Israel v Hamas

[Forest Hillbilly]

Please don't assign attributes to myself. I have expressed myself on the way I consider the Palestinian population to have been mistreated for decades.
There are political and Governmental reasons for these courses of action, none of which i attribute to the Israeli population in general, who have as much right to a peaceful existence as anyone else.
The Hamas October slaughter was an outrageous act of terrorism that needed a proportionate response, assuming negotiations would be fruitless.

Many Israeli's have protested against their Government's actions, in the lack of negotiating effort to secure hostage release and the wanton destruction and genocide inflicted on the Palestinians. That doesn't make them anti-Semite, it just Israeli's giving a human response and disagreeing with their Government's actions.

 

[Spindle]

My question is much more theoretical - is it reasonable for a state to murder hundreds of civilians to achieve a military goal or to kill a couple of the bad guys?

I don't think it is.

Have you got an alternative solution?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Have you got an alternative solution?

Happy to answer questions if it goes both ways.

It's not my solution, but there are accommodations for such scenarios within IHL (which Israel purports to subscribe to);

"
IHL also bans indiscriminate methods of warfare, such as area bombardment, which involves dropping large, imprecise, bombs over populated urban areas through air strikes and ground shelling. Any attack that is not launched at a specific military objective, or which involves a method or means of warfare that cannot be conducted with precision, is considered an indiscriminate attack, and therefore a war crime.

A second tenet of IHL relevant to civilian casualties is the rule of proportionality. ‘Proportionality’ demands that when estimating the civilian deaths or injuries from an attack on a legitimate military target, the harm caused cannot be excessive (disproportionate) to the concrete and direct anticipated military advantage to be obtained by the attack. In other words, if the harm to the civilians or civilian objects is deemed too great or excessive to the direct military advantage anticipated, the attack cannot lawfully take place.
"

 

[cryrst]

I'd suggest a more appropriate question would be to ask why you're not interested in children being killed in their thousands.

I would firstly ask for the evidence on that. May I ask where you got the information on numbers.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

You can quibble over the civilian casualty and death numbers, a few thousand here, a hundred there, but we.ve all seen photographs of districts that have been levelled overnight by missile attacks and carpet bombing.
That kind of indiscriminate military action on civilian and UN 'safe' areas and hospitals is going to cause significant numbers of civilian deaths.
Add to that the withholding of food aid, medical supplies and the cutting off of water and electricity supplies , and you have genocide.

Meanwhile, significant numbers of Israeli's are thinking the same thing, and this seems to be under-reported.

"Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has fired the head of the nation's security service over its failure to anticipate the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas.
The Israeli cabinet met on Thursday evening to formally approve the early dismissal of Ronen Bar, who was appointed in October 2021 for a five-year term as the Shin Bet's chief.
Netanyahu announced his intention to sack Mr Bar in a video statement on Sunday, citing an "ongoing distrust" between the two men which he said had "grown over time".

The move sparked outrage and further inflamed anti-government demonstrations in Jerusalem, which saw thousands of Israelis join forces with protestors opposing Israel's renewed assault on Gaza." (BBC website 21.3.25)

 

[Spindle]

Happy to answer questions if it goes both ways.

It's not my solution, but there are accommodations for such scenarios within IHL (which Israel purports to subscribe to);

"
IHL also bans indiscriminate methods of warfare, such as area bombardment, which involves dropping large, imprecise, bombs over populated urban areas through air strikes and ground shelling. Any attack that is not launched at a specific military objective, or which involves a method or means of warfare that cannot be conducted with precision, is considered an indiscriminate attack, and therefore a war crime.

A second tenet of IHL relevant to civilian casualties is the rule of proportionality. ‘Proportionality’ demands that when estimating the civilian deaths or injuries from an attack on a legitimate military target, the harm caused cannot be excessive (disproportionate) to the concrete and direct anticipated military advantage to be obtained by the attack. In other words, if the harm to the civilians or civilian objects is deemed too great or excessive to the direct military advantage anticipated, the attack cannot lawfully take place.
"

This isn't a solution to anything, it's just a statement.

I would argue that each rocket fired at Israel is a war crime then because that certainly has no precision. The IDF will be dropping those unguided bombs using a system called CCIP which is "Computer Calculated Impact Point" which is effectively a modern bombsight, therefore they can argue that they are using 'precision' and that it isn't 'indiscriminate', and that it is for a 'military objective'.

