War

...

I can tell that this notion that history is more complicated than you might think is a little shocking to you so I'll just give you time to think about the WW2 stuff.

They are targeting the known location of Hamas, the Gaza strip.
And they are also going into the tunnels.

You also have statements that the IDF people who shot the hostages defied protocol, from the IDF Chief of Staff.

Here's some numbers to think about.

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/gaza-strip/

Pre war at least the population of Gaza was

39.75% children
28.8% women
28.5% men

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker

The dead in Gaza since October 7th breaks down as follow;
39.3% children
26.2% women
34.5% men

If you think this is okay then we're not really arguing about this war in Gaza.  What we're really arguing is is it okay to run a war like you're Genghis Khan.  That's quite a different discussion.

Also, I see you quoted me but then attributed it to Jura.  I should point out that while our opinions overlap quite bit in this matter, we're focusing on different areas.  Jura's opinion is very broad on this topic. 

My focus is very narrow; as a tax payer I don't want the weapons I fund being used for mass murder.  That's it.

once more, robot jackatack


skipto 2:13 a discussion about why the kid is white, but his brother is black.

Jacky, whilst I am not surprised at your dismissal of evidence contrary to your stance (It’s Jacky FFS!), it does beggar belief that you maintain it in the face of three respected Israeli Newspapers and countless other sources available at the click of a search engine in favour of the official line of an extreme religious regime bent on apartheid containment and “mowing the grass” as far as Gaza’s concerned.

The problem isn't how widely repeated it is. It is the original source.

For a comparable example, how many newspapers and countless other sources repeated the lies about aliens being confirmed by the US military?

And here’s a quote from a Reuters piece.
“Israel used to permit the Gulf state to send millions of dollars into Gaza through Israeli border crossings to support Hamas' cash-strapped government. But Israeli authorities halted such Qatari aid in May, demanding more checks on how the money is used.” Reuters.

And notice how that is fundamentally different from saying Israel funded and supported them.
Instead, they just didn't fully supervise the money.
If they did, there would be public backlash against it.

What does your own source even say?

Allowing the payments – billions of dollars over roughly a decade – was a gamble by Netanyahu that a steady flow of money would maintain peace in Gaza, the eventual launching point of the October 7th attacks, and keep Hamas focused on governing, not fighting.

Netanyahu’s critics disparage them as part of a strategy of “buying quiet”, and the policy is in the middle of a ruthless reassessment following the attacks. Netanyahu has lashed back at that criticism, calling the suggestion that he tried to empower Hamas “ridiculous”.

But Netanyahu’s critics say his approach to Hamas had, at its core, a cynical political agenda: to keep Gaza quiet as a means of staying in office without addressing the threat of Hamas or simmering Palestinian discontent.

“The conception of Netanyahu over a decade and a half was that if we buy quiet and pretend the problem isn’t there, we can wait it out and it will fade away,” said Eyal Hulata, Israel’s national security adviser from July 2021 until the beginning of this year.

One effective way to prevent a two-state solution is to divide between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank,” he said in an interview. The division gives Netanyahu an excuse to disengage from peace talks, Brom said, adding that he can say, “I have no partner.

Shin Bet, the country’s domestic security service, would monitor the list of recipients to try to ensure that members of Hamas’s military wing would not directly benefit.

Israel was blessing these Qatari payments, even as Mossad intelligence assessments concluded that Qatar was using other channels to secretly finance Hamas’s military arm.

That sure doesn't sound like wanting to prop up a terrorist group to delegitimise Palestine as a self-governing state.
That sure doesn't sound like intentionally giving a terrorist group money to allow them to continue to attack Israel to have an excuse to wipe them out.
That sure doesn't sound like saying Hamas is an ally.

The article makes it sound not like they viewed Hamas as an ally for terrorism, but due to Hamas' effectively control over the Gaza strip splitting Palestine in 2, with the West Bank and Gaza Strip being separate self-governed entities, and until the 2 entities combined under a single Palestinian government, there was no side to talk to to negotiate a 2-state solution of an entirely self-governed Palestine.

It also shows that instead of funding Hamas, they appeared to be allowing money into Gaza so Gaza could prosper and have less reason to attack Israel, and even tried to make sure it wouldn't benefit Hamas' military.
And it was separate secrete payments from Qatar that was funding the military.

But what would you rather have them do?
Would you rather Israel just entirely block all money going in so they have no outside aid at all except that smuggled in?
Because that would likely lead to less focus on governing and more focus on terrorism.
It would meant the money coming in from Qatar would just being to Hamas to spend as they please.

Would you have preferred they follow the idea of the defence minister that came in in 2016 and just pre-emptively wipe Hamas out?

You are really wriggling on that hook you’ve caught yourself on, remember where this started? With you intimating that me/us were backing Hamas by just calling for the slaughter of children to stop, and now you concede that Netanyahu was facilitating tens of millions in Qatari money straight into Gaza, but in a fabulously blinkered twist, this isn’t helping a terrorist group because Bibi said it was for wages, really?

The whole point of Likud and their ultra-nationalist allies backing Hamas was that the Palestinian authority was running rings around them at the UN, but if Hamas ruled, as a prescribed terrorist group they couldn’t do that, the spectre of a Palestinian homeland, something the Religious right would not countenance, could be shelved, their intelligence had concluded that Hamas wasn’t capable or planning for anything like the type of attacks on the 7th, and that periodic Israeli “mowing the grass” incursions would keep them in check, but guess what happens when they get bags & bags of money.   

As for

That sure doesn't sound like saying Hamas is an ally.

, I never said that I quoted Smotrich from that video saying, “And Hamas at this point, in my opinion, will be an asset.” Which turned out spectacularly wrong.

Divide and conquer.  Hey, I believe that's a strategy in Age of Empires too!

Clearly the best interests for both Palestinians and Isrealis who aren't fundamentalist loons would have been to work towards the 2 state solution over the last couple of decades, and clearly they haven't been doing that.  Israel's whole thing has been to try to contain Hamas in Gaza by shutting them off, while expanding settlement building in the West Bank. That was in no way a viable long term solution.

A big danger for Israel now is the very real possibility of an uprising in the West Bank as well, which gets more likely with every dead family.

You are really wriggling on that hook you’ve caught yourself on, remember where this started?

Yes.
With highlighting how the response of some people (not everyone) to the Israel Hamas situation is supporting Hamas.
For example, those who want to say that everything that happened, including the attack on the 7th, is entirely the fault of Israel.

Those just wanting the slaughter of children to stop are not supporting it.

now you concede that Netanyahu was facilitating tens of millions in Qatari money straight into Gaza, but in a fabulously blinkered twist, this isn’t helping a terrorist group because Bibi said it was for wages, really?

So you are saying any money going in to support anyone in Gaza is supporting terrorists?
The only way that works is if you think everyone in Gaza are terrorists or that merely living in Gaza is supporting terrorists.

Allowing money to go into Gaza in a manner where there is at least some significant oversight to try to pretend it funding the military of Hamas is vastly better than just trying to cut off all outside funding so it is all done in secret so it can be spent however Hamas pleases.

I also notice how you avoided the simple question related to that, so I'll ask it again.
What did you want them to do?
Cut off all outside sources?
Or just pre-emptively wipe out Hamas without prior provocation?

Either way, there would be outrage.
So now it is looking more like you want to say Israel is wrong regardless of what they do.

