Israel-Hamas Thread II

[Ana the Ist]

So Hitler would justify killing minorities by saying they were dangerous enemies? No. The ones doing the atrocity do not get to plant evidence and also be believed. The doctors were not saying Hams was infesting the place before Israel came in, were they?

I don't really understand why people doubt this...

The fact that Hamas has bases inside or under hospitals, media buildings, and other highly dense civilian areas has been a longstanding tactic, that's had more evidence than one can count.

Suddenly they stopped hiding under hospitals?

'10 Gazan hospitals used by Hamas in Cast Lead' | The Jerusalem Post

Haniyeh was in Shifa bunker; shots fired from near health centers, report finds.

m.jpost.com

It's old news, and it's weird anyone doubts it.

And no....the doctors don't complain about Hamas. They love terrorists who kill jews.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

The current situation is a localized part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the conflict is characterized as an international war, Palestine is not a state. It seems to me that an alternative way to characterize the situation is as a policing activity in which the IDF is bringing to justice the Hamas and other Palestinians responsible for the Oct. 7th massacre.

As Hamas is the unjust aggressor, all IDF personnel are presumed innocent unless shown to commit acts in violation of conducting a just war. So, there is no distinction for the Israeli's as to "innocent non-combatants". Presently, the IDF's objective is to separate Hamas and its supporters from doing more harm. As long as Hamas has weaponry and willing soldiers, the IDF in meeting its objective continues to wage the just war.

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

Numbers? (@Bradskii heads up).

Yes, the rule of proportionality involves estimates of foreseen innocent lives lost. If it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Isarel either targeted innocent lives or foresaw any specific attack as disproportionately killing more innocent lives than saving innocent lives then those IDF personnel should be held accountable and tried as war criminals.

The objective of the IDF is to separate Hamas from its capability to harm Israelis. The destruction of Hamas weaponry and that weaponry's potential to kill innocent Israelis is also part of the proportionality calculation.

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.

As long as Hamas has willing soldiers and weaponry, they remain a threat to the Israelis all of whom are innocent. Again, the number of innocent lives lost can only be justified by the innocent lives saved.

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?

Same response as above.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Reality? Apparently, the big picture escapes you: Hamas to the west, Hezbollah to the north, the West Bank to the east, Yemen to the south and Iran pulling their puppets strings.

 

[o_mlly]

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

The authority of the Geneva Convention, as are all legal documents, depends on its underlying moral principles.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Ahem ... the phrase "innocent persons at risk" seems to have been missed in your rebuttal. Innocent persons at risk must always be included as a consideration for an act that will have consequences good and bad. Are you not reading all the posts?

 

[o_mlly]

Those terrorists have quite a ways to go to catch up to Israel, and they're falling farther behind every day.

Israel knows that possessing a nuclear weapon would be a game changer for the terrorists. In that objective, I don't think the terrorists are very far behind Israel.

 

[RDKirk]

The authority of the Geneva Convention, as are all legal documents, depends on its underlying moral principles.

No.

On the first day of the first international law class I took, the professor made it very clear: The authority of international law is based solely on the international power of the nations willing to abide by it.

The inability to accept that cold fact leads to unpleasant surprises.

 

[RDKirk]

Israel knows that possessing a nuclear weapon would be a game changer for the terrorists. In that objective, I don't think the terrorists are very far behind Israel.

We were discussing the goal of Hamas in launching the Oct 7 attack. Are you saying that the goal of Hamas was to gain nuclear weapons for terrorists?

 

[o_mlly]

No.

On the first day of the first international law class I took, the professor made it very clear: The authority of international law is based solely on the international power of the nations willing to abide by it.

The inability to accept that cold fact leads to unpleasant surprises.

Your professor misspoke. The power to enforce international law (or any law) is based upon the power of the nations willing to do so. Moral "Authority" and "power of enforcement" are not synonymous. If they were then Christ's death would be both legal and moral. John 19:11.