But this isn't what I asked. Is a non violent way realistic? Only if Hamas are removed by their sponsors and a friendly government put into place. Is that realistic? No. So they are going to war with a group that don't care about their own people and only care about wiping out the Jews, so they need to be removed by force. Why should the IDF go in on foot and lose their people instead of just dropping a bomb on a target? Why do you think that the civilian casualty rate is any higher than similar conflicts? And why is everyone outraged at this but haven't been out in the streets protesting the Saudi war on Yemen which has ten times the casualties and has been going on for a decade, and actually has real famine on civilians? (unlike the Hamas lies about how they are all starving yet there's no sign of it)

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I would firstly ask for the evidence on that. May I ask where you got the information on numbers.

Sorry, you mean the information that thousands of kids have been killed..? Is that contested?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

This isn't a solution to anything, it's just a statement.

I would argue that each rocket fired at Israel is a war crime then because that certainly has no precision. The IDF will be dropping those unguided bombs using a system called CCIP which is "Computer Calculated Impact Point" which is effectively a modern bombsight, therefore they can argue that they are using 'precision' and that it isn't 'indiscriminate', and that it is for a 'military objective'.

But this isn't what I asked. Is a non violent way realistic? Only if Hamas are removed by their sponsors and a friendly government put into place. Is that realistic? No. So they are going to war with a group that don't care about their own people and only care about wiping out the Jews, so they need to be removed by force. Why should the IDF go in on foot and lose their people instead of just dropping a bomb on a target? Why do you think that the civilian casualty rate is any higher than similar conflicts? And why is everyone outraged at this but haven't been out in the streets protesting the Saudi war on Yemen which has ten times the casualties and has been going on for a decade, and actually has real famine on civilians? (unlike the Hamas lies about how they are all starving yet there's no sign of it)

Certainly Hamas are guilty of a great many war crimes, yes - but they are a terrorist organisation. An advanced military who claim to recognise international law is obviously held to a higher standard of conduct.

The IDF no doubt would argue those things, but they are very evidently untrue.

I don't really understand the framing of your last paragraph - a non-violent way to achieve what?

Why should the IDF pursue different approaches than just bombing the s*** out of densely populated areas..? Because international law states they must. Because military powers should have consideration for civilian life.

Civilian death tolls are obviously always contested but it's almost certainly higher than Ukraine, higher than a 20-year campaign in Afghanistan. Even the atrocities in Yemen that you reference; if the IDF maintains this rate of killing civilians, it will dwarf that total over the same time frame.

 

[Stirlingsays]

If Trump nukes Iran (because that would be what it would take to stop their nuclear warhead programme)....which he has threatened to do.....it'll make Gaza look like a drop in the ocean.

 

[ASCPFC]

If Trump nukes Iran (because that would be what it would take to stop their nuclear warhead programme)....which he has threatened to do.....it'll make Gaza look like a drop in the ocean.

They won't mind as long as there aren't female bus drivers.

 

[Stirlingsays]

They won't mind as long as there aren't female bus drivers.

I must admit, ever since we've had female football commentators my concern on nuclear exchanges has lessened considerably.

 

[Spindle]

Certainly Hamas are guilty of a great many war crimes, yes - but they are a terrorist organisation. An advanced military who claim to recognise international law is obviously held to a higher standard of conduct.

The IDF no doubt would argue those things, but they are very evidently untrue.

I don't really understand the framing of your last paragraph - a non-violent way to achieve what?

Why should the IDF pursue different approaches than just bombing the s*** out of densely populated areas..? Because international law states they must. Because military powers should have consideration for civilian life.

Civilian death tolls are obviously always contested but it's almost certainly higher than Ukraine, higher than a 20-year campaign in Afghanistan. Even the atrocities in Yemen that you reference; if the IDF maintains this rate of killing civilians, it will dwarf that total over the same time frame.

Yemen has 300,000 deaths from conflict and consequences of over ten years, it's about the same rate as Gaza, except Gaza is a densely populated city. Where's the weekly marches? Where's the outrage? Why aren't protestors outside BAE Systems and the likes who have been supplying Saudi with weapons and the means to deliver them?
Also, Afghanistan was never in a city, Iraq was and the deaths were far higher. Gaza is a densely populated area so that is the target. Is it going to work if they bomb the fields outside? Hamas are in the buildings so they hit the buildings. I blame Hamas for the casualties entirely, they are the ones insisting on fighting and hiding amongst the 'innocent'.

