Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[JoeMorgue]

okay, let's see what we can agree on:

- Israel was attacked by Hamas fighters out of the Gaza Strip.
- Mostly undefended villages were targeted, more than a thousand killed, many thousand wounded.
- As long as Hamas operates, it could perform similar attacks in the future.
- Hamas operates out of the Gaza Strip, and recruits heavily from there
- an endless network of tunnels under Gaza makes it extremely dangerous for soldiers to try to root them out

assuming we are in agreement with all of this, I would like you to answer this question, please:

if the IDF decides that the most effective way to eliminate the threat of Hamas once an for all is dropping a Nuke on Gaza (because it would also collapse all the tunnels and remove the ability to continue operations), can it do this as a measure of self-protection ?

And if not, why not?

I'm not doing that. Your hypothetical is absurd. You might as well ask me if the only way Israel could win would be to release Cthulhu would I provide the human sacrifice.

I could ask you "If Hamas decides the only way of getting rid of gay people was to throw them from rooftops would you support that?' except oh wait they already did that.

I'm not going to get baited into defining some "X" amount of force Israel is allowed to use against poor widdle underdog Hamas for you to act shocked about.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Isn't "Hamas is totally doing stuff to make Israel look bad!" already the #1 talking point (somehow) among the Hamas excusers in this thread?

So what a "false flag" doesn't fit into that being their primary motive how exactly?

If your people were suffering from a Ballymurphy and a Bloody Sunday every day of the week for twenty years with nobody from the ouside world stepping in, what would your response be?

 

[lobosrul5]

This is simply delusional. You think Hamas cares about being in an "awkward" situation? Hell no. They are totally OK with looking like the bad guys to most of the world. And a lack of forceful response makes Hamas look strong. Which is the best recruiting tool by far. I'm sure Hamas didn't expect Israel to sit back and take it, but they would absolutely love it if Israel did.

I think they'd care. They'd care so much they'd just keep repeating their attacks on Israel.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I mean is that what this is... Palestinians are bit more brown than Israeli's on average... I see lots of brown Israeli's on TV, some white ones too... so they're the auto good guys to the left?!

I'm saying even without the "I mean look at Hamas, they are so much weaker than Israel, that means they have to be at least a little bit justified" subtext that people are putting in their arguments you can't miss the "Official Liberal Victimization Chart" that's running through some of this.

 

[lobosrul5]

If your people were suffering from a Ballymurphy and a Bloody Sunday every day of the week for twenty years with nobody from the ouside world stepping in, what would your response be?

Even if that was true (it isn't) I'd really like to think my response wouldn't be: murder children, so as to get my 72 virgins in paradise. I sure hope it wouldn't.

 

[theprestige]

I think they'd care. They'd care so much they'd just keep repeating their attacks on Israel.

... Which they were doing anyway. Israel gave Hamas breathing room to settle down and act civilized, and Hamas took the opportunity to do this. "Leave us alone to plot and execute terror attacks, otherwise we're just going to plot and execute terror attacks."

Hamas wants the Jews gone from Israel, and Israel gone from the map. That's the root cause of all this.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If your people were suffering from a Ballymurphy and a Bloody Sunday every day of the week for twenty years with nobody from the ouside world stepping in, what would your response be?

I dunno stop pretending I actually care about that one 25 mile strip of meaningless desert scrub land that's exactly like all the meaningless desert scrub land around it and go live in one of the dozen other countries filled with the exact same kind of people as me that I'm surrounded by probably.

Again I'm not living in a fantasy land where this anything more than 99% "Muslim being pissed because we put Jews near them."

If there weren't Jews living on the land, nobody in the Muslim World would give a crap about it and if you don't believe that I don't know how to talk to you.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Even if that was true (it isn't) I'd really like to think my response wouldn't be: murder children, so as to get my 72 virgins in paradise. I sure hope it wouldn't.

Well, I was being conservative. But the simple fact of the matter is that in its every action Israel has legitimised terrorism as a political action within the lands it claims. And that includes its creation of Hamas.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm not doing that. Your hypothetical is absurd. You might as well ask me if the only way Israel could win would be to release Cthulhu would I provide the human sacrifice.

I could ask you "If Hamas decides the only way of getting rid of gay people was to throw them from rooftops would you support that?' except oh wait they already did that.

I'm not going to get baited into defining some "X" amount of force Israel is allowed to use against poor widdle underdog Hamas for you to act shocked about.

sorry if I wasn't clear.

I'm not setting up a false dichotomy of a Nuke being the ONLY solution - clearly, the IDF could go house-to-house, tunnel-to-tunnel, and keep a huge occupying force, and that would achieve the same result.

The question I had is: is there a limit that would be exceeded if Israel used a nuke, and if so, why?

 

[lobosrul5]

... Which they were doing anyway. Israel gave Hamas breathing room to settle down and act civilized, and Hamas took the opportunity to do this. "Leave us alone to plot and execute terror attacks, otherwise we're just going to plot and execute terror attacks."

Yes, that be my point. If Israel just "turned the other cheek" this would keep on happening. Their only viable options are a ground war or something like a 500m wide minefield around Gaza and VERY careful inspection of all humanitarian supplies into Gaza.

Hamas wants the Jews gone from Israel, and Israel gone from the map. That's the root cause of all this.

