Israel-Hamas Thread II

[rjs330]

I literally told you. I quoted the article:

'..a briefing for foreign media by senior Israeli military officials'.

So an official briefing given by senior officials to the media. Oh, but maybe you want their rank, ID photo, inside leg measurement, name of their first pet...?

You really are desperate to avoid reality.

So no idea who this was in this so called briefing? I believe a second NAMED official said something else with clarifying remarks?

 

[Bradskii]

I could find nothing about "innocents" numbers from Israel, and Conricus clarified almost a week ago that although he saw the report he did not confirm the numbers.

Read it again. He gives the ratio of Hamas killed to everyone else. And 'everyone else' is not Hamas. They'd be non combatants. Men, women, children, the elderly. This is Israel that's telling you how many they have killed.

Time to stop denying the death toll and time to crank up the blame onto Hamas. But hey, it's proportional! Hey, they support Hamas! Hey, you can't see children from 20,000 feet! Hey, it's a just war! Hey, look what Hamas did!

Have I missed any excuse you need to make now that the toll is undeniable?

 

[Bradskii]

So no idea who this was in this so called briefing? I believe a second NAMED official said something else with clarifying remarks?

Go look it up.

The briefing was by Senior. Israeli. Military. Officials. When the people who are bombing the hell out of Gaza are the ones actually telling you how many people they are killing, at what point do you say 'Well, I guess y'all were right after all.'

I'll tell you. You won't. You are embarrassed about the death toll. You never thought for a moment it would be this bad. But you've painted yourself into a corner which is exactly why you deny the numbers.

 

[Valletta]

Read it again. He gives the ratio of Hamas killed to everyone else. And 'everyone else' is not Hamas. They'd be non combatants. Men, women, children, the elderly. This is Israel that's telling you how many they have killed.

Time to stop denying the death toll and time to crank up the blame onto Hamas. But hey, it's proportional! Hey, they support Hamas! Hey, you can't see children from 20,000 feet! Hey, it's a just war! Hey, look what Hamas did!

Have I missed any excuse you need to make now that the toll is undeniable?

It's your own characterization rather than what was reported, and Israel has not verified the numbers. I think it is important to establish facts rather than just take your personal opinions as facts.
The reality is that Hamas uses civilians as human shields. How many of those are Hamas supporters we don't know, are any parents who danced when Hamas boasted of their slaughter of Jews? But tragically some lost are children. Unfortunately there is no practical way to stop Hamas from continuing to murder innocents, whether outright or by using them as human shields, except by killing or capturing Hamas terrorists. The count of dead civilians could very well be a thousand times greater should Israel agree to a cease fire-- a surrender. They really have no choice but to continue to go after Hamas and save as many people as they can. Israel loses soldiers with their approach of trying to avoid the death of civilians, and the sacrifice of their soldiers in such a manner should be an inspiration to the world. I can't even imagine any of the Middle Eastern countries going close to the lengths Israel has done to protect innocents. But let us not forget that Iran is the real demon behind this, and certainly Biden and Blinken have blood on their hands by providing such great sums of money to Iran. This needs to stop, the world needs to recognize the Iran is close to creating an atomic bomb and they need to be dealt with forcefully and soon.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Go look it up.

The briefing was by Senior. Israeli. Military. Officials. When the people who are bombing the hell out of Gaza are the ones actually telling you how many people they are killing, at what point do you say 'Well, I guess y'all were right after all.'

I'll tell you. You won't. You are embarrassed about the death toll. You never thought for a moment it would be this bad. But you've painted yourself into a corner which is exactly why you deny the numbers.

Nobody cares about the death toll.

 

[Bradskii]

It's your own characterization rather than what was reported, and Israel has not verified the numbers. I think it is important to establish facts rather than just take your personal opinions as facts.

You are in denial. Your refusal to accept what is happening is bordering on fantasy. There is a disconnect with reality in this thread which is disconcerting.

 

[o_mlly]

And here's another tip while you are thinking about the answer to that. Because someone does something despicably abhorrent doesn't make them cowards. That's the second mistake you've made. Now you think they're cowards and stupid.

Well, your crystal ball is in desperate need of a severe overhaul. How much courage does it take to secretly attack unarmed men, women and children at play? How much courage does it take to live luxuriously in Qatar while sending others into the fray?