The whole point of Likud and their ultra-nationalist allies backing Hamas was that the Palestinian authority was running rings around them at the UN, but if Hamas ruled, as a prescribed terrorist group they couldn’t do that

Entirely wrong.
Again, there is nothing showing they were actively backing Hamas, rather than allowing money into Gaza to keep Gaza "well". That is not backing Hamas.
Hamas being declared a terrorist group isn't that much of an issue.
Not everyone designates them a terrorist group, including importantly the united nations.
The PLO was designated a terrorist group. Yet it then represented Palestine in the peace talks in Oslo, with the UN recognising it as the representatives of the people of Palestine.
That was even while their official stance was that Palestinians had the right to armed struggle to end the state of Israel.
So being labelled a terrorist group, and wanting to wipe out Israel is not a barrier.

The real issue is internal to Palestine. Fatah and Hamas don't get along.
Fatah controls the west bank.
Hamas controls Gaza.
Neither will submit to the other.
Prior to Hamas being elected in Gaza, there was a unified Palestinian government capable of representing all of Palestine.
After Hamas was elected, and their conflict with Fatah, that is no longer the case.
Now instead of there being Israel and Palestine (with 2 separate geographical regions), there are now 3 - Israel, the west bank under Fatah and Gaza under Hamas.
Until Hamas and Fatah can get along, or one is eliminated, there is no chance of a Palestinian state.

If Israel just tried to wipe out Hamas without provocation, then it would either result in a more violent Hamas taking its place, or Fatah then being in control of Gaza to again have a single entity representing Palestine. Or they could try to get a puppet government in, which still wouldn't side with Fatah.

but guess what happens when hey get bags & bags of money.

Unless they have invented a magical way to turn money into bullets and guns and rockets, not much.
Do you think Israel was just letting them take arms across the border?
No. They were smuggling them in.
They clearly have people outside willing to support them. And those people would do so with or without the blessing of Israel.

Do you honestly think that taking away that money given somewhat openly would have prevented Hamas from collecting funding from other sources and getting arms?
All it would do is mean any of the money they would get would be kept secret and not used for any public projects.

I never said that I quoted Smotrich from that video saying, “And Hamas at this point, in my opinion, will be an asset.” Which turned out spectacularly wrong.

You quoted someone saying "Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally."
And there is nothing material to support that.
And again, it "be[ing] an asset" is highly context specific.
It is an asset in that it prevents a unified Palestine, delegitimising the Palestinian will to have a Palestinian state, especially one controlling all the territory. And it still serves as an asset in that regard. What happens after remains to be seen.

Sorry, missed this before.

I can tell that this notion that history is more complicated than you might think is a little shocking to you so I'll just give you time to think about the WW2 stuff.

No, it isn't shocking at all.
I fully understand that.
Yet you want to make it sound so simple.
That dropping the atomic bomb will be just like another bombing of a city and nothing significantly different and that it was Russia joining that made Japan surrender.

Did you even read what I said at first in response to that?
"As for what actually ended the war, some people are divided,"
clearly indicating there is no simple answer.
Sure sounds like I understand that it is complicated.

Yet some groups want to make it sound so simple to pretend the atmoic bomb couldn't possibly have been the reason, to dismiss the use of it as a war crime.

Sorry, missed this before.
Pre war at least the population of Gaza was

39.75% children
28.8% women
28.5% men
[/quote]
What is the remaining 3%?
Also, I see no reason at all to divide between men and women.
Women are just as capable of being terrorists as men.
There is also the issue of Hamas recruiting children, and Hamas using civilians as human shields.

If you would like stop so many civilian deaths, then ask Hamas to have clearly identified military targets, and stop using human shields.
Have civilian populations clearly separated from military establishments.

That means no tunnels going under cities with people living in them. No storing weapons in hospitals or schools.
Or, propose an alternative for what Israel can do, which is not simply standing by and doing nothing while Hamas attacks them.

Also, I see you quoted me but then attributed it to Jura.

My bad, will go fix it.

Clearly the best interests for both Palestinians and Isrealis who aren't fundamentalist loons would have been to work towards the 2 state solution over the last couple of decades, and clearly they haven't been doing that.  Israel's whole thing has been to try to contain Hamas in Gaza by shutting them off, while expanding settlement building in the West Bank. That was in no way a viable long term solution.

A big danger for Israel now is the very real possibility of an uprising in the West Bank as well, which gets more likely with every dead family.

Yes, it would be.
And it even looked like Israel was going to do that with them pulling out of Gaza before Hamas took over.
A big roadblock is Hamas and Fatah not getting along.
Another big one is the nuttier ones on both sides wanting all the land and wanting to wipe out the other.
This also makes it unclear just how stable a 2 state solution would be.

A one state solution, with both Jewish and Arab people in power, may be better in the long run.

Yes, it would be.
And it even looked like Israel was going to do that with them pulling out of Gaza before Hamas took over.
A big roadblock is Hamas and Fatah not getting along.
Another big one is the nuttier ones on both sides wanting all the land and wanting to wipe out the other.
This also makes it unclear just how stable a 2 state solution would be.

A one state solution, with both Jewish and Arab people in power, may be better in the long run.

You're suggesting the end of the Jewish state of Israel?  That's just what the Arab League thought in 1948.

No, it isn't shocking at all.
I fully understand that.
Yet you want to make it sound so simple.
That dropping the atomic bomb will be just like another bombing of a city and nothing significantly different and that it was Russia joining that made Japan surrender.

Did you even read what I said at first in response to that?
"As for what actually ended the war, some people are divided,"
clearly indicating there is no simple answer.
Sure sounds like I understand that it is complicated.

Yet some groups want to make it sound so simple to pretend the atmoic bomb couldn't possibly have been the reason, to dismiss the use of it as a war crime.

Apologies.  You do write a lot and it seems I missed that detail.  And I didn't say it was a war crime.  I said arguably.  It's very murky to me.  At the moment I probably would have supported it.  But it hindsight, I don't know.

What is the remaining 3%?
Also, I see no reason at all to divide between men and women.
Women are just as capable of being terrorists as men.
There is also the issue of Hamas recruiting children, and Hamas using civilians as human shields.

If you would like stop so many civilian deaths, then ask Hamas to have clearly identified military targets, and stop using human shields.
Have civilian populations clearly separated from military establishments.

That means no tunnels going under cities with people living in them. No storing weapons in hospitals or schools.
Or, propose an alternative for what Israel can do, which is not simply standing by and doing nothing while Hamas attacks them.

Some tallies separate the elderly.  I didn't feel like doing the math behind this small part of the population.  Apparently old age is a rare thing in Gaza for some reason.

Yeah it's possible for women and children to be terrorists but it's so unusual that's it's not reasonable to consider on this scale.

My point is that Israel is killing indiscriminately.  And correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to agree with that?

That means no tunnels going under cities with people living in them. No storing weapons in hospitals or schools.
Or, propose an alternative for what Israel can do, which is not simply standing by and doing nothing while Hamas attacks them.

I think I mentioned this a while back but solving the middle east isn't my problem. Israel asks my country for the means to carry out a genocide in the name of self defense.  As a tax payer, as a voter I'm going to object.  I find it beyond belief that genocide is their only tool for peace.  The burden is on those that support Israel's actions to convince me that this is the only way to defend themselves.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, my original point that you are quick to condemn people as supporters of Hamas and terrorism for calling for cease fire and pointing out previous Israeli provocation, but give the Israeli’s carte blanche over both civilian deaths and facilitation of vast amounts of Qatari money that any sane person would know would in part be diverted to the military wing, stands.

