Hamas attacks southern Israel

[nhytgbvfeco2]

That would be an example of you lying about what someone argues about a completely different topic to hide away from the failure of your argument on the actual topic at hand.

It's ironic that you're talking about failure to make an argument, when you didn't even make one in your last post.

You clearly do not not see how badly your arguments lack any intelligent thought whatsoever. This is just an other case of you in this thread justifying suffering of Palestinians. It's nothing new.

I want to decrease their suffering, and that's best achieved by evacuating them from a warzone.
You pretend that evacuating civilians from a warzone is somehow ethnic cleansing, and shouldn't be done.
It's you who wants them to remain in an active warzone and risk their lives to protect your beloved Jihadists. You want them to suffer and die, in the hopes it saves Hamas.

[Muizer]

It's ironic that you're talking about failure to make an argument, when you didn't even make one in your last post.

I want to decrease their suffering, and that's best achieved by evacuating them from a warzone.
You pretend that evacuating civilians from a warzone is somehow ethnic cleansing, and shouldn't be done.
It's you who wants them to remain in an active warzone and risk their lives to protect your beloved Jihadists. You want them to suffer and die, in the hopes it saves Hamas.

It would/will be ethnic cleansing if 'evacuation' meant pushing people over the border with no guarantee of a safe return. And let's face it, any guarantees from Israel would have little credibility. Perhaps you see that differently, but I think the rest of the world is pretty much unanimous about it.

On the other hand I am even more certain you're right about Hamas. Even if Israel were to unilaterally organize an evacuation to a designated safe space in Gaza , I have no doubt at all Hamas and friends would actively disrupt the effort. I've not yet seen any sign whatsoever that for them civilian presence is anything other than a tactical advantage to be used to inflict damage on Israeli military where possible.

[Ludicus]

Smotrich blocks flour shipments from reaching Gaza, in breach of Israeli pledge to US.
----
U.S. plays defense for Israel at International Court of Justice

“International law does not impose specific time limits on an occupation," said the U.S State Dept. legal adviser.

Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian territories since 1967, but according to the US, permanent occupation is not illegal, said Richard Visek, at the ICJ, stating, "International law does not impose specific time limits for an occupation. The court should not consider Israel legally obligated to withdraw from the occupied territory."
Paul Reichler, an American lawyer who represented Palestine during the ICJ proceedings on Israeli occupation, stated, "Permanent occupation is a legal oxymoron. What makes Israel's current occupation of Palestinian territory illegal is precisely its permanent character."

Oral arguments will conclude tomorrow at the ICJ, and the court will begin deliberating on the legality of the occupation. It's fair to say - there is never any debate about the obvious illegality of occupations by countries not allied with the US, but the occupation of Palestinian territories by its staunchest ally in the Middle East is "legal", even though it has lasted for 75 years.

11500 Children Have Been Killed in Gaza. Horror of This Scale Has No Explanation - Hareetz.

One of the greatest infanticides in human history is unfolding before our eyes. As they say, a "collateral damage" in a war in which Israel's right to self-defense is at stake. Strange exercise of the right to self-defense.
---

Revealed: how US residents are funding illegal settlements in the West Bank...

An Israeli crowdfunding platform, IsraelGives, has allowed US residents to donate millions of dollars since 7 October to causes including illegal West Bank settlements, paramilitary groups…Legal experts say that some of these campaigns may be illegal under US tax law, but that this is rarely enforced on donors to Israeli causes.
(…) Shamas, the civil rights lawyer, said Israel’s “record of complete impunity” with respect to the enforcement of international law might lull donors

[Muizer]

As they say, a "collateral damage" in a war in which Israel's right to self-defense is at stake. Strange exercise of the right to self-defense.

One thing you do understand but do not want to highlight is that evidently the right to self defense extends to eliminating the threat.

Next, we know the use of human shields is considered illegal. In other words, the presence of civilians does not nullify the right to self defense.

The reality is that Hamas does nothing to evacuate civilians and has even called on them to stay put. Yet they continue to fight in residential areas.

And then, Israel is blamed for collateral damage when it refuses to pay with the lives of its soldiers for Hamas' failure to take responsibility for civilian lives.

It evidently does not add up. It comes across as the argument of someone whose primary motivation is not to present coherent arguments, but is instead trying to fight the information war in this insignificant backwater of the web.

[PointOfViewGun]

The reality is that Hamas does nothing to evacuate civilians and has even called on them to stay put. Yet they continue to fight in residential areas.
And then, Israel is blamed for collateral damage when it refuses to pay with the lives of its soldiers for Hamas' failure to take responsibility for civilian lives.

