The Dahiya Doctrine: Israel's military doctrine of mass civilian casualties

[oneworld2]

You can't even write a message on an internet board saying what you support.
Do you support Hamas or not? What is the problem?

I've stated my position on this dozens of times already and it has never changed and doesn't change whether it's this conflict or any other.

I support actions that are legal under international law and denounce those that aren't but prefer to work towards peaceful resolutions as a default.

That's a pretty solid and reasonable position.

So, where it relates to Hamas actions, I support their attacks against Israeli military targets but denounce their war crimes when they target civilians etc

Again , wholly reasonable and guided by what is legal and what isn't.

NOW

Seeing as this is supposed to be an " honest debate" ( with you ? lol )

To your positions

I won't ask because you have shown yourself to lie like others breathe.

What I will say is that you support and/or defend /deny/ lie about EVERY war crime the IDF engages in

The difference between us, apart from your dishonest characterizations and slurs against others, is that.....................

Your criteria is based on who has committed the act, not whether it is legitimate /legal or not.

Massive difference and shows who holds the legal/moral high ground here and it ain't you.

 

[oneworld2]

Did HAMAS attack Israel on October 6th 2023?

No, you are poor at this subject, abjectly poor.

 

[oneworld2]

Sorry, I don't respond to stupid strawman remarks. Get back to me when you are ready to discuss this issue in a more mature manner.

Good luck with that.

 

[oneworld2]

That wasn't the result of operation cast lead. That was Hamas deliberately working to convince the Israeli intel agencies that they had no plans to attack and wanted to work towards peace, so that Israel would be unprepared when they did attack.

And you know this how?

Recall Hamas offered a 10 year truce and support for a two state solution based on the 1967 borders, the internationally recognized position wrt the application of international law after the Cast Lead massacre.

Israel rejected it, like it has rejected it at the UN every November for around 40years,

 

[Fledermaus]

No, you are poor at this subject, abjectly poor.

So, yes. They did.

 

[Fledermaus]

And you know this how?

Recall Hamas offered a 10 year truce and support for a two state solution based on the 1967 borders, the internationally recognized position wrt the application of international law after the Cast Lead massacre.

Israel rejected it, like it has rejected it at the UN every November for around 40years,

Cast Lead massacre.

 

[oneworld2]

Cast Lead massacre.

The only thing that is truly funny is what you cannot bring yourself to talk about in that post of mine.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

And you know this how?

Because we now have information showing them training for Oct 7 years ago, leaking fake communications talking about how weak their military was after Cast Lead, and the fact that oct 7th clearly wasn't a spur of the moment attack.

Recall Hamas offered a 10 year truce and support for a two state solution based on the 1967 borders, the internationally recognized position wrt the application of international law after the Cast Lead massacre.

Israel rejected it, like it has rejected it at the UN every November for around 40years,

Well, we are in agreement here.

 

[oneworld2]

So, yes. They did.

No they didn't, what don't you understand about that?

You tow appear to be rank amateurs on this it seems

 

[oneworld2]

Because we now have information showing them training for Oct 7 years ago, leaking fake communications talking about how weak their military was after Cast Lead, and the fact that oct 7th clearly wasn't a spur of the moment attack.

Nobody disputes that they trained well and hard for the attack on Israel BUT it is 2023, note not 2008-9 which was the Cast lead time frame.

Well, we are in agreement here.

So, they offered a 10 year truce etc for being allowed to run the Strip like any other people run their own territory and in a internationally recognized state solution.

That didn't happen because Israel rejected it because they have never wanted a two state solution imo

In the absence of knowing what would have happened had Israel agreed to that offer, we cannot just assume that Hamas would have spent the next 14 years planning to attack Southern Israel. Which is basically what you said was the case.

Do you understand why I questioned it now ?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

In the absence of knowing what would have happened had Israel agreed to that offer, we cannot just assume that Hamas would have spent the next 14 years planning to attack Southern Israel. Which is basically what you said was the case.

Yeah, but Israel rejected it didn't they. I didn't say they would have planned Oct 7 regardless. I say what they did do given what actually happened. Not what might have happened.

 

[Fledermaus]

No they didn't, what don't you understand about that?

You tow(sic) appear to be rank amateurs on this it seems(sic)

Ah, it was 10/7....

 

[Fledermaus]

The only thing that is truly funny is what you cannot bring yourself to talk about in that post of mine.

Cast Lead is an example of LOW civilian casualties vs. combatants.

If it was a massacre that wouldn't be true.