Because if any of that money went towards paying Hamas fighters, buying the materials to build their tunnel systems, or paying for the smuggling operation, which considering the amounts involved you would have to be naive not to think so, then they were partly to blame for Hamas’s growth.


You ask what should they have done? Fuck knows, stop kicking the ant nest? Don’t set up an apartheid style prison camp where the water, power and skies are Israeli controlled and call it self-government. Don’t when the people vote Hamas in, then set about (with the US and British intelligence), organizing a coup against them with Fatah, because you didn’t like the result.
 
The current Netanyahu coalitions are rabidly anti-palestinian and do not want a Palestinian state, they back the Jewish settlement program and they do believe that no one will deal with Hamas as they did with the PA.

Again, from Smotrich’s mouth.
“The Palestinian authority is a burden & Hamas is an asset on the same international field, in this game of delegitimization, and think about it for a moment, It’s a terrorist organisation. No one will recognize it. No one will give it status at the ICC, at the UN security council. Then would we need an American veto?” He waffles a bit then goes on. “Given that the main game, the central court where we play now, is the international delegitimization. There Abu Mazen is beating us in significant spaces. And Hamas at this point will be an asset. I don’t think I have to worry about Hamas.”

The Allies quote, again not my words but theirs. I don’t for a moment think he meant allies in the usual sense but as a foil against the PA, to stop the peace process, on that at least we agree.

You're suggesting the end of the Jewish state of Israel?  That's just what the Arab League thought in 1948.

I wouldn't take credit for it, and not really the end.
More the combination of the state of Israel with Palestine.
This would have both in power.
This is different to the "one state solution" wanted by the Arab League and Hamas where Israel is wiped out and Islamic law dictates what is allowed.
It is also different to Israel's ideal "one state solution" where they wipe out any Palestinians and just have Israel ruling.

Apologies.  You do write a lot and it seems I missed that detail.  And I didn't say it was a war crime.  I said arguably.  It's very murky to me.  At the moment I probably would have supported it.  But it hindsight, I don't know.

I'm inclined to say it isn't a war crime, and is just a part of war as inhumane as war is.
But it is unclear if it was needed to end the war.

Some tallies separate the elderly.  I didn't feel like doing the math behind this small part of the population.  Apparently old age is a rare thing in Gaza for some reason.

Yeah it's possible for women and children to be terrorists but it's so unusual that's it's not reasonable to consider on this scale.

My point is that Israel is killing indiscriminately.  And correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to agree with that?

Yes, they are killing indiscriminately with bombing campaigns.
However, this is at least in part due to how Hamas operates, preventing a division between military and civilian targets for bombing campaigns, intentionally using human shields to try to have their military assets protected by those civilians.

I think I mentioned this a while back but solving the middle east isn't my problem. Israel asks my country for the means to carry out a genocide in the name of self defence.  As a tax payer, as a voter I'm going to object.  I find it beyond belief that genocide is their only tool for peace.  The burden is on those that support Israel's actions to convince me that this is the only way to defend themselves.

Genocide requires the destruction of the people to be the aim.
If they are collateral then it isn't genocide by definition.

This again relates to the above. Hamas has made it so you can't just target Hamas.
The only other options for Israel would involve ground troops with likely a heavy loss of life on their side.
That then raises the issue of if it is justified to knowingly put troops in danger and have heavy loss of life on your side, just to avoid civilian deaths.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, my original point that you are quick to condemn people as supporters of Hamas and terrorism for calling for cease fire and pointing out previous Israeli provocation, but give the Israeli’s carte blanche over both civilian deaths and facilitation of vast amounts of Qatari money that any sane person would know would in part be diverted to the military wing, stands.

Again, it is people who are saying it is all Israel's fault which I would say are supporting Hamas, and that a cease fire wont magically solve the issue.
I recognise that Hamas are using human shields to cause lots of human deaths.
Israel was not sending the money. They merely allowed it to go through more openly so at least a large amount would need to be spent on things to help the people of Gaza, as opposed if they tried to stop it and had the money smuggled in at which point it could all go to the military.
Yes, Qatar is partly to blame for Hamas's growth.

You ask what should they have done? Fuck knows, stop kicking the ant nest? Don’t set up an apartheid style prison camp where the water, power and skies are Israeli controlled and call it self-government. Don’t when the people vote Hamas in, then set about (with the US and British intelligence), organizing a coup against them with Fatah, because you didn’t like the result.

Maybe if there weren't so many wars leading up to it, it wouldn't be established like that.
Maybe if Hamas, after gaining power, agreed to abide by the Oslo accords, recognise the state of Israel, and so on.
Maybe if Hamas didn't decide to make their own "executive force" in violation of the rules of Palestine.
Maybe if Hamas didn't then proceed with a coup against the president of Palestine.

The current Netanyahu coalitions are rabidly anti-palestinian and do not want a Palestinian state, they back the Jewish settlement program and they do believe that no one will deal with Hamas as they did with the PA.

Again, from Smotrich’s mouth.
“The Palestinian authority is a burden & Hamas is an asset on the same international field, in this game of delegitimization, and think about it for a moment, It’s a terrorist organisation. No one will recognize it. No one will give it status at the ICC, at the UN security council. Then would we need an American veto?” He waffles a bit then goes on. “Given that the main game, the central court where we play now, is the international delegitimization. There Abu Mazen is beating us in significant spaces. And Hamas at this point will be an asset. I don’t think I have to worry about Hamas.”

The Allies quote, again not my words but theirs. I don’t for a moment think he meant allies in the usual sense but as a foil against the PA, to stop the peace process, on that at least we agree.

That is because even PA does not believe in the legitimacy of Hamas. Hamas needs to take over the west bank, take over as the full government of Palestine, and then people will deal with it.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 20, 2023, 04:04:31 PM

You're suggesting the end of the Jewish state of Israel?  That's just what the Arab League thought in 1948.

I wouldn't take credit for it, and not really the end.
More the combination of the state of Israel with Palestine.
This would have both in power.
This is different to the "one state solution" wanted by the Arab League and Hamas where Israel is wiped out and Islamic law dictates what is allowed.
It is also different to Israel's ideal "one state solution" where they wipe out any Palestinians and just have Israel ruling.

It would absolutely be the end of the state of Israel.  They would be incorporated into a secular state  covering the area of Mandate Palestine.  Basically undoing the original partition plan and the formation of Israel as a specifically Jewish nation.

It would be a dream come true for most Palestinians, but there’s zero chance it would be acceptable to Israel.  The only one state solution they would remotely consider is the one that leaves Israel in overall control, possibly with autonomous Palestinian regions within.

This again relates to the above. Hamas has made it so you can't just target Hamas.
The only other options for Israel would involve ground troops with likely a heavy loss of life on their side.
That then raises the issue of if it is justified to knowingly put troops in danger and have heavy loss of life on your side, just to avoid civilian deaths.

This is not the moral dilemma you make it out to be.  International law is clear that an attacking force must minimize civilian casualties wherever possible.  The risk of collateral damage to civilians must be weighed against the military advantage of such a strike.  ie you can’t just flatten an inhabited apartment block just because there’s a handful of Hamas fighters hiding in there.  That’s regardless of whether the enemy should have been there or not, because the civilians should always treated as innocent neutral parties.