It seems the predicate for your war-outcome predictions are entirely based on your opinions. Opinions that are based not on facts but on your ability to read people's minds. Not only minds of the Israelis and Palestinians but of all the Muslims, Arabs, friends of Israel and posters in this thread. Following on your presumed uncanny skills, you then apply your putatively infallible logic and demean anyone who dares to disagree.

One should give humility a chance once in a while.

 

[RDKirk]

After all of the fighting is over is when the rest of the world will ask Israel “why did these people do these horrendous and futile things that got ten times as many of themselves killed as they selfishly killed? What could make these people do this?”

That is how war is concluded: When it becomes intolerable.

You are advocating for the war to remain nice and tidy, tit for tat, so that it is tolerable and continual.

 

[o_mlly]

What I think is of real moral question is this curious concept of "proportionality in war." This is rather a new concept.

In the 5th century AD, Augustine first put forward the just war as morally permissible:

What is the evil in war? Is it the death of some who will soon die in any case, that others may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or to make others act in this way.​

Augustine on war from Contra Faustum Manichaeum book 22​

In the 13t century AD, Aquinas articulated the self-defense principles which permit the proportionate use of force:

Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end.​

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: War (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 40)​

 

[wing2000]

...does "control" include the tunnel network under those areas? As Israel enter's the 3rd month of war, it's still unclear what Israel has actually accomished -- militarilty.

Latest from the IDF:

The Israeli military now controls the area in Gaza City surrounding Palestine Square, home to municipal offices and the headquarters for Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader in the enclave, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said at a news conference late Sunday.

Israeli forces are now focused, he said, on fighting in three areas: Jabaliya and Shajaiye, two neighborhoods in northern Gaza, and in Khan Younis, the largest city in southern Gaza.

Israel-Hamas War: Israel Says Strikes Are Targeting Three Hamas Strongholds

The fighting has intensified in the south, with tens of thousands of Gazans fleeing to the border with Egypt, where the U.N. has warned that the humanitarian situation may collapse.

www.nytimes.com

 

[truthpls]

No, clearly Hamas went and moved the tunnels.

We know that. The issue is whether the HQ was under the one they evacuated

Nope.. I think the time for caring ended October 6th.

Nor for God's people

There are Arab Muslims sitting in Israeli parliament right now voting on how to best finish off Hamas.

Guess killing kids is OK then?

How many jews sit in the Hamas leadership?

How many wardens sit in the prisoner lunchroom?

So do those dumb kids chanting from the river to the sea. They should take note...perhaps had they supported Israel, they wouldn't have been so quick to finish their enemies.

The river to see originates with the bible dimensions of the promised land that Israel never took as told. I think the Palestinians borrowed the phrase from some Jews that used it.

Believe whatever you like. I suggest you go over there and feed some refugees. Tell them you're a wealthy Canadian. They don't take hostages or rape or behead anyone. I've got good word from Hamas leadership themselves.

So it is up to the rest of the world to go into a war zone you created and fix it all?

It's not that big an area. The tunnels are vast. I've seen them.

Yes, no news there, of course they must hide being an inferior force. That does not make me disbelieve medical staff that said they saw no terrorist activity at the hospital.

They made multiple attempts to share...Palestinians chose war and endless terrorism even after they lost.

Your version of events

Not a great people. They won't be missed.

The thousands bombed to death?

No that's just war. I know it's not the sanitized version you watch in movies...but that's how it goes, that's what it looks like...at least when it's done correctly.

Correctly? Targeting a highly populated area is correctly?

You would think people would understand that the reason the west hasn't won many wars recently is because they think it's about handing out band-aids to the people you just bombed. Nope. Double down on the bombs and horror until your enemy knows the only way out of a violent death is total surrender.

Lesson learned.

The problem is we will see who surrenders to whom. Bible prophesy indicates Israel will be subdued and even mostly killed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Israel used U.S.-supplied white phosphorus in Lebanon attack​

Israel used U.S.-supplied white phosphorus munitions in an October attack in southern Lebanon that injured at least nine civilians in what a rights group says should be investigated as a war crime, according to a Washington Post analysis of shell fragments found in a small village.

A journalist working for The Post found remnants of three 155-millimeter artillery rounds fired into Dheira, near the border of Israel, which incinerated at least four homes, residents said. The rounds, which eject felt wedges saturated with white phosphorous that burns at high temperatures, produce billowing smoke to obscure troop movements as it falls haphazardly over a wide area. Its contents can stick to skin, causing potentially fatal burns and respiratory damage, and its use near civilian areas could be prohibited under international humanitarian law.