This is one of the most deceptive takes regarding this conflict. One that Israel has been banking on so much. Regardless of what Hamas' intentions might be, it employs no logic. The Gaza Strip is not some huge swat of land and Israel's campaign is not some surgical operation with very limited scope. What Israel's forced movement of Palestinians in Gaza accomplished was the total destruction of civilian property. That's not something caused by Hamas. It was what Israel intended to do from day one. It's even indoctrinated in their military principles under the name of Dahiya doctrine. No armed group of any kind would want to have a hand in playing whack 'em all game with over a million people within the small patch of Gaza.

Tell me this though, Israel has about 60 times larger land mass than Gaza, yet the defense ministry is housed in the middle of Tel Aviv. Does that justify Hamas rockets fired towards Tel Aviv?

[Ludicus]

It comes across as the argument of someone whose primary motivation is not to present coherent arguments,

I could go on at length about the sources of your motivation, but that would be a very bad end to a polite conversation.As Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said the time for Israel's “self-defense is over”. "Enough is Enough", she rightly said.
More,
Amnesty Internacional. Israel defying ICJ ruling to prevent genocide by failing to allow adequate humanitarian aid to reach Gaza

And, btw, about your inchoerent talk about Dresden, About Israel's Genocide in Gaza

…) Israeli officials and top generals themselves have openly called for genocide in Gaza, pledging to turn the besieged strip into Auschwitz and Dresden, and even celebrating such atrocities.

In October last year, a former member and deputy speaker of the Knesset demanded: “There is one and only one solution, which is to completely destroy Gaza before invading it... I mean destruction like it was in Dresden and Hiroshima, without a nuclear weapon.”

In November, Israeli minister of economy Nir Barkat said: “I don’t remember Britain or the United States at the tail end of the Second World War bombing Dresden, thinking about the residents.”

In December, an Israeli official demanded that Gaza should be “flattened completely, just like Auschwitz today. A museum, so the whole world will learn what the state of Israel can do. From the sea to the border fence, completely empty, so that everyone remembers what was once there.”

[Muizer]

Does one ambiguous line from the minister of economy determine how the war is conducted and to what end? Do the opinions of the mayor of a hamlet of 1700 people?

[PointOfViewGun]

Does one ambiguous line from the minister of economy determine how the war is conducted and to what end? Do the opinions of the mayor of a hamlet of 1700 people?

You're seriously claiming that the genocidal rhetoric from the Israeli camp is limited to a few people? It's not like we haven't been posting dozens of examples from various ministers, legislatures, army officers, etc. in this thread...

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You're seriously claiming that the genocidal rhetoric from the Israeli camp is limited to a few people? It's not like we haven't been posting dozens of examples from various ministers, legislatures, army officers, etc. in this thread...

With one common denominator: none of them have a say in the matter.

Tell me this though, Israel has about 60 times larger land mass than Gaza, yet the defense ministry is housed in the middle of Tel Aviv. Does that justify Hamas rockets fired towards Tel Aviv?

Are ministries not typically located within cities? Is the Turkish MOD not in Ankara? Does this make Ankara a legitimate military target for indiscriminate bombing?
I also like the implication that that's their target. What about all the other cities they constantly fire at? What's the military target in Offakim?

[Muizer]

Alright, let me try a different angle. I've been trying to argue for ages what I believe Hamas is responsible for in terms of the conflict's death toll. But I haven't heard it from some of you.

So just for clarity's sake, so I do not have to make assumptions and infer intentions behind them, let me ask straight out.

Starting with the attacks of October 7, has Hamas done what we would expect our own highest civil and military authority to do to protect its citizens?

[PointOfViewGun]

With one common denominator: none of them have a say in the matter.

President, prime minister, various ministers, parliament members, army officers, etc. have no say in the matter?

Are ministries not typically located within cities? Is the Turkish MOD not in Ankara? Does this make Ankara a legitimate military target for indiscriminate bombing?
I also like the implication that that's their target. What about all the other cities they constantly fire at? What's the military target in Offakim?

If this is a normal thing to have then why Hamas HQ being near civilian buildings something Israel always whine about in a swat of land with practically no non-civilian area?

Alright, let me try a different angle. I've been trying to argue for ages what I believe Hamas is responsible for in terms of the conflict's death toll. But I haven't heard it from some of you.
So just for clarity's sake, so I do not have to make assumptions and infer intentions behind them, let me ask straight out.
Starting with the attacks of October 7, has Hamas done what we would expect our own highest civil and military authority to do to protect its citizens?