The legal choice isn’t between risking your own forces and massive civilian collateral damage, it’s between risking your own forces and not attacking the target.

It would absolutely be the end of the state of Israel.  They would be incorporated into a secular state  covering the area of Mandate Palestine.  Basically undoing the original partition plan and the formation of Israel as a specifically Jewish nation.

It would be a dream come true for most Palestinians, but there’s zero chance it would be acceptable to Israel.  The only one state solution they would remotely consider is the one that leaves Israel in overall control, possibly with autonomous Palestinian regions within.

This depends exactly on what the 1-state outcome would be.
Having it secular would go against what a lot of Palestinians want, as they want it to be Islamic, with Islamic law.

There are a few different options proposed.
One is simply a single state, with a democratic government, or some similar system based upon representation.
Another is a federal system with 3 sub-states.
Another is a complex system where there are effectively 2 states which jointly control everywhere with free passage.

This is not the moral dilemma you make it out to be.  International law is clear that an attacking force must minimize civilian casualties wherever possible. The risk of collateral damage to civilians must be weighed against the military advantage of such a strike

Yes it is a dilemma.
If international law was that clear and simple, then WWII would have ended much faster with the allies simply surrendering.
So it is always a question/calculation of benefits and disadvantages of each strategy.
And that includes the loss of life from your own troops for one strategy, and the loss of civilian life as collateral damage for a different strategy.
And civilian collateral damage doesn't magically mean that option is off the table.
Even your next sentences demonstrates this.
If it truly was a case of simply minimising civilian casualties wherever possible, then any risk of collateral damage to civilians would be off limits. As soon as you identify civilian casualties you wouldn't bother with thinking about the military advantage of such a strike because you would need to prevent those civilian deaths. As you said, the choice would between risking your own troops [with a different kind of attack that wouldn't have civilian causalities] or not attacking.

It is about weighing up many factors, with loss of civilian life being one of them.

So yes, it is a dilemma.
Do you send loads of your troops in, knowing a large portion will die, or do you attack the enemy in a way that protects your troops and your people as much as possible, but results in a lot more collateral damage to civilians?
And it is not an easy question with a simple answer.

ie you can’t just flatten an inhabited apartment block just because there’s a handful of Hamas fighters hiding in there.

Yes, you can.
If that is the safest way to take out those Hamas fighters, to ensure your troops and people are not harmed, you can.

If there is a simple way to take out the Hamas fighters, without significantly risking your troops, and without harming the civilians, then go for that.
But if the only way to take out the Hamas fighters without harming your troops is bombing that building resulting in civilians as collateral damage, then that is a judgement call based upon the threat of those fighters.

If you don't like that, blame Hamas for their use of human shields.
The civilians wouldn't be collateral damage if they acted like a real military rather than a terrorist group using human shields.

When I hear (or see) people blithely saying that it’s war, so destroying a tower block of families in the hope of getting someone you hate, who you hate for doing something similar, and they hate you for the same, you know they are all a little dead inside and your hope for humanity is lessened somewhat.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2023, 04:33:23 PM

It would absolutely be the end of the state of Israel.  They would be incorporated into a secular state  covering the area of Mandate Palestine.  Basically undoing the original partition plan and the formation of Israel as a specifically Jewish nation.

It would be a dream come true for most Palestinians, but there’s zero chance it would be acceptable to Israel.  The only one state solution they would remotely consider is the one that leaves Israel in overall control, possibly with autonomous Palestinian regions within.

This depends exactly on what the 1-state outcome would be.
Having it secular would go against what a lot of Palestinians want, as they want it to be Islamic, with Islamic law.

There are a few different options proposed.
One is simply a single state, with a democratic government, or some similar system based upon representation.
Another is a federal system with 3 sub-states.
Another is a complex system where there are effectively 2 states which jointly control everywhere with free passage.

None of which are remotely acceptable to the Jewish state of Israel, which was created explicitly to be a Jewish state.  The only one state solution acceptable to them is the one that gives them overall control.

That’s why the right of return for displaced Palestinians was always such a blocker.  Too many Arabs to dilute the Jewish character of the country apparently.

Making Israel a Jewish state in a federal country under secular government is just not going to happen.  At least not unless/until they can put all the this long behind them.  It’s not a path to peace.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2023, 04:33:23 PM

This is not the moral dilemma you make it out to be.  International law is clear that an attacking force must minimize civilian casualties wherever possible. The risk of collateral damage to civilians must be weighed against the military advantage of such a strike

Yes it is a dilemma.
If international law was that clear and simple, then WWII would have ended much faster with the allies simply surrendering.
So it is always a question/calculation of benefits and disadvantages of each strategy.
And that includes the loss of life from your own troops for one strategy, and the loss of civilian life as collateral damage for a different strategy.
And civilian collateral damage doesn't magically mean that option is off the table.
Even your next sentences demonstrates this.
If it truly was a case of simply minimising civilian casualties wherever possible, then any risk of collateral damage to civilians would be off limits. As soon as you identify civilian casualties you wouldn't bother with thinking about the military advantage of such a strike because you would need to prevent those civilian deaths. As you said, the choice would between risking your own troops [with a different kind of attack that wouldn't have civilian causalities] or not attacking.

It is about weighing up many factors, with loss of civilian life being one of them.

So yes, it is a dilemma.
Do you send loads of your troops in, knowing a large portion will die, or do you attack the enemy in a way that protects your troops and your people as much as possible, but results in a lot more collateral damage to civilians?
And it is not an easy question with a simple answer.

The Geneva Conventions, the UN, etc were all set up after the Second World War.  Specifically to try to prevent the horrible shit that happened then from happening again.  That includes things like genocide, ethnic cleansing and flattening cities full of civilians.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2023, 04:33:23 PM

ie you can’t just flatten an inhabited apartment block just because there’s a handful of Hamas fighters hiding in there.

Yes, you can.
If that is the safest way to take out those Hamas fighters, to ensure your troops and people are not harmed, you can.

If there is a simple way to take out the Hamas fighters, without significantly risking your troops, and without harming the civilians, then go for that.
But if the only way to take out the Hamas fighters without harming your troops is bombing that building resulting in civilians as collateral damage, then that is a judgement call based upon the threat of those fighters.

If you don't like that, blame Hamas for their use of human shields.
The civilians wouldn't be collateral damage if they acted like a real military rather than a terrorist group using human shields.

There’s always a dilemma, but not quite as you present it.  The attacking force has to weigh up whether the military advantage of killing those particular fighters justifies the likely civilian loses.  Not take it as a given that they have to die, then deciding that huge civilian loses are better than risking your own troops.  This applies to every individual target. 

Some things, like indiscriminate bombing using dumb bombs over civilian areas are just flat out wrong.

Hamas using human shields is a crime, but that does not allow Israel to commit crimes of their own by disregarding the lives of those humans.

In reality of course the IDF can do whatever it likes, because they have all the firepower of a large modern army and airforce, and Hamas are a bunch of guys with rifles and rockets.  But don’t expect everyone else to accept that what they are doing is right.

Yeah war doesn't seem to be quite the right word.

Special military operation?
Police action?
Massacre?

Yes I think that last one I think. *Israel's Massacre in Gaza*.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/22/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestine/

Things are slowly changing.  For the first time we didn't threaten to nuke the UN if they dared to criticize Israel.

When I hear (or see) people blithely saying that it’s war, so destroying a tower block of families in the hope of getting someone you hate, who you hate for doing something similar, and they hate you for the same, you know they are all a little dead inside and your hope for humanity is lessened somewhat.

