Israel v Hamas

Mark B said:
If they are only unpopular, then no, it is not justified.

If Hamas is using schools, mosques and hospitals as command and control and sustainment centers, then they do legally become acceptable targets. For example, while it pissed off a lot of people, the sinking of RMS Lusitania was absolutely legally justified.
Click to expand...
Interesting moral question.

An abhorrent armed terrorist is standing behind a dense wall of Palestinian children.

Is it ok to gun down the children to kill the terrorist?

Those deaths are fewer than who he could kill and the people who he has and could kill are Israeli and accordingly of higher value.

Many on here would say yes (albeit with regret) perhaps for those reasons.

I am not so sure they would be so sure if they were the ones holding the gun.
 
silvertop said:
Interesting moral question.

An abhorrent armed terrorist is standing behind a dense wall of Palestinian children.

Is it ok to gun down the children to kill the terrorist?

Those deaths are fewer than who he could kill and the people who he has and could kill are Israeli and accordingly of higher value.

Many on here would say yes (albeit with regret) perhaps for those reasons.

I am not so sure they would be so sure if they were the ones holding the gun.
Click to expand...
As awful as this is going to sound, for most nations it would depend on who that terrorist was.

If this is Osama bin Laden or Abū Muṣʻab Zarqāwī, then the Israelis are taking the shot, the Americans are following them home and killing them with less collateral damage if possible.

In most circumstances, it is easier to deploy ground forces to isolate and remove him although that is a risk to the friendly force deployed. That was my preferred method, killing locals causes too many problems that just expands your issues as killing 10 kids results in militarizing they families (if they were not already) and especially in Middle Eastern cultures where there are hundreds of cousins within a geographic area, you can quickly cause a massive problem for yourself through indiscriminate killings. I found that letting them go and talking to the local leadership afterwards helped minimize those issues in the future by telling them that restraint has limits. Most were receptive to the discussions which helped to isolate the evil doers from the locals as no one wanted to accidently kill local children so the locals would tell them to attack from away from them which made them easier to kill.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
It's correct-ish.

That some civilian infrastructure can become legitimate military targets is of course true, but it doesn't make the scale of destruction in Gaza justifiable, legally or otherwise. Over 100,000 structures have been completely destroyed - it's not plausible that they all met the threshold.

Even if you establish civilian infrastructure is being used, the expected civilian harm should not be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Do you have access to IDF order of battle?

30,000 fighters, easily, and if a building is wrecked they move to another.

Would there have been ANYTHING that was acceptable to you in IDF action following Oct 7?
Tell us what you feel would've been a proportional response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top