Simple question what should Israel have done after being attacked by Hamas?

[ModernDiogenes]

I'm not calling you a narcissist, I'm saying just because some says something and isn't a narcissist doesn't mean it's any truer. You disagree when Trump has said this in the past, but you agree today. Everyone changes their mind, I get it, but it's still loses reserve for me. Why? Because we have an election coming in 24' that holds greater risks for our country. Trump doesn't need the benefit of the horseshoe effect come then.

I normally agree with most you say, and I'll reiterate, I don't think anything is wrong with your mental state.

But, I think the UN is important, and making it work better is always on the table, progress is good. But, thinking it's useless to me is ludicrous. World leaders need to communicate, and the UN has held people responsible for war crimes in the past. I see no reason for them to stop with Israel if they commit them.

I never meant to imply it is useless. If I did I misstated. I think it is horribly flawed, critically so, because many of the nations in it have atrocious human rights records that indicate the kind of nations they are, which are the kind that would not hesitate to use a body devoted to world peace to promote their own agendas that are diametrically opposed to peace.

So not useless. Just horribly impaired and hypocritical.

One would very much like to see it rise to some level in remotely keeping to the promise it held when it was shiny and new. However. the pragmatic realist in me can't evade taking note of its long history of failures in that regard.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I never meant to imply it is useless. If I did I misstated. I think it is horribly flawed, critically so, because many of the nations in it have atrocious human rights records that indicate the kind of nations they are, which are the kind that would not hesitate to use a body devoted to world peace to promote their own agendas that are diametrically opposed to peace.

So not useless. Just horribly impaired and hypocritical.

One would very much like to see it rise to some level in remotely keeping to the promise it held when it was shiny and new. However. the pragmatic realist in me can't evade taking note of its long history of failures in that regard.

I agree! Glad we straighten that out.

 

[Valaisee]

I have. Several times


Because its nonsense.

Hamas lives in densely packed Gaza, of course there are always civilians around, where else would they be?

But even if Hamas is using civiluans as shields that is no excuse for Israel commiting war crimes against civilians.

Really? Hamas using human shield is "nonsense" to you?
Evidence for this can be easily found, this was my first search result for example: https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf.
And no, Gaza strip is not 100% full of buildings and civilians - there are many places for Hamas to be far from civilians.
Only the most extreme Hamas supporters in this forum have got so far from reality to defend Hamas as you in this claim, and you call yourself "neutral" .

And, you still ignore this part:

You completely ignore that what Hamas did was worse than "kill":
They executed captured civilians.
They did [extras gruesome stuff I don't want to describe] on top of killing.
They killed almost all Jews under their control in a Nazi style genocide.
Israel never did those things.

For the second time - why?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Really? Hamas using human shield is "nonsense" to you?
Evidence for this can be easily found, this was my first search result for example: https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf.
And no, Gaza strip is not 100% full of buildings and civilians - there are many places for Hamas to be far from civilians.
Only the most extreme Hamas supporters in this forum have got so far from reality to defend Hamas as you in this claim, and you call yourself "neutral" .

And, you still ignore this part:

For the second time - why?

Read more carefully.

Hamas using civilians as human shields does not excuse Israel commiting war crimes against civilians.

 

[Valaisee]

Read more carefully.

Hamas using civilians as human shields does not excuse Israel commiting war crimes against civilians.

How is this related to what I said - I never claim it does? Why are you ignoring my actual question for the third time?

 

[NolanVoyd]

How is this related to what I said - I never claim it does? Why are you ignoring my actual question for the third time?

Yes. You said the following. Post 316.

"You completely ignore that most of those deaths are due to civilians used as human shields by Palestinian militants."


That is you using the fact that Hamas uses human shoelds as an excuse for Israel commiting war crimes against civilians.

If a bank robber grabs a 20 year old teller as a hostage, are you justified in shooting her in the face and blaming the bank robber for her death?