 

[Apocalypse]

I've stated my position on this dozens of times already and it has never changed and doesn't change whether it's this conflict or any other.

I support actions that are legal under international law and denounce those that aren't but prefer to work towards peaceful resolutions as a default.

That's a pretty solid and reasonable position.

So, where it relates to Hamas actions, I support their attacks against Israeli military targets but denounce their war crimes when they target civilians etc

Again , wholly reasonable and guided by what is legal and what isn't.

NOW

Seeing as this is supposed to be an " honest debate" ( with you ? lol )

To your positions

I won't ask because you have shown yourself to lie like others breathe.

What I will say is that you support and/or defend /deny/ lie about EVERY war crime the IDF engages in

The difference between us, apart from your dishonest characterizations and slurs against others, is that.....................

Your criteria is based on who has committed the act, not whether it is legitimate /legal or not.

Massive difference and shows who holds the legal/moral high ground here and it ain't you.

Wow talk about being triggered by a simple question.

Just say - "I don't support Hamas".
It's easy.
Here: I don't support Hamas.
Or if you do, say "I support Hamas".
Why is this so hard for you?

 

[oneworld2]

Yeah, but Israel rejected it didn't they. I didn't say they would have planned Oct 7 regardless. I say what they did do given what actually happened. Not what might have happened.

No read your post back, it clearly makes out that the offer was disingenuous when you have no real evidence to support that, or haven't prevented any thus far.

 

[oneworld2]

Ah, it was 10/7....

Correct, that's what happens when you get people who are only here to goad and maybe because it's trending.

 

[oneworld2]

Cast Lead is an example of LOW civilian casualties vs. combatants.

If it was a massacre that wouldn't be true.

Bravely avoiding everything else in that post you singled two words out for debate.

Your tactics are completely obvious and pretty pathetic tbh

I would say when one side doesn't even manage double figured and the other side has 1398 people killed it's fair to refer to that as a massacre.

I get that you hold Palestinian lives as worth less than Israeli ones but the figures are the figures and the adjective I used stands up.

 

[oneworld2]

Wow talk about being triggered by a simple question.

Just say - "I don't support Hamas".
It's easy.
Here: I don't support Hamas.
Or if you do, say "I support Hamas".
Why is this so hard for you?

No triggering of me here.

You asked an I answered in detail so as to scupper your dishonest mischaracterizations of people opinions/positions

What is actually noticeable is that you never denied that your own positions are the illegal/immoral ones and that you claim of others only actually applies to yourself.

You support atrocities and war crimes if its the IDF doing them, it's just so obvious and shows how immoral and hypocritical your views are, seeing as they are the ONLY ones that actually support war crimes/state terrorism.

 

[Fledermaus]

Bravely avoiding everything else in that post you singled two words out for debate.

Your tactics are completely obvious and pretty pathetic tbh

I would say when one side doesn't even manage double figured and the other side has 1398 people killed it's fair to refer to that as a massacre.

I get that you hold Palestinian lives as worth less than Israeli ones but the figures are the figures and the adjective I used stands up.

Your rather biased opinion doesn't change the fact that Cast Lead had a low civilian to combatant number.

It wasn't a massacre.

 

[Fledermaus]

Correct, that's what happens when you get people who are only here to goad and maybe because it's trending.

Interesting how you like to ascribe evil intent to everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[lwf]

Uh....no it hasn’t. There have been terrorist attacks in Israel before. None of those magically changed anything about Israel’s settler colonialism, or the root causes of radicalization.

Exactly. That's why Hamas' terrorist attack against Israel served no strategic purpose other than to start a bloody war that is going to kill tens of thousands of innocents. This is Hamas' doing, not Israel's.

Israel’s actions have only ensured the strengthening of extremism in the region by killing vast numbers of innocent civilians.

If Israel hadn't taken the actions it is taking, it would have meant the future deaths of even vaster numbers of innocent Israelis at the hands of genocidal terrorist groups that believe the only good Jew is a dead Jew. Israel has responded to this terrorist attack in the best possible way that will result in the fewest number of innocent deaths. Hamas has ensured through its war crime of using Palestinians as human shields and then declaring war on the civilians of a much stronger neighboring state that in spite of Israel's best efforts, the number of innocent casualties of this war will still be well into the tens of thousands.

That's Hamas' choice. Not Israel's. Hamas chose to attack. Self-defense is a choice imposed on you by another. It is not your choice.

 

[lwf]

"But mom, he made me do it." Doesn't work for children, doesn't work here.
The IDF took it's marching orders from who? Hamas or Netanyahu.

