By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Spot the terrorists. on 07:33 - Jan 12 by StokieBlue
Thanks for your detailed response, I read your post previously when you mentioned your newspaper article. Whilst I conceptually understand how you feel I wouldn't claim to be able to put myself in the position you are in.
If I may, I will pick a few select quotes as I feel they are central to what was being discussed.
"I don't understand a ceasefire. What happens next? Do the hostages stay in Gaza? Does Israel get to respond when Hamas fires a rocket at Ashkelon? 10 rockets? 100? What is Hamas does another 7/10? what if another 7/10 is foiled? Is Israel allowed to respond? I doubt it - the anti-Israel masses won't allow that. What does a ceasefire entail for the weeks after?"
Of course they should and would respond to something like this but in a proportionate and targeted way. I don't think politically there are "anti-Israel" masses at a political level who would stop this - they haven't stopped the current military action and as poster DJR has pointed out, the UK has made a case to the ICC about the Rohingya highlighting things whilst pretty much ignoring the IDF doing very similar things.
"I think the destruction of Hamas is warranted and moral and the tunnel network must be uprooted."
This is an absolutely understandable position to have and one that many will agree with. The question is should that goal be achieved by the destruction of Gaza and the ruining of the lives of 2m people?
"I think Israel should try to minimize civilian casualties (something Hamas clearly does not care about - in fact they revel in civilian deaths) and if Israeli soldiers commit clear offenses against civilians, however tough things are in war, they should be held to account."
This doesn't seem to be happening though. >85% of people in Gaza displaced, ~500,000 now starving (UN statement), >23,000 people killed and >50,000 buildings destroyed.
What happened on the 7th was awful and the need to respond was absolutely understandable and justifiable but the response has left large parts of Gaza, in the words of the UN, "uninhabitable". It now feels a bit like "two wrongs make a right" and it's hard for me to see how such a disproportionate response is going to make things safer for Israel over the longer term. If things continue then Gaza isn't going to be somewhere where anyone can live in suitable conditions for a long time.
Thanks again for your response on what is a difficult subject to discuss in a polite and civilised manner.
SB
I appreciate this response too - reasoned and fair.
The word “proportionate” is so problematic. What does it mean? It obviously doesn’t mean “symmetrical” as some people like to claim - I believe legally it means something like “what is needed to protect you country from the threat” or something similar. With that in mind, how can Israel get rid of Hamas “proportionately”. I wish I had an answer
The Rohingya offer no existential threat to Myanmar, Hamas desires to kill every Jew. That makes a difference.
The 7th made war inevitable. Maybe (and this sounds horribly cold) , the destruction of the Hamas infrastructure could lead to a Marshall plan for Gaza with money from the oil nations. I think that’s what Biden was pushing when he went to the region shortly after the 7th but the hospital missile story ended that.
0
Spot the terrorists. on 13:15 - Jan 12 with 831 views
Spot the terrorists. on 22:18 - Jan 10 by Cafe_Newman
I don't know what will happen to them but someone on TV will have this video shown to them and they will put their hands over their eyes and fingers in their eyes and shout "they are all terrorists and if you don't believe us, you're an antisemite!"
Wrong un.
0
Spot the terrorists. on 15:19 - Jan 12 with 780 views
Spot the terrorists. on 13:08 - Jan 12 by phillymark
I appreciate this response too - reasoned and fair.
The word “proportionate” is so problematic. What does it mean? It obviously doesn’t mean “symmetrical” as some people like to claim - I believe legally it means something like “what is needed to protect you country from the threat” or something similar. With that in mind, how can Israel get rid of Hamas “proportionately”. I wish I had an answer
The Rohingya offer no existential threat to Myanmar, Hamas desires to kill every Jew. That makes a difference.
The 7th made war inevitable. Maybe (and this sounds horribly cold) , the destruction of the Hamas infrastructure could lead to a Marshall plan for Gaza with money from the oil nations. I think that’s what Biden was pushing when he went to the region shortly after the 7th but the hospital missile story ended that.
"The word “proportionate” is so problematic. What does it mean"
Is it problematic? Do you think making parts of any area uninhabitable (the UN's words not mine) is a proportionate response to anything?
We will have to disagree on this one and that is fine.
"The Rohingya offer no existential threat to Myanmar, Hamas desires to kill every Jew. That makes a difference."
If we are going to use this definition that you've put forward then surely given the fact that Gaza is being made uninhabitable in large areas any response against Israel by the people being radicalised by the IDF's attacks would now be justified given there is an existential threat to areas of Gaza?
I don't believe that but it's the logical extension of your definition.
This is why one needs to be very careful with words, you are saying some very emotive and I can fully understand why and that's fine but it's not the reality of the situation.
"The 7th made war inevitable. Maybe (and this sounds horribly cold) , the destruction of the Hamas infrastructure could lead to a Marshall plan for Gaza with money from the oil nations. I think that’s what Biden was pushing when he went to the region shortly after the 7th but the hospital missile story ended that."
It does sound horribly cold, you're essentially saying Gaza should be razed and then rebuilt whilst 500,000+ starve and 1.8m are displaced from their homes. I think you really need to consider what you're actually saying a little bit more.