How were they doing something similar?
Hamas intentionally targeted a bunch of civilians to kidnap them, and killed a bunch of civilians.
They were targeting people they hate and want to wipe out.
They weren't attacking a military target from a military known to use human shields.
They weren't attacking a group of terrorists who recently carried out a terrorist attack and still have hostages from that attack.

None of which are remotely acceptable to the Jewish state of Israel, which was created explicitly to be a Jewish state.  The only one state solution acceptable to them is the one that gives them overall control.

That’s why the right of return for displaced Palestinians was always such a blocker.  Too many Arabs to dilute the Jewish character of the country apparently.

Making Israel a Jewish state in a federal country under secular government is just not going to happen.  At least not unless/until they can put all the this long behind them.  It’s not a path to peace.

Currently support for a 1 state solution is on the range of 20-30% of Jewish Israelis.

So yes, it doesn't have the support it needs.

The Geneva Conventions, the UN, etc were all set up after the Second World War.  Specifically to try to prevent the horrible shit that happened then from happening again.  That includes things like genocide, ethnic cleansing and flattening cities full of civilians.

The first was in 1864.
The last, with a focus on protecting civilians, was in 1949, but based upon the earlier Hauge conventions from 1899 and 1907, which itself is based upon the Leiber code from 1863.
And do you know a provision from that code?

The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war.
Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile coun­try and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.
Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private rela­tions as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war.
The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uncivilized people, the exception.
In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions.

So no, this code existed long before WWII.
And the IMT was happy to charge Nazi officers for what they did to civilians.

And even after that, there have been plenty of wars with loss of civilian life.

So that excuse doesn't hold.

There’s always a dilemma, but not quite as you present it.  The attacking force has to weigh up whether the military advantage of killing those particular fighters justifies the likely civilian loses.  Not take it as a given that they have to die, then deciding that huge civilian loses are better than risking your own troops.  This applies to every individual target.

And I didn't say anything to the contrary. In fact, I finished my statement with "then that is a judgement call based upon the threat of those fighters."

Some things, like indiscriminate bombing using dumb bombs over civilian areas are just flat out wrong.

Why?
If military targets are mixed in with that civilian area, and it is deemed that the likely loss of civilian life is mitigated by the likely damage to those military targets, then why is it flat out wrong?

Again, if Hamas had clearly segregated military and civilian areas, with no military activity in those civilian areas, then bombing those civilian areas would be flat out wrong and need very significant justification.

But Hamas doesn't do that. There is no delineation between civilian and military areas. This means while you can see it as a civilian area, it is just as valid to see it as a military area.

Hamas using human shields is a crime, but that does not allow Israel to commit crimes of their own by disregarding the lives of those humans.

No, it means Israel isn't necessarily committing a crime by taking out those human shields when they take out Hamas soldiers.
It means those human shields are collateral damage from taking out valid military targets.

But don’t expect everyone else to accept that what they are doing is right.

And people can get outraged over what they are doing and the large loss of civilian life. But don't expect everyone to accept that what they are doing is wrong.

Yeah war doesn't seem to be quite the right word.

Special military operation?
Police action?
Massacre?

Yes I think that last one I think. *Israel's Massacre in Gaza*.

And that is just based upon your opinion of the events.
As it is a military response to a terrorist attack by a separate pseudo state with the aim of wiping out this terrorist group, I would say war is fitting, or at the very least a special military operation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/22/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestine/

Things are slowly changing.  For the first time we didn't threaten to nuke the UN if they dared to criticize Israel.

You mean if they provided a resolution that appeared mostly reasonable?
For example, calling for an immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, requires verification of "humanitarian relief" as actually humanitarian, and to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities, and while not directly addressing the actions of Hamas, at least calls out acts of terrorism. Instead of the previous version which demanded an immediate ceasefire and release of hostages. With the real big issue for the previous one being the ceasefire, which would still allow Hamas to be in power, with weapons poised to attack Israel again, whereas this one instead calls for the conditions for a sustained cessation of hostilities. This allows hostilities to continue, for Israel to continue to attack Hamas, and can require Hamas to disarm rather than merely ceasefire.

Like I said, a little dead inside.

And that is just based upon your opinion of the events.
As it is a military response to a terrorist attack by a separate pseudo state with the aim of wiping out this terrorist group, I would say war is fitting, or at the very least a special military operation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/massacre

1
: the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
witnessed the massacre of a boatload of refugees
2
: a cruel or wanton (see WANTON entry 1 sense 1a) murder
3
: a wholesale slaughter of animals
Residents engaged in a citywide cat massacre.
4
: an act of complete destruction
the author's massacre of traditional federalist presuppositions
—R. G. McCloskey
the Puritan massacre of statues and pictures
—Robert Hughes

No I think massacre is better word for this.  Maybe not the third definition.  Perhaps you have a different dictionary.

Calling it a war is like calling what happened to Rodney King a boxing match.  It's doing great violence to the English language.

You mean if they provided a resolution that appeared mostly reasonable?
For example, calling for an immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, requires verification of "humanitarian relief" as actually humanitarian, and to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities, and while not directly addressing the actions of Hamas, at least calls out acts of terrorism. Instead of the previous version which demanded an immediate ceasefire and release of hostages. With the real big issue for the previous one being the ceasefire, which would still allow Hamas to be in power, with weapons poised to attack Israel again, whereas this one instead calls for the conditions for a sustained cessation of hostilities. This allows hostilities to continue, for Israel to continue to attack Hamas, and can require Hamas to disarm rather than merely ceasefire.

No what I meant was I think it might be the first time the US didn't veto something remotely critical of Israel.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/massacre

Quote

1
: the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
witnessed the massacre of a boatload of refugees
2
: a cruel or wanton (see WANTON entry 1 sense 1a) murder
3
: a wholesale slaughter of animals
Residents engaged in a citywide cat massacre.
4
: an act of complete destruction
the author's massacre of traditional federalist presuppositions
—R. G. McCloskey
the Puritan massacre of statues and pictures
—Robert Hughes

No I think massacre is better word for this. Maybe not the third definition. Perhaps you have a different dictionary.

Calling it a war is like calling what happened to Rodney King a boxing match. It's doing great violence to the English language.

And as I said, it comes down to exactly how you want to view it.
You see it as murder and needlessly cruel so you label it massacre.

But most war is cruel. Most war is an atrocity. And you can argue that any civilian death in war is murder.
So you could say the same about any act in war which resulted in a large number of civilian deaths.
You could call the bombing of any city, regardless of if it is from conventional bombs or atomic bombs, a massacre, as long as it caused the deaths of "a number" of civilians.

Conversely war:

1
a
: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
(2)
: a period of such armed conflict
(3)
: STATE OF WAR
b
: the art or science of warfare
c
(1)
obsolete : weapons and equipment for war
(2)
archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a
: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b
: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end
a class war
a war against disease
c
: VARIANCE, ODDS sense 2

This is an armed conflict between what could arguably be described as 2 states.
It is a state of hostility, conflict and antagonism.
It is a struggle or competition between opposing forces for a particular end.
So it meets the definition of a war, regardless of if it also meets the definition of a massacre.

So it is nothing like calling the beating of a restrained man a boxing match.

No what I meant was I think it might be the first time the US didn't veto something remotely critical of Israel.