 

[Valaisee]

Yes. You said the following. Post 316.

"You completely ignore that most of those deaths are due to civilians used as human shields by Palestinian militants."


That is you using the fact that Hamas uses human shoelds as an excuse for Israel commiting war crimes against civilians.

If a bank robber grabs a 20 year old teller as a hostage, are you justified in shooting her in the face and blaming the bank robber for her death?

Your example is irrelevant because a robber is not a militant in a war, in war - if a soldier takes a civilian as hostage the enemy can target the soldier even if the hostage will die.
International law clearly states that it's legal to shoot at military targets even if it will kill civilian human shields, and the blame for the civilian death is on the one who uses it.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Your example is irrelevant because a robber is not a militant in a war, in war - if a soldier takes a civilian as hostage the enemy can target the soldier even if the hostage will die.
International law clearly states that it's legal to shoot at military targets even if it will kill civilian human shields, and the blame for the civilian death is on the one who uses it.

You said the following. Post 316.

"You completely ignore that most of those deaths are due to civilians used as human shields by Palestinian militants."


That is you using the fact that Hamas uses human shoelds as an excuse for Israel commiting war crimes against civilians.

 

[Valaisee]

You said the following. Post 316.

"You completely ignore that most of those deaths are due to civilians used as human shields by Palestinian militants."


That is you using the fact that Hamas uses human shoelds as an excuse for Israel commiting war crimes against civilians.

I'm not excusing any war crime - I explain why the deaths of Palestinian human shields are war crimes done by Hamas - not Israel.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I'm not excusing any war crime - I explain why the deaths of Palestinian human shields are war crimes done by Hamas - not Israel.

Its both.

Using civilian as a human shield is a war crime. Hamas is guilty of that.

Targeting civilians is also a war crime. Istael is guilty of that.

Hamas is not responsible for Israel's choices. Israel is.

The fact that Hamas is using human shields does not justify Israel killing them.

 

[Valaisee]

Its both.

Using civilian as a human shield is a war crime. Hamas is guilty of that.

Targeting civilians is also a war crime. Istael is guilty of that.

Hamas is not responsible for Israel's choices. Israel is.

The fact that Hamas is using human shields does not justify Israel killing them.

Israel is not targeting civilians, it only targets Hamas.
And yes, international law clearly justifies targeting Hamas despite killing human shields.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Israel is not targeting civilians, it only targets Hamas.
And yes, international law clearly justifies targeting Hamas despite killing human shields.

The fact that Hamas is using human shields does not justify Israel killing them.

 

[Valaisee]

The fact that Hamas is using human shields does not justify Israel killing them.

International law disagree with you, you cannot in one hand call "war crimes" and in other hand ignore international law.

 

[NolanVoyd]

International law disagree with you, you cannot in one hand call "war crimes" and in other hand ignore international law.

No. International law agrees with me.

Because human shields are civilians, they are not legitimate objects of attack, even where they are acting in a voluntary capacity, as they are not taking direct part in hostilities.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-872-bouchie-de-belle.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj80q_o8P2BAxUXADQIHRIFCtAQFnoECA0QBg&usg=AOvVaw2Tp2p5BLs-QDMVUFPJ_Pid

Quit making stuff up as you go, its embarassing.

 

[Valaisee]

No. International law agrees with me.

Because human shields are civilians, they are not legitimate objects of attack, even where they are acting in a voluntary capacity, as they are not taking direct part in hostilities.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-872-bouchie-de-belle.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj80q_o8P2BAxUXADQIHRIFCtAQFnoECA0QBg&usg=AOvVaw2Tp2p5BLs-QDMVUFPJ_Pid

Quit making stuff up as you go, its embarassing.

Irrelevant because I already wrote that Israel does not target these human shields. Israel only target Hamas, and sometimes human shields near them are killed - which is justified by international law.

