IDF Spokesman: We bombed Wafa hospital [W:19]

[Mr. Invisible]

Right! It's not like the Gazan Palestinians voted for Hamas.:doh

First of all, please go back to what Ecofarm said about Hamas losing its democratic nature when they started attacking their political rivals. (Hamas takes control of Gaza Strip - USATODAY.com)

Secondly, that took place eight years ago. Many people have been born since then that have nothing to do with the voting in Hamas. By just saying that people eight years ago voted for Hamas and thus that means that everyone living in the Gaza Strip now must suffer through the bombings and destruction, you are blaming people that had nothing to do with being born into their current situation. Essentially, you are victim blaming.


Also, it ignores why people voted for Hamas in the first place. It didn't have anything to do with religious fundamentalism or Israel, but rather it was due "to the failure and corruption of the ruling Fatah party and to the accurate perception that Hamas was better organized and free of rampant corruption" and "Beyond Fatah’s corruption, there was also the fact that Fatah’s way of doing things had gained the Palestinians nothing in their dealings with Israel." (Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections: Questions you need answered | Jewish Voice for Peace)

 

[Mr. Invisible]

So Hamas militants can easily disassemble and carry rockets and rocket-launching technology down multiple flights of stairs and out of the building (without Israel calling off the attack, because it would then provide no benefit whatsoever), but it's somehow not possible to evacuate patients (who I've heard may not have even been in that hospital) in the same time frame?

That ignores the fact that carrying multiple inanimate objects out of a building is much easier than carrying out injured people, some of whom may be hooked up to machines or what not. There is a massive difference.

 

[Moon]

That ignores the fact that carrying multiple inanimate objects out of a building is much easier than carrying out injured people, some of whom may be hooked up to machines or what not. There is a massive difference.

True, and it makes one wonder why Hamas would choose such a location to set up its weaponry to attack Israel. Ever think that maybe it's Hamas that has total disregard for the Palestinian civilians?

 

[Sababa]

Al Jazeera didn't put any spin on it.

UN shelter in Gaza 'struck by Israeli shells' - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

First three paragraphs:


Unlike our US media, they presented both sides.

except for the headline.

 

[Sababa]

You know what's funny? When I read that last sentence you wrote, I thought you were speaking about Israel, since it had bombed the hospital, intentionally killing innocent Palestinians, since it believed (or knewC) that terrorists were mixed in among them.

another lie

 

[jimbo]

This is not ok. It's disgusting that Hamas revert to crap like this and it is disgusting that the IDF will not recognise that a hospital housing sick and injured civilians along with health care personnel is not a legitimate target.

So what's your solution? You either take out military positions regrdless of their location, or Hamas is going to place all their military positions inside schools, hospitals, and other places where large quantities of civilians are located, whether by choice or by force.

 

[Serenity]

So what's your solution? You either take out military positions regrdless of their location, or your Hamas is going to place all their military positions inside schools, hospitals, and other places where large quantities of civilians are located, whether by choice or by force.

My solution? Dismiss posts that are backward enough to refer to Hamas as "your Hamas".

 

[jimbo]

My solution? Dismiss posts that are backward enough to refer to Hamas as "your Hamas".

Serenity, that is a typo. I had no intention of attempting to tie you to the problem. I'll see if I can remove it.

 

[MadLib]

The murkiness is merely the reasonable need to do such without the time or ability to provide warning. For example, an active battlefield wherein a force occupies a hospital as a retreat and continues to fire on enemy becomes a viable target virtually instantaneously and without regard for notice.

The website references the Siege of Sarajevo, an active battlefield (and a prime example of what indiscriminate warfare against civilians actually looks like), as a hypothetical example of how attacking a hospital may legally be carried out. I don't know to what extent it's codified that the warring party must request that its enemy cease using a hospital as a firing location, but if so, Israel may have violated international law if it didn't provide adequate demands for Hamas to stop. Whether such a rule is reasonable or not is something else.

 

[Tucker Case]

The IRA did not need to bomb the locations.

"Need" is often a debatable concept.

 

[ecofarm]

The website references the Siege of Sarajevo, an active battlefield (and a prime example of what indiscriminate warfare against civilians actually looks like), as a hypothetical example of how attacking a hospital may legally be carried out. I don't know to what extent it's codified that the warring party must request that its enemy cease using a hospital as a firing location, but if so, Israel may have violated international law if it didn't provide adequate demands for Hamas to stop. Whether such a rule is reasonable or not is something else.

You don't think 3 days of repeated warnings that were disregarded as rocket fire continued from the hospital is sufficient? Did Israel need to eat rockets from the location for week? How long do you think Israel should have been forced to accept rocket fire without putting an end to it? I think about 5 minutes. 3 days is ridiculous.

 

[ecofarm]

"Need" is often a debatable concept.

Decent people define need as defense not terrorism.

 

[Tucker Case]

Decent people define need as defense not terrorism.