You need to first address the number of misrepresentations you've been employing as if Gaza is a large swat of land with various geographic features when in fact its one big residential area with no cover whatsoever trying to house over 2 million people. The overcrowded situation is a product of Israeli actions that can be traced back to 1948 and their continuous efforts to bar those refugees from returning to their own homes. It's not like those over 2 million people were living in lush conditions before October 7 either. People in Gaza has been living under constant siege since 1967. What can a civil and military authority do in such a situation?

[Muizer]

You need to first address the number of misrepresentations you've been employing as if Gaza is a large swat of land with various geographic features when in fact its one big residential area with no cover whatsoever trying to house over 2 million people. The overcrowded situation is a product of Israeli actions that can be traced back to 1948 and their continuous efforts to bar those refugees from returning to their own homes. It's not like those over 2 million people were living in lush conditions before October 7 either. People in Gaza has been living under constant siege since 1967. What can a civil and military authority do in such a situation?

So your answer is Hamas didn't do anything because they could not. If we assume that is so, why did they launch the attack on October 7th anyway?

[PointOfViewGun]

So your answer is Hamas didn't do anything because they could not. If we assume that is so, why did they launch the attack on October 7th anyway?

Why don't you tell us what they could have done? Otherwise it looks like we are back to your position that if you think a situation is futile one should simply bend over and allow everything to happen unopposed.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

President, prime minister, various ministers, parliament members, army officers, etc. have no say in the matter?

Only one of those with a say is the PM, but do quote the relevant statements by the PM and the president. And this better not just be the amalec thing again.

If this is a normal thing to have then why Hamas HQ being near civilian buildings something Israel always whine about in a swat of land with practically no non-civilian area?

You're comparing having a ministry be inside of a city to having a military base and a rocket storage under a kindergarden, unironically? Is this where we're at? You're now justifying using human shields?

Why don't you tell us what they could have done? Otherwise it looks like we are back to your position that if you think a situation is futile one should simply bend over and allow everything to happen unopposed.

Surrender. Or, how about, not invade Israel and commit acts of genocide?

[PointOfViewGun]

Only one of those with a say is the PM, but do quote the relevant statements by the PM and the president. And this better not just be the amalec thing again.

They all have a say in one way or other. Some are more direct than others. Military personnel have the most direct involvement. Their genocidal chants that are exposed through the videos they share on social media is enough on its own. You would, of course, want to brush away the Amalek comment as its quite damning but your personal desires do not change facts. Genocidal rhetoric is rampant in the Israeli camp; from calling all civilians legitimate targets to calling for a new Nakba. Refusal of facts in the face of overwhelming evidence is never a good argumentation tactic.

You're comparing having a ministry be inside of a city to having a military base and a rocket storage under a kindergarden, unironically? Is this where we're at? You're now justifying using human shields? Just when I thought you couldn't stoop any lower.

I'm comparing having command HQs in close proximity to civilian structures. Much of Israeli claims about tunnels or military bunkers turned out to be false. They even stooped so low to claim a small water reservoir tank of being a tunnel entrance under a hospital and an other tunnel network they claimed to be Hamas HQ turned out to be built by Israelis themselves.

Surrender. Or, how about, not invade Israel and commit acts of genocide?

Surrendering doesn't change the outcome as evidenced by West Bank.

[Ludicus]

Videos show Israeli soldiers in Gaza burning food- CNN





On the internet, as we can see, there are videos published by Israeli soldiers burning warehouses with food and writing graffiti on the walls of destroyed houses with sayings like: “Instead of erasing graffiti, let us erase Gaza”.
This is exactly what the Israeli army intends to do and has been doing, making Gaza uninhabitable.

The statements made by CNN journalist Ivana Kottasová in an article published on February 10, 2024, under the title “Unimaginable destruction…” are impressive, and I quote: “Being accompanied by the IDF meant the journalists were only able to see what it allowed them to see. Even so, the devastation witnessed by CNN in Gaza was beyond imagination.” Unimaginable devastation…CNN

The negative comparisons used by the Israeli far-right, the Netanyahu government, and its apologists like Muizer to justify the indiscriminate massacre of Palestinians are detestable. In these comparisons, wrongdoers claim credit for not being as bad as they could have been, comparing themselves to the worst monsters to seem moderate.

This is the case with the comparisons they make with Dresden: the message they intend to convey is that they can destroy Gaza as Dresden was destroyed, but look, we're so nice that we don't even need to use the atomic bombs used in Japan, as advocated last October by former Knesset member Moshe Feiglin, "There is one and only one solution, which is to completely destroy Gaza before invading it. I mean destruction like it was in Dresden and Hiroshima, without a nuclear weapon. Gaza should be razed."

