Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[trustbutverify]

It is like the comments about Hamas using civilians as human shields, when they fire rockets from Gaza. There is no space in Gaza from which to fire rockets without it being near to civilians. Palestine is not an officially recognised country, to have a government and an army.

Hamas uses civilians as human shields, in all phases of their operations. In fact, they were using Israeli civilians as human shields as the IDF were going house to house, clearing the remaining terrorists. I find it difficult to believe there's anyone more than casually acquainted with the historical facts who isn't aware of this.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So basically terrorism is just a valid strategy now?

The reason terrorist blend in with civilian populations is SO they can't attacked with collateral damage. Even IF you think that collateral damage is 1:1 exactly the same thing morally as murder that just basically turns terrorism into not only valid but good and logical from a tactics perspective.

If Hamas or Isis or Al Qaeda or the goddamn KKK formed a country with borders and a capital it would be wiped out the face of the Earth by any minor regional power in a few hours. They only work as threats BECAUSE they mix in with a semi-sympathetic larger civilian population.

And lot people are saying not saying that they are in the right for acting that way.

Depends on who you ask I suppose. Hamas and the IDF clearly say yes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Depends on who you ask I suppose.

Okay.

How about I ask you.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Okay.

How about I ask you.

No, I would consider both the tactics of Hamas and the IDF deliberately targeting civilians or committing other war crimes not acceptable.

My main objection is that Hamas is rightly depicted as being a terrorist organization that commits war crimes, but the IDF's reciprocal actions and nearly identical rules of engagement that treat civilians as acceptable targets never gets described this way.

ETA: Seems like Hamas' strategy is not really doing them any favors either. Instead of the press discussing the wild success of their commando raids against valid military targets, which includes capturing or killing some high level IDF officers or taking entire IDF outposts by total surprise and eradicating them, the press is focused almost exclusively on their barbarous acts against civilians. Certainly not doing them any favors on the international stage, but then again, it's not really clear that it would make much difference.

 

[Nessie]

What law is that, exactly?

The Geneva conventions don't protect terrorists. They don't protect non-uniformed combatants. Yes, you can in fact summarily execute such combatants.

But I'm really not sure if that's even what's happening. The video is far too low quality to tell what really went on.

Palestine is not a generally recognised country, with an army. If they only get to be treated as terrorists and executed, rather than be allowed to surrender, be imprisoned, put on trial, then you have no rule of any law.

That is absolutely not true. There are actually open fields in Gaza. Go look on Google Maps if you don't believe me. Yes, Gaza is quite dense, but not every single square foot is occupied. Furthermore, they don't just fire near civilians. They fire from schools. You cannot seriously argue that firing rockets from schools is the only choice that Hamas has.

There is very limited open space, so little that it is tactically unusable. No matter where they fire from, it is near, or indeed on a civilian location.

One group is murdering babies and broadcasting that with joy. One group isn't. I know which side I'm choosing.

There are violent men on both sides, who knowingly kill children, but use political and tactical excuses for their own actions, whilst condemning the other.

Israel have made sure all the cards are in their favour, so they can make themselves out to be the only victims in this long-running conflict.

 

[Nessie]

Hamas uses civilians as human shields, in all phases of their operations. In fact, they were using Israeli civilians as human shields as the IDF were going house to house, clearing the remaining terrorists. I find it difficult to believe there's anyone more than casually acquainted with the historical facts who isn't aware of this.

I have not denied they use people as human shields. I have pointed out that tactically, because of the geography of Gaza, if they use rockets, by default, they are using human shields. They either never use rockets, or they use rockets and by default there are civilians nearby as human shields.

 

[Nessie]

How about skipping the elderly females and infants who present no threat whatsoever on your murder/kidnapping spree for liberation? Is that too much to ask?

No, Hamas are wrong to attack civilians. Everyone who does that is wrong. Everyone.

 

[lobosrul5]

I have not denied they use people as human shields. I have pointed out that tactically, because of the geography of Gaza, if they use rockets, by default, they are using human shields. They either never use rockets, or they use rockets and by default there are civilians nearby as human shields.