Except the many other resolutions that can be seen as critical of Israel which have passed without US veto.
For example, Security Council resolution 672 (1990) [on violence committed by Israeli security forces against Palestinians], which even contains the text:

Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life

Or would you prefer Security Council resolution 1860 (2009) [on a durable and fully respected ceasefire and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip], which contains text including:

Expressing grave concern at the escalation of violence and the deterioration of the situation, in particular the resulting heavy civilian casualties since the refusal to extend the period of calm; and emphasizing that the Palestinian and Israeli civilian populations must be protected,

Stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza;

Condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism;

BREAKING:

⚡After France, now Spain and Italy are withdrawing from the US-led Operation Prosperity Guardian

The operation has de facto failed and the Houthis continue to maintain the blockade of Israel.

PS: The state that fights best against the globalist gang is the Houthis.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 22, 2023, 07:29:34 AM

None of which are remotely acceptable to the Jewish state of Israel, which was created explicitly to be a Jewish state.  The only one state solution acceptable to them is the one that gives them overall control.

That’s why the right of return for displaced Palestinians was always such a blocker.  Too many Arabs to dilute the Jewish character of the country apparently.

Making Israel a Jewish state in a federal country under secular government is just not going to happen.  At least not unless/until they can put all the this long behind them.  It’s not a path to peace.

Currently support for a 1 state solution is on the range of 20-30% of Jewish Israelis.

So yes, it doesn't have the support it needs.

Support for which version of a one state solution?  One state with Israel in overall control, or one secular state sharing power with Palestinians, or both?

This figure is useless without defining what they are supposedly supporting.  A source might help clear that up.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 22, 2023, 07:29:34 AM

The Geneva Conventions, the UN, etc were all set up after the Second World War.  Specifically to try to prevent the horrible shit that happened then from happening again.  That includes things like genocide, ethnic cleansing and flattening cities full of civilians.

The first was in 1864.
The last, with a focus on protecting civilians, was in 1949, but based upon the earlier Hauge conventions from 1899 and 1907, which itself is based upon the Leiber code from 1863.
And do you know a provision from that code?

Quote

The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war.
Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile coun­try and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.
Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private rela­tions as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war.
The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uncivilized people, the exception.
In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions.

So no, this code existed long before WWII.
And the IMT was happy to charge Nazi officers for what they did to civilians.

And even after that, there have been plenty of wars with loss of civilian life.

So that excuse doesn't hold.

Oh come on.  The earlier conventions were treaties between a small number of countries, mainly covering the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers.  Whenever anyone talks about the Geneva conventions, they are always talking about the updated and expanded 1949 conventions which were ratified by all UN members, and sometimes also the subsequent protocols.

Pretty much all the parts about collateral damage, the need to protect civilians, proportionality, etc came after the Second World War.

The Leiber code was a code of conduct for the union army in the American civil war.  It’s not and never was even remotely international law.

Why the fuck are you quoting that at me, instead of the relevant part 4 of the Geneva conventions (1949), and additional  protocols 1 & 2 (1977)?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 22, 2023, 07:29:34 AM

There’s always a dilemma, but not quite as you present it.  The attacking force has to weigh up whether the military advantage of killing those particular fighters justifies the likely civilian loses.  Not take it as a given that they have to die, then deciding that huge civilian loses are better than risking your own troops.  This applies to every individual target.

And I didn't say anything to the contrary. In fact, I finished my statement with "then that is a judgement call based upon the threat of those fighters."

You did in the post I first replied to when you said “The only other options for Israel would involve ground troops with likely a heavy loss of life on their side.”

It’s not their only other option at all.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 22, 2023, 07:29:34 AM

Some things, like indiscriminate bombing using dumb bombs over civilian areas are just flat out wrong.

Why?
If military targets are mixed in with that civilian area, and it is deemed that the likely loss of civilian life is mitigated by the likely damage to those military targets, then why is it flat out wrong?

Again, if Hamas had clearly segregated military and civilian areas, with no military activity in those civilian areas, then bombing those civilian areas would be flat out wrong and need very significant justification.

But Hamas doesn't do that. There is no delineation between civilian and military areas. This means while you can see it as a civilian area, it is just as valid to see it as a military area.

Why?  Because of the aforementioned international law for a start.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, not a regular military.  They don’t act like a regular military because they aren’t one.  Gaza is not allowed a regular military.  They have no fortified military bases, no air defense systems, no air bases for their non existent jets or attack helicopters, no destroyers and frigates patrolling the coast, no armour, no artillery.

Sure, it would be very obliging of the fighters to all move into a few “military” buildings and raise the Hamas flag. Israel could have ended it in the time it takes to fly a few jets from the nearest airbase.

That’s not how terrorists and insurgents operate though.  And it’s not an excuse to disregard the lives of civilians by an attacking military.

Use of air power against such terrorists isn’t completely off the table, provided it’s targeted, proportional and the likely collateral damage weighed against the gains of making a strike. 

Dumb bombs are indiscriminate.  They kill civilians and fighters pretty much randomly.  They probably make more terrorists than they eliminate.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 22, 2023, 07:29:34 AM

Hamas using human shields is a crime, but that does not allow Israel to commit crimes of their own by disregarding the lives of those humans.

No, it means Israel isn't necessarily committing a crime by taking out those human shields when they take out Hamas soldiers.
It means those human shields are collateral damage from taking out valid military targets.

That’s where we get back to the principle of proportionality.  What’s happening in Gaza looks very far from proportional.

Even Israel’s staunchest allies are publicly saying they have to take their responsibilities to minimize civilian casualties much more seriously.   

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 22, 2023, 07:29:34 AM

But don’t expect everyone else to accept that what they are doing is right.

And people can get outraged over what they are doing and the large loss of civilian life. But don't expect everyone to accept that what they are doing is wrong.

I’m talking about Israel’s responsibilities under international laws to minimize civilian death and suffering.  Not just stuff people say on the internet.

Support for which version of a one state solution?  One state with Israel in overall control, or one secular state sharing power with Palestinians, or both?

The various versions of a state with power shared between Jews and Arabs.

This figure is useless without defining what they are supposedly supporting.  A source might help clear that up.

Pretty much all the parts about collateral damage, the need to protect civilians, proportionality, etc came after the Second World War.

In the Geneva conventions, yes. In other codes, no.

The Leiber code was a code of conduct for the union army in the American civil war.  It’s not and never was even remotely international law.

It shows that such codes were in existence before the second world war.
But that didn't stop people killing loads of civilians as collateral damage.
Just like the Geneva Conventions didn't.

And again, the IMT seemed fine to change Nazi officers with crimes for harming civilians.

You did in the post I first replied to when you said “The only other options for Israel would involve ground troops with likely a heavy loss of life on their side.”

It’s not their only other option at all.

It is their only option to stop Hamas.
That was not for a single individual. It was for the entire conflict.
Their choices are to stand by and do nothing and let Hamas destroy them; send in ground troops and have loads die; or bomb the known locations of Hamas.

Why?  Because of the aforementioned international law for a start.

Again, if that international was so simple, then no city would have been bombed ever.
If that law was so simple, you wouldn't have directly contradicted it by saying "The risk of collateral damage to civilians must be weighed against the military advantage of such a strike"

Again, if the law was that simple, as soon as any risk of collateral damage to civilians was present, you would not be able to proceed.
Again, it is a judgement call, about the harm to those civilians vs the military gains such as wiping out enemy combatants.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, not a regular military.