To claim that >50,000 buildings (as of 3 weeks ago) are "Hamas infrastructure" is something which needs to be re-thought in my opinion.
Any thoughts on these lovely chaps Philymark....just imagine a group of Hamas terrorists singing this the day before their atrocity on Oct 7th. "There are no uninvolved civilians."
On Oct 8th I was shot down for pointing out that atrocities do not happen in a void. Well, the above is just a part of that context!
[Post edited 11 Jan 2024 21:29]
I think it's horrible.
Next question. Interestingly when this video came out "The Israeli army has pledged to take disciplinary action". I hope that happens
Wonder if Hamas does the same?
0
Spot the terrorists. on 23:08 - Jan 12 with 640 views
Spot the terrorists. on 15:19 - Jan 12 by StokieBlue
"The word “proportionate” is so problematic. What does it mean"
Is it problematic? Do you think making parts of any area uninhabitable (the UN's words not mine) is a proportionate response to anything?
We will have to disagree on this one and that is fine.
"The Rohingya offer no existential threat to Myanmar, Hamas desires to kill every Jew. That makes a difference."
If we are going to use this definition that you've put forward then surely given the fact that Gaza is being made uninhabitable in large areas any response against Israel by the people being radicalised by the IDF's attacks would now be justified given there is an existential threat to areas of Gaza?
I don't believe that but it's the logical extension of your definition.
This is why one needs to be very careful with words, you are saying some very emotive and I can fully understand why and that's fine but it's not the reality of the situation.
"The 7th made war inevitable. Maybe (and this sounds horribly cold) , the destruction of the Hamas infrastructure could lead to a Marshall plan for Gaza with money from the oil nations. I think that’s what Biden was pushing when he went to the region shortly after the 7th but the hospital missile story ended that."
It does sound horribly cold, you're essentially saying Gaza should be razed and then rebuilt whilst 500,000+ starve and 1.8m are displaced from their homes. I think you really need to consider what you're actually saying a little bit more.
To claim that >50,000 buildings (as of 3 weeks ago) are "Hamas infrastructure" is something which needs to be re-thought in my opinion.
SB
[Post edited 12 Jan 2024 15:29]
"The word “proportionate” is so problematic. What does it mean"
Is it problematic?
Yes. I only ever read what is "disproportionate". That's easy. I never see a defnition of "proportionate".
"the IDF's attacks would now be justified given there is an existential threat to areas of Gaza?" I don't believe that either
"you're essentially saying Gaza should be razed and then rebuilt whilst 500,000+ starve and 1.8m are displaced from their homes. I think you really need to consider what you're actually saying a little bit more."
I am not saying that "should" happen. And it did only say "destruction of the Hamas infrastructure".
I don't have an answer as to how to dismantle Hamas "proportionately". I wish I did
0
Spot the terrorists. on 23:15 - Jan 12 with 618 views
Spot the terrorists. on 23:08 - Jan 12 by phillymark
"The word “proportionate” is so problematic. What does it mean"
Is it problematic?
Yes. I only ever read what is "disproportionate". That's easy. I never see a defnition of "proportionate".
"the IDF's attacks would now be justified given there is an existential threat to areas of Gaza?" I don't believe that either
"you're essentially saying Gaza should be razed and then rebuilt whilst 500,000+ starve and 1.8m are displaced from their homes. I think you really need to consider what you're actually saying a little bit more."
I am not saying that "should" happen. And it did only say "destruction of the Hamas infrastructure".
I don't have an answer as to how to dismantle Hamas "proportionately". I wish I did
Maybe by slowly starving them of oxygen?
[Post edited 12 Jan 2024 23:35]
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Spot the terrorists. on 23:08 - Jan 12 by phillymark
"The word “proportionate” is so problematic. What does it mean"
Is it problematic?
Yes. I only ever read what is "disproportionate". That's easy. I never see a defnition of "proportionate".
"the IDF's attacks would now be justified given there is an existential threat to areas of Gaza?" I don't believe that either
"you're essentially saying Gaza should be razed and then rebuilt whilst 500,000+ starve and 1.8m are displaced from their homes. I think you really need to consider what you're actually saying a little bit more."
I am not saying that "should" happen. And it did only say "destruction of the Hamas infrastructure".
I don't have an answer as to how to dismantle Hamas "proportionately". I wish I did
"the IDF's attacks would now be justified given there is an existential threat to areas of Gaza?" I don't believe that either
The UN disagrees, they have stated parts of Gaza are uninhabitable. Why are you not taking the word of the UN? What's the difference between uninhabitable and non-existent?
"I am not saying that "should" happen. And it did only say "destruction of the Hamas infrastructure".
But it's impossible to do what you've stated without all the things I've listed - we know for certain because they are happening right now in Gaza. Pretending something can happen cleanly (the destruction of Hamas infrastructure) when the actions of the IDF clearly show something different is ignoring the evidence.
I think I am going to leave it here. You're not really engaging with the uncomfortable reality of what is happening in Gaza. I do understand why that is the case but this isn't going to get us anywhere in the end given that stance.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