Lot production codes found on the shells match the nomenclature used by the U.S. military to categorize domestically produced munitions, which show they were made by ammunition depots in Louisiana and Arkansas in 1989 and 1992. The light green color and other markings — like “WP” printed on one of the remnants — are consistent with white phosphorous rounds, according to arms experts.

The M825 smoke rounds, fired from 155mm howitzers, have legitimate use on the battlefield, including signaling friendly troops, marking targets and producing white smoke that conceals soldiers from the eyes of enemy forces. The rounds are not intended for use as incendiary weapons.

In a statement, the Israel Defense Forces wrote that white phosphorous shells launched by Israel are used to create smokescreens, not for targeting or causing fires.

It is unclear why the Israeli military fired the rounds into the evening, as smoke would have little practical use at night and there were no Israeli troops on the Lebanese side of the border to mask with smokescreens.

In 2013, the Israeli military pledged to stop using white phosphorus on the battlefield, saying it would transition to gas-based smoke shells.

 

[wing2000]

Meanwhile, pressure is building on the Egyptian border as thousands of Palestinians contine to seek safety:

The last point of refuge for Palestinians fleeing from Israel’s relentless siege of Gaza is collapsing under the weight of tens of thousands of people seeking food and shelter, stirring fears of a potential mass displacement into Egypt, United Nations officials warned on Sunday.

Pressure is mounting in the area near Gaza’s southern border with Egypt, Rafah, where many Palestinians have tried to escape Israel’s military campaign against Hamas, only to find more death, hunger and desperation.

“Where should I go? Tell me, where should I go?” said Raif Naji Abu Lubda, 39, a farmer who fled to the border area with his wife and six children.

..
Speaking at a conference in Qatar on Sunday, Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, said that Israel’s military campaign amounted to “a systematic effort to empty Gaza of its people.” Much of Jordan’s population are Palestinians whose ancestors fled or were driven from what is now Israel — an event that Palestinians call the “Nakba,” or catastrophe, and consider a deep historic trauma.

An Israeli government spokesman, Eylon Levy, called the Jordanian foreign minister’s allegations “outrageous and false.”

Gazans Mass at Border for Safety, but Find Only More Peril

As Israeli forces pound Gaza, the area where Palestinians can seek shelter is shrinking, raising concerns that they could be forced into Egypt.

www.nytimes.com

 

[rjs330]

I could find nothing about "innocents" numbers from Israel, and Conricus clarified almost a week ago that although he saw the report he did not confirm the numbers.

Exactly.

 

[RDKirk]

In the 5th century AD, Augustine first put forward the just war as morally permissible:

What is the evil in war? Is it the death of some who will soon die in any case, that others may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or to make others act in this way.​

Augustine on war from Contra Faustum Manichaeum book 22​

In the 13t century AD, Aquinas articulated the self-defense principles which permit the proportionate use of force:

Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end.​

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: War (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 40)​

Nope, applying Augustine and Aquinas to what's being called "proportionality" is a misapplication.

If the objective, for instance, of self-defense is to preserve one's life, then the question is: What does it take to stop the aggressor? For those of us who believe in armed self-defense, yet are conscientious, that boils down to the practicality of effectiveness versus overkill. Stopping a determined aggressor may very well require a level of force that kills him...without "love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like."

What that means in practice is that if shooting is necessary at all in self-defense, then one does not shoot for the hand or the leg, one shoots for the torso, the center of mass. First, the odds of striking the relatively small, relatively fast-moving limb are much less, meaning that not only will the shot be totally ineffective, but it will go on to strike something or someone beyond. Second, even if you do strike the limb, it won't stop a determined aggressor, the round will still likely pass through the limb and go on to strike something or someone beyond.

If, then, shooting for the extremity more likely not only fails the objective (saving one's own life) and even puts more people at risk, then shooting for the extremity puts to question whether shooting is necessary at all and is less moral than aiming at the torso. The decision to shoot for the torso has nothing to do with "love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like."

Using force but failing to use sufficient force to stop the aggression is false morality because it merely allows the aggression to continue and even harms more innocents in the process.

During a period of my military career, I was involved with nuclear weapons targeting, in which we were taught how the Geneva Conventions applied even to the targeting of nuclear weapons. For instance, we carefully identified the amount of "overpressure" needed to destroy a particular hardened military target, which was the basis for the size of weapon we applied to it. But then, we also had to identify civilian locations nearby, and move the Desired Ground Zero (DGZ) as far as possible from the civilian center while still keeping the target within the radius of necessary overpressure to destroy the military target. We also had to identify the prevailing winds and shift the DGZ so that fallout would be carried away from the civilian center...and yet keeping the target within the radius of necessary overpressure.