Yes, which is the problem.
This means they don't care about their own civilian population.
They care about doing whatever it takes to survive and wipe out the Jews.

So when they so heavily mix in the civilian areas, they open it up to attack as a legitimate military target.

And while they are terrorists, it is not that simple given they were the elected government of Gaza.

And it’s not an excuse to disregard the lives of civilians by an attacking military.

I wouldn't call it an excuse. It is a justification for the collateral damage.
The civilians being there is not an excuse to stop the Israeli military from attacking in a manner it deems suitable.

Dumb bombs are indiscriminate.  They kill civilians and fighters pretty much randomly.

Only because they position their fighters among the civilians.
The problem is not the dumb bombs, it is Hamas and how it operates.

That’s where we get back to the principle of proportionality.

And that is where it becomes a judgement call, where different people will make different calls.
For Israel, which Hamas wants to wipe out, it may be deemed proportional.
For other countries, not under immediate threat, and pressured by their people, they may claim it is not proportional.

I’m talking about Israel’s responsibilities under international laws to minimize civilian death and suffering.  Not just stuff people say on the internet.

Which as already established, doesn't mean they can't have civilian causalities, nor does it mean they cannot target mixed used areas.
If you care about them so much, try telling Hamas to leave the civilian areas, so there is a clear distinction between military and civilian targets.

Again, as you said "The risk of collateral damage to civilians must be weighed against the military advantage of such a strike".
So don't expect everyone to agree with you that the risk is too great for the military advantage to declare the actions of Israel wrong.
Some people will say the military advantage of such a strike justifies the risk of collateral damage to civilians.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2023, 03:52:56 AM

Support for which version of a one state solution?  One state with Israel in overall control, or one secular state sharing power with Palestinians, or both?

The various versions of a state with power shared between Jews and Arabs.

Still no source for this figure though.

This figure is useless without defining what they are supposedly supporting.  A source might help clear that up.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2023, 03:52:56 AM

Pretty much all the parts about collateral damage, the need to protect civilians, proportionality, etc came after the Second World War.

In the Geneva conventions, yes. In other codes, no.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2023, 03:52:56 AM

The Leiber code was a code of conduct for the union army in the American civil war.  It’s not and never was even remotely international law.

It shows that such codes were in existence before the second world war.
But that didn't stop people killing loads of civilians as collateral damage.
Just like the Geneva Conventions didn't.

And again, the IMT seemed fine to change Nazi officers with crimes for harming civilians.

An internal code for the Union army is a hilarious reference on the subject of international law.  Earlier conventions were much weaker and not ratified by most countries.  They were enough to prosecute Nazis for killing millions in extermination camps, but not the many other things that happened in the Second World War which would now be classed as war crimes.  Such as the two nuclear weapon deployments, carpet bombing of cities by all sides, the use of indiscriminate V1 & V2 weapons against civilians, etc.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2023, 03:52:56 AM

You did in the post I first replied to when you said “The only other options for Israel would involve ground troops with likely a heavy loss of life on their side.”

It’s not their only other option at all.

It is their only option to stop Hamas.
That was not for a single individual. It was for the entire conflict.
Their choices are to stand by and do nothing and let Hamas destroy them; send in ground troops and have loads die; or bomb the known locations of Hamas.

What? What? What? And What?

Are you following this conflict at all?

First off, the requirement to asses collateral damage and risk to civilians really does apply to individual attacks, not the conflict as a whole.  Whether it’s a infantry raid on a hospital or an air strike on a Hamas position.   

Your “choices” are hilarious.  Hamas is in no position to destroy Israel. They are a security threat, as they could try something similar to the raid that kicked this off, although it’s highly unlikely they’d catch the IDF with their pants down again anytime soon, and  certainly not with them in full force in Gaza.  Israel is not fighting for its survival, it’s on a mission of regime change (and arguably saving Netanyahu’s political career).

The IDF have sent in ground troops, tanks and heavy artillery.  It’s not a case of one or the other.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2023, 03:52:56 AM

Why?  Because of the aforementioned international law for a start.

Again, if that international was so simple, then no city would have been bombed ever.
If that law was so simple, you wouldn't have directly contradicted it by saying "The risk of collateral damage to civilians must be weighed against the military advantage of such a strike"

Again, if the law was that simple, as soon as any risk of collateral damage to civilians was present, you would not be able to proceed.
Again, it is a judgement call, about the harm to those civilians vs the military gains such as wiping out enemy combatants.

I’m NOT saying it’s simple, and I’m not contradicting myself.  I’m saying the way YOU present it is too simplistic and frankly incorrect.  Particularly this idea you seem to have that Israel don’t have to worry about civilian casualties because it’s all Hamas’ fault for hiding.  That’s not how it works.

In the case of indiscriminate attacks on a civilian population  using unguided weapons, it is much simpler.  They should not be doing that.  The IDF is a modern high tech military.  They can and should be carrying out precision strikes on confirmed targets, not trying to recreate the London Blitz or the fire bombing of Dresden.  Because using such tactics would be war crimes under international laws adopted after the Second World War.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2023, 03:52:56 AM

Hamas is a terrorist organization, not a regular military.

Yes, which is the problem.
This means they don't care about their own civilian population.
They care about doing whatever it takes to survive and wipe out the Jews.

So when they so heavily mix in the civilian areas, they open it up to attack as a legitimate military target.

And while they are terrorists, it is not that simple given they were the elected government of Gaza.

The main reason they are a proscribed organization labeled as terrorists is that they treat civilians as legitimate targets.  Are you starting to see the problem with your argument yet?

Civilians are never legitimate targets.  Treating them as such is a bad thing.

Also the idea of Hamas wiping out the Jews is ludicrous.  That’s not even their objective, let alone anything approaching reality. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2023, 03:52:56 AM

And it’s not an excuse to disregard the lives of civilians by an attacking military.

I wouldn't call it an excuse. It is a justification for the collateral damage.
The civilians being there is not an excuse to stop the Israeli military from attacking in a manner it deems suitable.

And that is why your personal opinions differ from international law.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2023, 03:52:56 AM

Dumb bombs are indiscriminate.  They kill civilians and fighters pretty much randomly.

Only because they position their fighters among the civilians.
The problem is not the dumb bombs, it is Hamas and how it operates.

That does not absolve the IDF of their responsibilities to minimize civilian casualties where possible.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2023, 03:52:56 AM

That’s where we get back to the principle of proportionality.

And that is where it becomes a judgement call, where different people will make different calls.
For Israel, which Hamas wants to wipe out, it may be deemed proportional.
For other countries, not under immediate threat, and pressured by their people, they may claim it is not proportional.

For you and some others “proportional” apparently means that Palestinian civilians are fair game if they are in the way.  But that’s not how it works.

If you think Hamas could wipe out Israel, there’s nothing proportional about your assessment of the military situation either.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2023, 03:52:56 AM

I’m talking about Israel’s responsibilities under international laws to minimize civilian death and suffering.  Not just stuff people say on the internet.

Which as already established, doesn't mean they can't have civilian causalities, nor does it mean they cannot target mixed used areas.
If you care about them so much, try telling Hamas to leave the civilian areas, so there is a clear distinction between military and civilian targets.

Again, as you said "The risk of collateral damage to civilians must be weighed against the military advantage of such a strike".
So don't expect everyone to agree with you that the risk is too great for the military advantage to declare the actions of Israel wrong.
Some people will say the military advantage of such a strike justifies the risk of collateral damage to civilians.