 

[o_mlly]

We were discussing the goal of Hamas in launching the Oct 7 attack. Are you saying that the goal of Hamas was to gain nuclear weapons for terrorists?

Is not the charter of Hamas to kill all Jews? Is not Hamas the useful idiot of Iran?

 

[Philip_B]

Is not the charter of Hamas to kill all Jews? Is not Hamas the useful idiot of Iran?

Hamas - Wikipedia

It is not hard to do a little research. Most of us do not know enough about Hamas, Israel, Zionism, the Balfour Declaration, The UN Resolution of 1948, or the Arab States' rejection of the creation of a Palestinian State in 1948. It is hard to make sense of it all and see a workable solution.

The second question is entirely valid and worth asking.

 

[truthpls]

There is only one group murdering civilians, that is Hamas.

The vast vast vast majority of children and women killed were not by Hamas

Hitler was not a victim, the Jews are the victims in both cases and no amount of propaganda will make it otherwise.

The point is that his victims did not deserve the terror and death he dished out to them. Apply that to Gaza

Rape, torture, and murder are crimes against God.

Then Israel and Hamas should stop, no?

 

[truthpls]

I don't really understand why people doubt this...

The fact that Hamas has bases inside or under hospitals, media buildings, and other highly dense civilian areas has been a longstanding tactic, that's had more evidence than one can count.

Everyone posts facts in the news. Yet there are opposite versions of what happened. One side says Israel built the tunnels as well as the hospital. One side says they saw no Hamas activity in the hospitals..etc. The other side comes in and shows a photo of weapons 'found' in the hospital etc etc

So you are not going to tell anyone what the 'fact' is. Only what you chose to believe

 

[o_mlly]

Hamas - Wikipedia

It is not hard to do a little research. Most of us do not know enough about Hamas, Israel, Zionism, the Balfour Declaration, The UN Resolution of 1948, or the Arab States' rejection of the creation of a Palestinian State in 1948. It is hard to make sense of it all and see a workable solution.

The second question is entirely valid and worth asking.

Hard to come to any other conclusion on the objective of Hamas but the destruction of Isarel.

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.​

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

 

[RDKirk]

Your professor misspoke. The power to enforce international law (or any law) is based upon the power of the nations willing to do so. Moral "Authority" and "power of enforcement" are not synonymous. If they were then Christ's death would be both legal and moral. John 19:11.

No, my professor was a lawyer who was realistic about how law works in the world, fallen as it is.

It doesn't matter what those in their ivory towers posit international law to be, what matters is what those who have international power are willing to abide with. That is what must be understood. International law is always a matter of political negotiation.

 

[RDKirk]

Is not the charter of Hamas to kill all Jews? Is not Hamas the useful idiot of Iran?

That does not make a connection between Oct 7 and nuclear weapons.

 

[o_mlly]

No, my professor was a lawyer who was realistic about how law works in the world, fallen as it is.

It doesn't matter what those in their ivory towers posit international law to be, what matters is what those who have international power are willing to abide with. That is what must be understood. International law is always a matter of political negotiation.

I'm kinda losing you here. What is your point - that law determines morality? I think not.

 

[o_mlly]

That does not make a connection between Oct 7 and nuclear weapons.

It does for me. The end game is always the objective, everything else is but instrumental.

 

[RDKirk]

No, my professor was a lawyer who was realistic about how law works in the world, fallen as it is.

I'm kinda losing you here. What is your point - that law determines morality? I think not.

My point is that in this fallen world, power determines law.

 

[o_mlly]

My point is that in this fallen world, power determines law.

How does that negate my post's claim that: The authority of the Geneva Convention, as are all legal documents, depends on its underlying moral principles? Surely you do not subscribe to "might makes right"?

Perhaps the salient point is that, regardless of (or because of) the content of the Geneva Conventions, the Israelis have a moral right to self-defense, especially against such an unjust and barbaric foe. Given, a nation's right to self-defense is not unconditional. But do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel has not conducted so far a just war?