]

Nope.

Imagine American terrorists launched 13,000 rockets at Canadian civilians over the course of the last decade....and not only did we not do anything about it, we celebrated every time a Canadian died.

Now add a mass invasion of hundreds of American terrorists slaughtering, raping, and burning Canadian citizens.

Under those circumstances, I'd definitely understand Canada deciding it was the last straw and killing thousands.

You are effectively moving the goal posts. My post was in specific response to those who argue that no matter how extreme Israel's response might be, the responsibility for the deaths Gazans lies with Hamas.

That is a patently silly argument and you're pointing out all these additional factors does not change that in the slightest. Why not? Because the argument those people were advancing was an argument based on principle, not specific details. When someone claims that Hamas bears all responsibilities for the actions of Israel, no matter how extreme those actions are, that someone is clearly spouting nonsense.

There is simply no justification for an argument that agent B can bear no responsibility at all for their response to a provocation from agent A, no matter how extreme that response. It is a patently absurd position.

 

[expos4ever]

So far you have only disagreed with my statement and offered imaginary scenarios to a real situation in an effort to justify your position. So far you are failing miserably. Care to try again? It is very entertaining.

I have not failed. Your position is self-evidently ridiculous. No reasonable person would argue that an agent B is relieved of all responsibility for their actions simply because they have been provoked by an agent A.

That is a nonsensical view and obviously so.

 

[Bradskii]

Strawman.

It is literally what you suggested:

'The number of Israeli innocent persons at risk at the extreme is 6.75 million; the number of Gazan innocent persons is less than 2 million.'

You are literally posting the relative number of innocent people. And then basing your argument on it.

 

[expos4ever]

Hamas is responsible for all the casualties. Without their attack Israel would not be there and none of this would have happened.

How is it not blazingly obvious, to steal a term from Bradskii, that this is absurd reasoning. You would never see any serious politician or statesman making such a claim. Yes, a country has the right to defend itself when attacked. But no reasonable person would say that no matter what the response of the attacked country is, the attackers bear all the responsibility.

That is obvious nonsense!

If we are going to have a serious debate, silly positions need to go. I am by no means suggesting that Israel does not have a right to respond to the attacks. But to suggest that as a matter of basic principle, that someone who is attacked bears no responsibility for the response to that attack, no matter how extreme that response might be, is a violation of basic common moral sense. Nobody believes such a thing!

 

[Bradskii]

I've mentioned this before, maybe not in this thread.

Hamas committed specific atrocities on Oct 7 that had no effect on reducing Israel's military capabilities, but seem expressly designed to provoke the maximum outrage among Israelis and the most brutal retaliation and loss of Palestinian civilian life. Knowing Israel, they could have no other expectation.

Why would they do that? Certainly not just to cost Israel the support of friends. The only objective that makes sense for Hamas is an expectation that a sufficiently brutal Israeli retaliation would draw the other Muslim nations into open war with Israel.

That's most definitely the way I see it. And any suggestion that Hamas wanted to annihilate a nation with one of the best equipped military forces on the planet is so nonsensical it isn't even wrong. So there obviously was another reason. And provoking Israel into a massive overreaction is the only other possibility. They have succeeded.

My only disagreement with you is that they wanted to prompt open warfare. I believe that they wanted Israel to lose friends and gain enemies.

 

[Pommer]

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.

But if a hospital is bombed must we assume that the “military” being bombed was using the hospital to further their war efforts?

 

[truthpls]

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.

Who says they are being used? The doctors who deny it or the occupiers finding or planting evidence later? The hospitals were starved of food, power, water, medical supplies,drugs etc. That is a crime. Claiming Hamas used a hospital as a base seems like a thin excuse to continue mass murdering a population without limits.

 

[truthpls]

But if a hospital is bombed must we assume that the “military” being bombed was using the hospital to further their war efforts?

Based on the ones bombing saying so?

 

[Valletta]

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

There is no question that Hamas has opened fire on fleeing civilians.

 

[RDKirk]

Who says they are being used? The doctors who deny it or the occupiers finding or planting evidence later? The hospitals were starved of food, power, water, medical supplies,drugs etc. That is a crime. Claiming Hamas used a hospital as a base seems like a thin excuse to continue mass murdering a population without limits.

To say that Israel is bombing "without limits" is hyperbole. They certainly are not, or the whole of Gaza would be completely leveled by now.

And, yes, it would be the state that is doing the bombing who would provide its justification for it.

 

[Valletta]

Who says they are being used? The doctors who deny it or the occupiers finding or planting evidence later? The hospitals were starved of food, power, water, medical supplies,drugs etc. That is a crime. Claiming Hamas used a hospital as a base seems like a thin excuse to continue mass murdering a population without limits.

Jihadists will lie. Hamas is responsible for the murder of Israeli children and Palestinian children too. Yes there are doctors and many other Palestinian jihadists who support Hamas. Hamas has lied and butchered babies. The Israelis are the victims, trying to save the hostages. Hamas and their supporters are indeed trying to "mass murder a population without limits." Understand these jihadists want every Jew dead and then every Christian dead. They seek to impose Sharia law on the world. They have no excuse.

 

[RDKirk]

My only disagreement with you is that they wanted to prompt open warfare. I believe that they wanted Israel to lose friends and gain enemies.

If all they hoped was to make Israel less popular, that juice would not be worth the squeeze.

 

[rjs330]

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

Well that's your story anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

If all they hoped was to make Israel less popular, that juice would not be worth the squeeze.

When I say enemies I don't mean people that are mildly disappointed with them.

 

[Philip_B]

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.

"The civilian toll of bombing and shelling is unacceptable. There is an urgent need for States and all parties to armed conflict to review and adapt their military policy and practice, and to avoid the use of explosive weapons with a wide impact area in populated areas.
These weapons should not be used in populated areas unless sufficient mitigation measures can be taken to limit their wide-area effects and the consequent risk of civilian harm."
— ICRC President Peter Maurer
There is no general prohibition under international humanitarian law against using heavy explosive weapons in populated areas; however, such use must comply with all the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, notably the prohibitions against indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks and the obligation to take all feasible precautions in attack.
Evidence gathered by the ICRC shows a pattern of extensive suffering among civilians – especially women and children – when military objectives located in populated areas are attacked with explosive weapons that are inaccurate or otherwise prone to wide-area effects.
These include artillery (guns and rockets), most mortars, multi-barrel rocket launchers, air-delivered general-purpose bombs, and large improvised explosive devices.
Given the density of civilians and civilian structures, the use of these weapons in populated areas is very likely to have indiscriminate effects or to violate the principle of proportionality.
Explosive weapons: Civilians in populated areas must be protected

 

[RDKirk]

When I say enemies I don't mean people that are mildly disappointed with them.

Hamas launched a war that you and I agree they knew would be brutal and unwinnable.

What--besides a war that is winnable--is worth starting a war that will be brutal and unwinnable?

That's not a rhetorical question. Suggest to me a realistically likely situation in which what the Palestinians are going through now will be worth it.