“Try telling Hamas”, indeed.  Sorry, but I have no contact with Hamas and I doubt they’d listen to me if I did.

What’s the point of this childishness?

As established, in international law, not on the FEE forum, what you saying is wrong.  Civilian areas continue to be civilian areas, even when there are terrorist fighters within them.  That means that an attacking force has a legal and moral responsibility to avoid excessive civilian casualties. 

Use of indiscriminate weapons for example are therefore not OK and could constitute war crimes. 

The UK government did many shadey things during the quaintly named Troubles in N Ireland.  But they didn’t shell Catholic neighbourhoods, because that would have been insane.  Eventually they managed to cobble together a peace process, which would not have happened if they’d treated it as an all our war.

Perhaps you think that flattening Gaza will be good for Israel?  It won’t, they are condemning themselves to generations more violence.  And they are losing international support fast.

Still no source for this figure though.

This figure is useless without defining what they are supposedly supporting.  A source might help clear that up.

It wasn't a single figure. It was a range.
You can read about it here (including references to polls):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution#Public_opinion

An internal code for the Union army is a hilarious reference on the subject of international law.

Not really.
It shows that people already had these ideas much earlier than the Geneva convention.

Earlier conventions were much weaker

The current conventions are also weak. Only applied by countries when they want to. With prosecution only occurring if the country loses or the country allows it to happen.

They were enough to prosecute Nazis for killing millions in extermination camps, but not the many other things that happened in the Second World War which would now be classed as war crimes.  Such as the two nuclear weapon deployments, carpet bombing of cities by all sides, the use of indiscriminate V1 & V2 weapons against civilians, etc.

And what convention said that was a crime?

Note: included in the text of the charter for the trial was the charge:

War crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian populations of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, town or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

And plenty of this matches what the allies did as well. And that was even brought up in the trial.
The distinction was that the Nazi's started the war, and lost the war, and people wanted to make an example of them.
Some didn't even want the trials and instead just wanted them summarily executed.

The trials were also controversial with some people claiming it retroactively made things crimes, and some claiming it is simply "Victor's justice".
And we see the same with the version for Japan, but with even more ridiculous BS where their imperial family was protected from prosecution.

Unless someone is willing to go to war with Israel, to defeat them or at least capture key targets, it is entirely up to Israel if they see these as war crimes and allow prosecution and conviction.

First off, the requirement to asses collateral damage and risk to civilians really does apply to individual attacks, not the conflict as a whole.

Yet the statement you wished to focus on was applying to the entire conflict, not individual strikes.

Your “choices” are hilarious.  Hamas is in no position to destroy Israel.

If Israel is required to sit idly by and do nothing, then they can.
It might take a while, but they will be able to slowly whittle down Israel.

Israel is not obliged to continue to allow attacks without responding, even if responding means the death of civilians in Gaza.

I’m NOT saying it’s simple, and I’m not contradicting myself.  I’m saying the way YOU present it is too simplistic and frankly incorrect.  Particularly this idea you seem to have that Israel don’t have to worry about civilian casualties because it’s all Hamas’ fault for hiding.

Yes, you are.
For example here:

The legal choice isn’t between risking your own forces and massive civilian collateral damage, it’s between risking your own forces and not attacking the target.

You make it clear and simple that you don't get to have massive civilian collateral damage. Instead you either risk your own forces or don't attack the target.
That combined with your claim that they are required to minimise civilian casualties wherever possible makes it very clear.
In this simple view, if your attack is likely to kill civilians, you can't do it.

Yet you contradict that simple view by saying that get to weight the risk of collateral damage against the military advantage of such a strike.

Conversely, I have said that it is a judgement call, and that Israel can choose these strikes over sending in loads of troops which could die.
I'm not saying Israel doesn't need to worry about civilian casualties, just that they aren't the blocker of a strike like your simplicity suggests.
Likewise, I'm not saying it is all Hamas' fault. I am saying they are primarily to blame.

In the case of indiscriminate attacks on a civilian population  using unguided weapons, it is much simpler.  They should not be doing that.

That only applies if it is a purely civilian population.
It is not.
It is a combined military/civilian population, with a military value in attacking.

They can and should be carrying out precision strikes on confirmed targets

Then go fund them to do that.

The main reason they are a proscribed organization labeled as terrorists is that they treat civilians as legitimate targets.  Are you starting to see the problem with your argument yet?

No.
The civilian population of Gaza are not the targets. They are collateral.
See the difference?

Also the idea of Hamas wiping out the Jews is ludicrous.  That’s not even their objective, let alone anything approaching reality.

Yet their charter includes (or included, not sure if it is the current one):

The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."

But what is clear is that they want to have Islam control all of Palestine (and I think the entire Middle East), with Islamic law ruling it.

And that is why your personal opinions differ from international law.

Again, if International law was that simple, then no city would ever be attacked in war.
So either it doesn't violate international law, or that law is entirely useless and not upheld, except as victor justice.

That does not absolve the IDF of their responsibilities to minimize civilian casualties where possible.

Again, your own statement shows that is not the case, that they don't to minimise civilian casualties. Instead, they can weigh up the risk of civilian casualties with the military advantage of such a strike.

For you and some others “proportional” apparently means that Palestinian civilians are fair game if they are in the way.  But that’s not how it works.

More that if Hamas continues to use human shields, then those human shields will likely end up as collateral damage.

If you think Hamas could wipe out Israel, there’s nothing proportional about your assessment of the military situation either.

Hamas can't wipe out Israel, because Israel wont allow them to, because they carry out attacks like this.

“Try telling Hamas”, indeed.  Sorry, but I have no contact with Hamas and I doubt they’d listen to me if I did.
What’s the point of this childishness?

To point out the primary people responsible are Hamas. Hamas for choosing to use human shields to try to get people like you to sympathise and stop attacks against them due to collateral damage caused to their human shields.

As established, in international law, not on the FEE forum, what you saying is wrong.

So what judge under international law has actually read what I said and declared it to be wrong?
Or is this just you and your interpretation of international law saying it is wrong?

Civilian areas continue to be civilian areas, even when there are terrorist fighters within them.

Even when the government of that civilian area uses it to house military assets?
And that still doesn't make it a military area?

That means that an attacking force has a legal and moral responsibility to avoid excessive civilian casualties.

At which point you just ask the question of what is "excessive"?

Use of indiscriminate weapons for example are therefore not OK and could constitute war crimes.

Based on what?

Perhaps you think that flattening Gaza will be good for Israel?

That entirely depends on what the end result is.
If they just have a ceasefire now, it wont be.
But if they have something that causes a lasting cessation of hostilities, it could be.
And considering that loss of international support is primarily from the people of the country, plenty of which seem to want to support terrorists, I don't think they care.

https://x.com/genzforchange/status/1744890526288232506?s=20

SAN FRANCISCO JUST VOTED 8-3 IN SUPPORT OF A CEASEFIRE RESOLUTION!!!

It’s time for other cities to follow. ✊

Woohoo, SF is ending the war.

https://x.com/genzforchange/status/1744890526288232506?s=20

Quote

SAN FRANCISCO JUST VOTED 8-3 IN SUPPORT OF A CEASEFIRE RESOLUTION!!!

It’s time for other cities to follow. ✊

Woohoo, SF is ending the war.

I didn't know San Francisco was part of Israel?

Maybe they annexed while we weren't looking.