 

[LouC]

Simple question what should Israel have done after being attacked by Hamas?​

Turned the entirety of Gaza into a rubble pile.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Irrelevant because I already wrote that Israel does not target these human shields. Israel only target Hamas, and sometimes human shields near them are killed - which is justified by international law.

No its not. I keep proving you wrong and you keep splitting the hair even finer.

Its embarassing.

 

[Valaisee]

No its not. I keep proving you wrong and you keep splitting the hair even finer.

Its embarassing.

I suspect you don't know the difference between "target" and "kill": while "targeting" civilians is always illegal (supported by the source you brought), "killing" is sometimes legal.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I suspect you don't know the difference between "target" and "kill": while "targeting" civilians is always illegal (supported by the source you brought), "killing" is sometimes legal.

Bombing a building full of Hamas and human shileds is is illegal.

Saying, oh i was targeting Hamas not the civilians isnt an excuse.

Dont be silly.

 

[Valaisee]

Bombing a building full of Hamas and human shileds is is illegal.

Yes, it is legal by international law if Hamas was targeted.

I'm happy we found out the root cause of the misunderstanding of international law that made you to write many wrong thing against Israel - it rarely happens in this forum.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Yes, it is legal by international law if Hamas was targeted.

No its not.

I proved you wrong on that already.

killing human shields and then saying "......but, but, but....i wasnt targeting them I was targeting Hamas who was hiding behind them", is childish nonsense. Not a legal justification for killing human shields.

 

[US&THEM]

I am confused why did Hamas use AK-47’s and other rifles? Why not just handguns? According to all right wing gun zealots handguns are much better and cause death?
Maybe the NRA can explain

 

[Valaisee]

No its not.

I proved you wrong on that already.

killing human shields and then saying "......but, but, but....i wasnt targeting them I was targeting Hamas who was hiding behind them", is childish nonsense. Not a legal justification for killing human shields.

I had some time to read through the source you gave here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-872-bouchie-de-belle.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj80q_o8P2BAxUXADQIHRIFCtAQFnoECA0QBg&usg=AOvVaw2Tp2p5BLs-QDMVUFPJ_Pid

And I found some interesting quotes:
page 897:

In short, human shields do not lose their protection as civilians. They are simply close to a military objective and, as a result, ‘these civilians will bear the risk of falling victim to a legitimate attack on the shielded object’.

page 899:

Military objectives protected by human shields do not cease to be legitimate targets for attack simply because of the presence of those shields.

page 900:

The presence of human shields will not therefore systematically prevent an attack – even if conducting an attack despite their presence may have a considerable media and political impact.

Even your own source disagree with you.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I had some time to read through the source you gave here:

And I found some interesting quotes:
page 897:

page 899:

page 900:


Even your own source disagree with you.

Ok.

Fair enough. Targeting Hamas and killibg a bunch of innocent civilians in the process is not illegal. Do you think it is a good strategy?

Seems to me it is strategically stupid because it is guaranteed to create more terrorists than it kills, perpetuating the cycle of violence that they have been locked into for decades, and morally it is reprehensible.

 

[Valaisee]

Ok.

Fair enough. Targeting Hamas and killibg a bunch of innocent civilians in the process is not illegal. Do you think it is a good strategy?

Seems to me it is strategically stupid because it is guaranteed to create more terrorists than it kills, perpetuating the cycle of violence that they have been locked into for decades, and morally it is reprehensible.

I do think Israel needs to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible, but as a second priority after the elimination of Hamas.
While I agree that "the cycle of violence" can create future terrorist - there is another independent source of terrorist that thrives regardless of any action Israel will do - and it is radical Islam.

In short:
The horrific terror attacked done by Hamas (a radical Islam organization) proves that it was a huge mistake to let radical Islam get too organized and powerful near Israel borders.
While the idea of radical Islam cannot be destroyed, the most Israel can do is contain it by destroying any radical Islam organization like Hamas to a point radical Muslims will be weak and isolated.