And, the non violent way to achieve peace of course. Let's hear it.

I have little time for the cause of these people, they aren't a nation, they aren't a race, they aren't a religion. It's all made up and stirred up, and most of the arab world doesn't even want anything to do with this group of troublemakers. They could live well if they wanted to but they insist, as a people, on this campaign which serves them all so badly (even the leaders who are now all dead).

 

[Spindle]

They won't mind as long as there aren't female bus drivers.

I'm no trucker but that truck that nearly went off that bridge in the USA was driven by a women. It wasn't her fault, the pickup driver is in deep s*** over it, but if you watch the video for some reason she just turns the wheel left herself and drives it off through the barrier. Maybe a trucker can explain what she was doing because it makes no sense to me.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Yemen has 300,000 deaths from conflict and consequences of over ten years, it's about the same rate as Gaza, except Gaza is a densely populated city. Where's the weekly marches? Where's the outrage? Why aren't protestors outside BAE Systems and the likes who have been supplying Saudi with weapons and the means to deliver them?
Also, Afghanistan was never in a city, Iraq was and the deaths were far higher. Gaza is a densely populated area so that is the target. Is it going to work if they bomb the fields outside? Hamas are in the buildings so they hit the buildings. I blame Hamas for the casualties entirely, they are the ones insisting on fighting and hiding amongst the 'innocent'.

And, the non violent way to achieve peace of course. Let's hear it.

I have little time for the cause of these people, they aren't a nation, they aren't a race, they aren't a religion. It's all made up and stirred up, and most of the arab world doesn't even want anything to do with this group of troublemakers. They could live well if they wanted to but they insist, as a people, on this campaign which serves them all so badly (even the leaders who are now all dead).

Again, be good if you can engage with some questions if you are going to keep asking me them.

Saudi Arabia are also a state who breach international law and commit war crimes, yes. There are many others we can list if you want.

Sure, you can accuse some protestors of hypocrisy if that makes you feel better.

Ok, let's accept your answer that "achieving peace" is the objective here - have the actions of Israel over the last 18 months helped or hindered that goal, in your opinion?

The idea that Palestinians "could live well if they wanted to" has decades of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Again, be good if you can engage with some questions if you are going to keep asking me them.

Saudi Arabia are also a state who breach international law and commit war crimes, yes. There are many others we can list if you want.

Sure, you can accuse some protestors of hypocrisy if that makes you feel better.

Ok, let's accept your answer that "achieving peace" is the objective here - have the actions of Israel over the last 18 months helped or hindered that goal, in your opinion?

The idea that Palestinians "could live well if they wanted to" has decades of evidence to the contrary.

Peace can only be achieved when Hamas is eradicated

 

[ASCPFC]

I'm no trucker but that truck that nearly went off that bridge in the USA was driven by a women. It wasn't her fault, the pickup driver is in deep s*** over it, but if you watch the video for some reason she just turns the wheel left herself and drives it off through the barrier. Maybe a trucker can explain what she was doing because it makes no sense to me.

I presume she saw there was a closing down sale at a shoe shop in that direction.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Peace can only be achieved when Hamas is eradicated

You can't bomb an ideology to death - you just create another whole generation of radicalised Palestinians who go onto commit terror attacks, and the cycle continues.

 

[Penge Eagle]

You can't bomb an ideology to death - you just create another whole generation of radicalised Palestinians who go onto commit terror attacks, and the cycle continues.

Says who? Egypt and Jordan lost their war with Israel and don't bother them.

Your solution is?

 

[Penge Eagle]

Civilian death tolls are obviously always contested but it's almost certainly higher than Ukraine, higher than a 20-year campaign in Afghanistan. Even the atrocities in Yemen that you reference; if the IDF maintains this rate of killing civilians, it will dwarf that total over the same time frame.

Do you have data to back this up?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Says who? Egypt and Jordan lost their war with Israel and don't bother them.

Your solution is?

Says basic logic.

I have no idea why people keep referencing a 'solution' - I'm suggesting Israel should defend its borders and stop committing war crimes.

Genocide and mass displacement of people is certainly not the solution.