I would bet that Hamas would argue that they are attacking out of "defense", not terrorism. :shrug:

Terms like "defense" and "terrorism" are worthless if they are not strictly defined and based on behavior rather than politics.

those words have become so bastardized by politics that they are totally meaningless at this point.

 

[ecofarm]

I would bet that Hamas would argue that they are attacking out of "defense", not terrorism. :shrug:

Who cares? Do they decide, for you, what they are? Do you just take everyone's word for whom they are and what they're doing? Surely you have the ability to make an objective assessment?

Your statement is nonsense and means nothing.

 

[Tucker Case]

Who cares? Do they decide, for you, what they are? Do you just take everyone's word for whom they are and what they're doing? Surely you have the ability to make an objective assessment?

What do you base an objective assessment on? If I pick ratio of civilian casualties to combatant casualties, the IRA was superior to most of the combatant groups involved in the troubles. The RUC (the Northern Irish police) had a significantly worse civilian to combatant ratio. Thus, using that "obejective" metric, the IRA was not a terrorist organization.

Or how do I define Ft Hood? A military base is definitely a legitimate military target. Should I consider that to be a military strike or terrorism?

And in order to define something as defense, should I look at the realistic danger posed requiring "defending" against, or should I consider it to be any potential threat no matter how unlikley it is to lead to casualties?

Are the rockets being fired from this hospital landing in a place that actually puts people's lives in danger, or are most of them falling harmless out in the desert?

And while we're at it, lets incorporate that scenario into our "need" equation. Does Israel NEED to bomb this hospital? The reasoning is that rockets are being fired from it, but if 99.9999% of the rockets are landing in an uninhabited area, the need is significantly reduced, no? It certainly opens up the possibility of looking for alternatives to bombing the hospital, no?

Should I define terrorism as "targeting civilians"? If so, Hiroshima was terrorism. Should I define it based on the legality of the fighting force involved? If so, the founding fathers were a bunch of terrorists.

The point is that "need", "defense", and terrorism" are now totally subjective terms. One person will always have a different assessment of those things than another will.


I cannot make an "objective" determination of those things, and you cannot do it either. The best I can do is what I consider a fair assessment. I believe I did that earlier. I placed ultimate responsibility on Hamas for putting the civilians at risk to begin with. I believe that Hamas is the more "evil" group in the equation by a long shot.

That being said, I don't always agree with Israel's choices in response to Hamas' incomprehensible actions. I don't agree with how they are handling this particular bombing, for example, but as I said earlier in the thread, I can't blame them for handling it the way that they are in the sense that it's smart. It helps foster the allegiance of those who support Israel unquestioningly by creating the appearance of "unfair criticism" in the face of "evil".

It's a smart move politically. The people who generally criticize Israel would do so even if they dropped puppies on the hospital. The people who generally defend Israel would do so if even they used Palestinian babies as basketballs.

Don't take my choice to point out the subjectivity inherent in your arguments as anything other than trying to point out the subjectivity of your arguments to you.

 

[ecofarm]

What do you base an objective assessment on?

You really don't know? Wow.

Well, if you're unable to objectively assess anything, I guess there's no debate to have.

The people who generally criticize Israel would do so even if they dropped puppies on the hospital. The people who generally defend Israel would do so if even they used Palestinian babies as basketballs.

Nonsense. For what it's worth, I'd oppose bombing with puppies.

 

[Tucker Case]

You really don't know? Wow.

Well, if you're unable to objectively assess anything, I guess there's no debate to have.

Nobody is able to objectively assess subjective, emotionally-charged terms. Nobody. Not you, not me, not Jesus.

It's like trying to "objectively" asses whether an amoeba is happy.

Nonsense. For what it's worth, I'd oppose bombing with puppies.

Meh, you're not someone who generally criticizes of Israel so I would expect that response. You'd probably support Palestinian baby basketball, though. :2razz:

 

[ecofarm]

Nobody is able to objectively assess subjective, emotionally-charged terms. Nobody. Not you, not me, not Jesus.

It's like trying to "objectively" asses whether an amoeba is happy.

That's just nihilism.

 

[Tucker Case]

That's just nihilism.

 

[CJ 2.0]

maybe, I find it hard to believe all the different sources on this - much like the UN schools are weapons depots. ( or not depending).

What about when this go 'round is over?Is Israel going to replace the hospital?

F*** that. Hamas had enough cement to build 20 hospitals. They chose tunnels to target israelis while placing their command and control in hospitals.

The Palestinians should let us know when they are ready to rejoin humanity. Until then, sicks for them but actions have consequences

 

[CJ 2.0]

I read it struck by Israeli shells. Doubt we will ever know the truth.

I think we do now.

But knowing and acknowledging are different things.

So where are we on that?

 

[Apocalypse]

You know what's funny? When I read that last sentence you wrote, I thought you were speaking about Israel, since it had bombed the hospital, intentionally killing innocent Palestinians, since it believed (or knewC) that terrorists were mixed in among them.

No, no it didn't. But I'm glad you find that funny, tells me a lot about why you sided with whom you did.