The goal of destroying the military target is to destroy the enemy's capability to continue the war. That has nothing to do with "love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like." The goal is to end the war.

But at no point did the Geneva Conventions require us to place the DGZ so as to fail to achieve the objective of destroying the military target for the sake of preserving civilians.

This modern idea of "they killed twelve of ours, so we may not kill more than twelve of theirs" is a perverse application of Augustine and Aquinas.

Using force but failing to use sufficient force to stop the aggression is false morality because it merely allows the aggression to continue and even harms more innocents in the process.

 

[Vanellus]

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.

So it's OK if the IDF don't level all of Gaza but only a large proportion?
Nearly 100,000 Gaza buildings may be damaged, satellite images show

 

[Vanellus]

"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

The IDF might view this is as a training video but replace the words "avoid using" with "do use"

 

[Vanellus]

Just the kind of good news story headline which will give great joy to Netanyahu and Mark Regev

‘People will die in the streets’: Gaza dreads onset of winter as disease rises

Winter is fast coming to Gaza. Rain storms and powerful winds have already swept through the coastal strip, scattering tents and soaking those with little shelter in a crisis in which about 1.8 million Palestinians have been displaced by Israel’s offensive.

And with the advent of winter, an already catastrophic situation in which almost all of Gaza’s healthcare has collapsed is quickly worsening.

Women are giving birth in tents in unsterile conditions. Smoke from the wood fires is exacerbating respiratory ailments. Those in need of medicine have been forced to go sometimes to up to 10 pharmacies in an often fruitless search.

“It’s so cold, and the tent is so small. All I have is the clothes I wear, I still don’t know what the next step will be,” said Mahmud Abu Rayan, displaced from the northern town of Beit Lahia to Rafah.

“We didn’t see anything good here at all. We are living here in a tough cold. There are no bathrooms. We are sleeping on the sand,” added Soad Qarmoot, a Palestinian woman who was also forced to leave Beit Lahia.

“I am a cancer patient,” Qarmoot said as children circled a wood fire for warmth. “There is no mattress for me to sleep on. I am sleeping on the sand. It’s freezing.”

Bad king Netanyahu once looked out on the fields of Gaza ...

 

[rjs330]

I'll tell you. You won't. You are embarrassed about the death toll. You never thought for a moment it would be this bad. But you've painted yourself into a corner which is exactly why you deny the numbers.

This is quite interesting. You didn't actually read it did you. A NAMED official stated they couldn't verify the numbers. Secondly you once again like to tell people what they think. I'm sure glad you can read out minds form Australia. Quite a super power you have there.

First of all I never denied the numbers. I just don't trust the numbers put out by Hamas' people and I'm skeptical about unnamed sources when they are contradicted by named ones.

Secondly, even if the numbers are accurate, I don't really see the problem. This is a war and in war civilians die. You with all your knowledge and wisdom have zero knowledge of who's innocent and who isn't. Since we know 70% of Palestinians supported Hamas and their attacks in Israel through the years the odds are the civilians hit aren't innocent at all. And you also have no clue to what aid they are providing Hamas. Where's all the Palestinians helping Israel with locating Hamas and showing them Hamas tunnel entrances etc? Civilians were directly involved in the attack on October 7. So I'm afraid this narrative of yours with all the so called innocent civilians just doesn't cut it.

 

[o_mlly]

Nope, applying Augustine and Aquinas to what's being called "proportionality" is a misapplication.

Did you read the citations?

You posted that you thought the notion of proportionality in war was quite novel. No, it is not, as the citations provided attest.

All just wars are wars of self-defense. Aquinas wrote that acts of self-defense must be proportionate: "an act [of self-defense] may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end."

If the objective, for instance, of self-defense is to preserve one's life ...

If a lethal act of self-defense is proportionate, then its morality always requires that the act and the actor's intention is to save one's own life.

The goal of destroying the military target is to destroy the enemy's capability to continue the war. That has nothing to do with "love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like."

You may be confusing Augustine's comment that, "love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like" refers to the objective of the act. Rather, the good saint is qualifying those particular intentions of the actor as immoral.

This modern idea of "they killed twelve of ours, so we may not kill more than twelve of theirs" is a perverse application of Augustine and Aquinas.

Strawman?

Thank you for your service.