Yes, and this bears repeating, over and over again: Hamas does not want to compromise. They want to kill Jews or die trying. This is not Yasser Arafat and Fatah in control. These are the guys that would murder anyone not hard line enough including other Palestinians.

 

[JoeMorgue]

sorry if I wasn't clear.

I'm not setting up a false dichotomy of a Nuke being the ONLY solution - clearly, the IDF could go house-to-house, tunnel-to-tunnel, and keep a huge occupying force, and that would achieve the same result.

The question I had is: is there a limit that would be exceeded if Israel used a nuke, and if so, why?

I mean I feel like I'm walking into a trap here but... if (in the purely hypothetical you are presenting that I will NOT tolerate being dishonestly applied to any real world scenario) that WAS the only way to stop Hamas... I mean I guess it would be justified.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I mean I feel like I'm walking into a trap here but... if (in the purely hypothetical you are presenting that I will NOT tolerate being dishonestly applied to any real world scenario) that WAS the only way to stop Hamas... I mean I guess it would be justified.

thanks for making your position so clear.

this is a point where we definitely will have to agree to disagree.

 

[JoeMorgue]

thanks for making your position so clear.

this is a point where we definitely will have to agree to disagree.

What's the alternative? Israel just quietly lets itself be destroyed by inch because YOU think it doesn't have the moral high ground?

 

[lobosrul5]

sorry if I wasn't clear.

I'm not setting up a false dichotomy of a Nuke being the ONLY solution - clearly, the IDF could go house-to-house, tunnel-to-tunnel, and keep a huge occupying force, and that would achieve the same result.

The question I had is: is there a limit that would be exceeded if Israel used a nuke, and if so, why?

It would be a limit that is exceeded. Nukes should only be allowed to be used in 2 situations IMO:

1) A response to WMD.
2) An existential threat. Like Hezbollah has overrun Israel's positions in the north and they are coming to exterminate everyone.

Why? Because it unnecessarily kills a whole bunch of innocent people. Israeli's goals can be accomplished by killing far less. And, it raises world tension remarkably. Now Russia can think about getting away with a nuke, Iran might try some form of WMD attack on Israel.

And by "allowed" I mean allowed by the democracies of the world without the most severe of economic sanctions.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What's the alternative? Israel just quietly lets itself be destroyed by inch because YOU think it doesn't have the moral high ground?

now you are setting up a false dichotomy.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It would be a limit that is exceeded. Nukes should only be allowed to be used in 2 situations IMO:

1) A response to WMD.
2) An existential threat. Like Hezbollah has overrun Israel's positions in the north and they are coming to exterminate everyone.

Why? Because it unnecessarily kills a whole bunch of innocent people. Israeli's goals can be accomplished by killing far less. And, it raises world tension remarkably. Now Russia can think about getting away with a nuke, Iran might try some form of WMD attack on Israel.

And by "allowed" I mean allowed by the democracies of the world without the most severe of economic sanctions.

well, if they are overrunning your positions it might be a bit too late to use a nuke defensively.

 

[JoeMorgue]

now you are setting up a false dichotomy.

*Rubs the bridge of my nose.*

- Hamas's sole reason for existence is to destroy Israel. This is a fact and it is not up for honest debate.

- You presented me with a hypothetical in which the only way to destroy Hamas was with a nuclear strike.

There is not false dichotomy. No I don't want to hear another apologist screed about "Oh come on they couldn't kill EVERY Jew."

 

[The Great Zaganza]

*Rubs the bridge of my nose.*

- Hamas's sole reason for existence is to destroy Israel. This is a fact and it is not up for honest debate.

- You presented me with a hypothetical in which the only way to destroy Hamas was with a nuclear strike.

There is not false dichotomy. No I don't want to hear another apologist screed about "Oh come on they couldn't kill EVERY Jew."

I thought we were mostly in agreement about everything but how extreme a response can be.
And to my position that a Nuke would be too extreme a response you put up the only alternative of " Israel just quietly lets itself be destroyed by inch" -
after I had clearly established that the alternative to nukes is not passivity.

that's very clear example of a false dichotomy.

I think it's possible to agree on the goals without having to agree on the means - don't you think so, too?

 

[lobosrul5]

well, if they are overrunning your positions it might be a bit too late to use a nuke defensively.

They'd have two options and they'd probably do both. Tactically: hit any large troop formations behind the line. Strategically: hit whomever is backing Hezbollah. That means Tehran.

Sure the forward elements of Hezbollah would still get to Israeli population centers but they won't be followed up.

Israel is not going to use nukes except as an absolute last ditch "we're all gonna die if we don't" scenario.

ETA: we have of course not talked about the other reason for not hitting Gaza with a nuke: fallout.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I thought we were mostly in agreement about everything but how extreme a response can be.
And to my position that a Nuke would be too extreme a response you put up the only alternative of " Israel just quietly lets itself be destroyed by inch" -
after I had clearly established that the alternative to nukes is not passivity.

that's very clear example of a false dichotomy.

I think it's possible to agree on the goals without having to agree on the means - don't you think so, too?

If you want to split a hair between "Hamas destroys Israel" and "Hamas gets to try and destroy Israel with no retaliation for as long as it can" knock yourself out.

Again I feel like you're just waiting for me to say something you can take out of context and I'm not just going to spoon feed you hypothetical what ifs until you succeed.