It does work here. If you are attacked by someone who intends to strangle you to death and you put a knife in his heart, is that your fault or his? Did he make you kill him?

 

[lwf]

Then what?

Great question. My hope would be that Israel will find some way to repair relations with Palestinians, find a new PM, and learn from its past colonialist mistakes. Given recent history, my assumption is that little will change and a new breed of Jew-hating terrorists radicalized by the innocent loss of life in Gaza will fill the power vacuum.

But none of that should change Israel's calculus in the current war in Gaza. The damage done to Israeli-Palestinian relations in this war in Gaza is notable and worrisome, but it is irrelevant to the task at hand. Israel's hands are tied, unless there is some other reasonable strategy available that I'm not seeing. Hamas has given it no other choice. The horrors left in the wake of this assault and the ones yet to come are on Hamas' hands.

 

[Apocalypse]

No triggering of me here.

You asked an I answered in detail so as to scupper your dishonest mischaracterizations of people opinions/positions

What is actually noticeable is that you never denied that your own positions are the illegal/immoral ones and that you claim of others only actually applies to yourself.

You support atrocities and war crimes if its the IDF doing them, it's just so obvious and shows how immoral and hypocritical your views are, seeing as they are the ONLY ones that actually support war crimes/state terrorism.

No, you're avoiding answering if you support Hamas or not in the most simplest of ways.
Ask anyone else here if he supports Hamas or not and see how easy it is to provide an answer - why are you special?

I support IDF. I don't support Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah and Islamist fundamentalist terror groups, especially not ones that have a genocidal goal.
Why can't you say "I don't support Hamas"? Someone is threatening you?
Why can I stand behind my opinion without having any embarrassment or shame of it and you can't I wonder?

 

[lwf]

So if Hamas doesn't care about Palestinian lives, neither should Israel (or apparently, anyone else in the world)? What if Hamas was hiding in country X instead of Palestine? Would indiscriminate attacks on the locations where Hamas was hiding likewise be justified?

I think the disconnect (ignoring any ethnic biases either way) in the view of Israel's actions is due to differing views of the Palestinian's themselves. Some seem happy to ascribe guilt by association, even though Hamas is a dictatorship, and I doubt the average Palestinian is particularly socially or geographically mobile. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization, controlling, I suspect, the vast majority of weapons in the state, and yet, somehow the Palestinians deserve to suffer for 'allowing' them to hide amongst them? Maybe the large majority are eager for blood, but it is equally plausible that they are closer to being hostages themselves then accomplices in this conflict, and are simply being doubly victimized.

If Israel could, should they target the Hamas members currently holding Israelis hostage regardless of the loss of Israeli life or are those lives somehow more innocent than the Palestinian civilians that are being killed?

There is admittedly a worrying trend in some Israeli allies to ascribe to innocent Palestinians guilt by association with Hamas. However, what many on the left fail to see is that the tactics used in the current assault on Gaza by a hypothetical country that actually cared as much about innocent Palestinian lives as they do, (and far more than Hamas does,) and the tactics of Israel who they presume label innocent Palestinians guilty by association with Hamas, would in fact be indistinguishable.

I don't know if Israel on the whole believes all Palestinians are guilty by association. I don't know if any members of the IDF are shedding any tears for the Palestinians they are killing when they strike the terrorists hiding beneath them. Some of them certainly don't view them as human. War tends to do that to a soldier. But the reason I don't know one way or the other is because they are engaging in lawful, strategically sound warfare in Gaza according to the Geneva Conventions, they are following well-known proven military strategy, and they are doing what they can to limit collateral damage and civilian loss of life. The US military would be doing the same, because this is how you fight a terrorist government and military embedded in a densely populated urban center in order to use civilians as human shields. Innocent civilians are killed in such a war en masse, largely by your own legitimate military strikes. This is why using human shields is a war crime, and killing human shields is not a war crime. The US military would not be killing these innocent civilians out of hatred, genocide, or revenge, they would be killing them because this is the proper military strategy to deal with this particular enemy. Using human shields is not a legitimate military defense, and should not prevent a military strike when no other options are available.

Maybe a majority of IDF soldiers really do have hatred, genocide, and revenge in their hearts. It certainly wouldn't be a surprising revelation. Who knows? But their strategy doesn't indicate this. They are using a sound, dispassionate, lawful, and effective military strategy to overthrow the government and military of Gaza, and they are making efforts to minimize civilian casualties where they can. Should they "do more?" Of course. All militaries should "do more." Welcome to the horrors of warfare and the ever-present criticism of would-be armchair generals.