Bologna. Theres several parts of the Gaza strip that are empty or farmland. They could launch their rockets from there, and since Hamas is the de facto government they could clear the few people out from such areas. Look on google maps satellite imagery or similar before replying please.

But hey if you want on the ground imagery....

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.294...pi-0-ya139-ro-0-fo100!7i8192!8i4096?entry=ttu

 

[trustbutverify]

I have not denied they use people as human shields. I have pointed out that tactically, because of the geography of Gaza, if they use rockets, by default, they are using human shields. They either never use rockets, or they use rockets and by default there are civilians nearby as human shields.

Yes, the population density is very high. However, both Hamas and IJ routinely position their rocket launchers to take fullest advantage of human shields, not the other way around. Human shields are a staple tactic for both groups. I understand why, from a tactical pov, but that doesn't make it any less filthy.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, the population density is very high. However, both Hamas and IJ routinely position their rocket launchers to take fullest advantage of human shields, not the other way around. Human shields are a staple tactic for both groups. I understand why, from a tactical pov, but that doesn't make it any less filthy.

Probably worth distinguishing between past counter-battery fire and the obviously punitive and indiscriminate carpet bombing that is happening right now.

Even if you think that the previous status quo when it came to IDF bombing of Gaza was acceptable, the bombing they are doing now is clearly not following even those standards of targeting.

 

[trustbutverify]

No, Hamas are wrong to attack civilians. Everyone who does that is wrong. Everyone.

That wasn't the question. This was the question:

How about skipping the elderly females and infants who present no threat whatsoever on your murder/kidnapping spree for liberation? Is that too much to ask

Yes or no?

 

[Aridas]

What law is that, exactly?

The Geneva conventions don't protect terrorists. They don't protect non-uniformed combatants. Yes, you can in fact summarily execute such combatants.

But I'm really not sure if that's even what's happening. The video is far too low quality to tell what really went on.

In addition to that, there's also the situational bit where it's not a war crime to execute hostile forces when a "surrender" being done as a tactic to get enemy soldiers to lower their guard so that they can be targeted more easily.

With that said, if the intended point of sharing such a video is to "prove" that Israel's committing war crimes and deserves to be hated, it's off the mark, given that 1) Hamas has created conditions with its war crimes and societal crimes that make it so that it's not actually reasonable to swiftly reach conclusions with very limited data, however emotion-provoking the data might be, and 2) I'm pretty sure that no one here is actually arguing that Israel's not committing war crimes.

One group is murdering babies and broadcasting that with joy. One group isn't. I know which side I'm choosing.

Indeed. I'd go so far as to say that it's entirely fair to say that both sides are bad and that reducing it to a struggle for homeland isn't really wrong. It's just not fair to stop at that point. Hamas has long been known for its focus on specifically targeting civilians and celebrating when they succeed at doing so and Israel has long been known for going out of its way to reduce civilian casualties in its Gaza responses and at least officially aspires to loftier ideals. In practice, there is definitely a large gap in how bad each side is acting. Choosing the lesser of two evils is not a bad thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is very limited open space, so little that it is tactically unusable. No matter where they fire from, it is near, or indeed on a civilian location.

Schools. They fire from schools. Adopt however broad a definition you want for "civilian location", but there's no god damn justification for firing from schools. And they do. And you cannot excuse that.

There are violent men on both sides, who knowingly kill children

Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting children.

Hamas does.

You can "both sides" all you want to, but the two sides really aren't equivalent. And it is quite frankly monstrous to pretend that they are.

 

[Nessie]

Bologna. Theres several parts of the Gaza strip that are empty or farmland. They could launch their rockets from there, and since Hamas is the de facto government they could clear the few people out from such areas. Look on google maps satellite imagery or similar before replying please.

But hey if you want on the ground imagery....

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.294...pi-0-ya139-ro-0-fo100!7i8192!8i4096?entry=ttu

I studied google maps before I posted, pointing out how densely populated Gaza is. If Hamas limit themselves to the open space, then they will be easily picked out by Israeli attacks.

Hamas are left with a choice, no rockets, rockets guaranteed to be hit, which is in effect no rockets, or fire close to civilian locations, which is most of Gaza.

By packing Palestinians into a small space, limiting what Hamas can do, it makes it easier for Israel to load the deck in its favour.

 

[Nessie]

That wasn't the question. This was the question:



Yes or no?

Obviously yes, WHICH WAS ALREADY CLEAR FROM MY PREVIOUS ANSWER.

 

[lobosrul5]

I studied google maps before I posted, pointing out how densely populated Gaza is. If Hamas limit themselves to the open space, then they will be easily picked out by Israeli attacks.

Hamas are left with a choice, no rockets, rockets guaranteed to be hit, which is in effect no rockets, or fire close to civilian locations, which is most of Gaza.

By packing Palestinians into a small space, limiting what Hamas can do, it makes it easier for Israel to load the deck in its favour.

The highlighted is the correct choice. Especially since they are, for the most part, ineffectual. I'm not sure how many casualties Hamas caused by their rockets versus in person terrorist hit-squads in the recent attack. But its probably no more than a percent or two.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Schools. They fire from schools. Adopt however broad a definition you want for "civilian location", but there's no god damn justification for firing from schools. And they do. And you cannot excuse that.



Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting children.

Hamas does.

You can "both sides" all you want to, but the two sides really aren't equivalent. And it is quite frankly monstrous to pretend that they are.

is there limit to that justification?
If the IDF knows that there is one terrorist in an apartment building of hundreds, and they bomb it, would that make them different from Hamas because they set out just to kill the terrorist?
Compared to Hamas who killed hundreds of civilians and some soldiers and cops?

I'm asking on a purely theoretical level here, because I think that there is a strict limit on the amount of collateral damage we might be excused for turning a blind eye on compared to wilfully sacrificing bystanders in order to get to your target.
And I think that that limit can have nothing to do with what the target is guilty of.

Would you tell me what you think about this?
Thanks.

 

[Nessie]

Schools. They fire from schools. Adopt however broad a definition you want for "civilian location", but there's no god damn justification for firing from schools. And they do. And you cannot excuse that.



Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting children.

Hamas does.

You can "both sides" all you want to, but the two sides really aren't equivalent. And it is quite frankly monstrous to pretend that they are.

I am not excusing what Hamas are doing. I am pointing out that Israeli tactics towards the Palestinian's, Gaza and Hamas mean that it is now impossible for them to use any force, without falling into the category of terrorists.

It is a clever move by Israel, politically and militarily, to stack everything in their favour and make it such that those in Gaza cannot fight back, without becoming terrorists. It even means that those who are sympathetic to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, can be condemned as terrorist supporters.

 

[Aridas]

ETA: Seems like Hamas' strategy is not really doing them any favors either. Instead of the press discussing the wild success of their commando raids against valid military targets, which includes capturing or killing some high level IDF officers or taking entire IDF outposts by total surprise and eradicating them, the press is focused almost exclusively on their barbarous acts against civilians. Certainly not doing them any favors on the international stage, but then again, it's not really clear that it would make much difference.

Indeed. Military targets are valid targets and had they limited themselves to such, rather than, for example, massacring those who were seeking to support peace and equality with them, that would probably be a much larger story.

Palestine is not a generally recognised country, with an army. If they only get to be treated as terrorists and executed, rather than be allowed to surrender, be imprisoned, put on trial, then you have no rule of any law.

If their actions are indistinguishable from that of terrorists, calling them terrorists is quite defensible. If they're soldiers who are not in uniform, it's not a war crime to simply execute them, rather than treat them as a prisoner of war. The rules are that way specifically to discourage harm to actual civilians in the larger picture.

 

[trustbutverify]

Obviously yes, WHICH WAS ALREADY CLEAR FROM MY PREVIOUS ANSWER.

It wasn't clear to me, but it is now. The answer is yes. Thank you.