Or-I repeat- as Israel's economy minister Nir Barkat stated last November, using the same miserable excuse of Dresden: “I don’t remember Britain or the United States at the tail end of the Second World War bombing Dresden, thinking about the residents."

But the use of atomic bombs is not something that repels the Israeli warlike imagination for even a single moment, although when confronted with these statements, they say they are only "metaphorical."

Israel's Minister of Heritage, Amichai Eliyahu, stated last November that the use of atomic bombs was a possible tactic that Israel could employ; and in January, in an interview with 103 FM radio station, in a refinement of cruelty, he added that Israel “must find ways for Gazans that are more painful than death, involving their land, destroying homes, breaking their national dream and 'voluntary' immigration.”

[mishkin]

Israel's public relations are going to need an immense effort to recover some good image. Progressive Eurovision performances, videos in tiktok of beautiful soldiers in uniform or stupid Hollywood movies are not going to be enough.

Edit: Don't be stupid, don't reply "what about the image of Hamas?"

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Israel's public relations are going to need an immense effort to recover some good image. Progressive Eurovision performances, videos in tiktok of beautiful soldiers in uniform or stupid Hollywood movies are not going to be enough.

Edit: Don't be stupid, don't reply "what about the image of Hamas?"

That's fine, we're used to being hated. We prefer to be hated and alive, than dead and.. well, still hated.

They all have a say in one way or other.

No, they do not. The president is a ceremonial position, he doesn't decide a thing. The minister of Economy doesn't decide security policy. Etc.

Some are more direct than others. Military personnel have the most direct involvement. Their genocidal chants that are exposed through the videos they share on social media is enough on its own.

And yet they do not act on those chants, and those who do will recieve justice.

You would, of course, want to brush away the Amalek comment as its quite damning but your personal desires do not change facts.

It's only damning if you willfully ignore who it was said about and instead try to pan it as a statement about all palestinians. It was not. Don't conflate Hamas with palestinians.

Genocidal rhetoric is rampant in the Israeli camp; from calling all civilians legitimate targets to calling for a new Nakba. Refusal of facts in the face of overwhelming evidence is never a good argumentation tactic.

A handful morons saying moronic things is not overwhelming evidence of anything. Much like a few Turkish officials showing maps where Greek territory is painted as Turkish isn't a show of intention to invade Greece, wouldn't you agree?

I'm comparing having command HQs in close proximity to civilian structures. Much of Israeli claims about tunnels or military bunkers turned out to be false. They even stooped so low to claim a small water reservoir tank of being a tunnel entrance under a hospital and an other tunnel network they claimed to be Hamas HQ turned out to be built by Israelis themselves.

You expect anyone to take this seriously?

Surrendering doesn't change the outcome as evidenced by West Bank.

The west bank is much better off than Gaza, so this is a very odd claim to make.

[Muizer]

Why don't you tell us what they could have done? Otherwise it looks like we are back to your position that if you think a situation is futile one should simply bend over and allow everything to happen unopposed.

First of all, thanks for engaging with the question at all. I'm serious.

I don't disagree at all that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank were in a difficult position in the period leading up to 7/10. It is not wrong to say that Israel was slowly choking the life out of any prospect of any form of resolution that would see Palestinians with self determination in a state of their own. This was very clear just from the ongoing encroachment of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.So, one can reason that from a perspective of justice, Israel has a large historical debt.

What I do not agree with is that this historical debt translates into some sort of credit to attack Israeli targets without expecting repercussions. One might think that would be fair or balanced but the reality is these aren't transactions conducted within a legal framework both sides are committed to. It is the very essence of the conflict that they do not: The 'just cause' question is inherently irrelevant to the humanitarian aspects of war.

From a humanitarian point of view I would expect a nation to clear civilians out of areas under their control if they are about to become a war zone. I would expect of its adversary to permit this.

So it is inherent that both Hamas and Israel have a responsibility. I divide it up roughly like this:

On balance:
- Hamas escalated a conflict in which they knew up front that at least they were not going to take responsibility for civilians lives under their rule. They engineered the battlefield such that they would never even be able to do their part.
- Israel for its part has done no more than the bare minimum with its pro forma evacuation orders.

So Hamas expected that civilian presence in urban warfare would give them a tactical advantage (use of human shields, a war crime in itself) and Israel kicked that ball back into Hamas' court with pro forma evacuation orders / warnings.

It is clear in the end neither side seems to care.

But those who are either partisan or inclined to favour the underdog are blaming it all on Israel. And that at least hand Hamas a partial political victory. One bought with the blood of its people. And one they were after all along. Well personally I do not want to be a part of that in any way. Even in a discussion here on this internet backwater.

[PointOfViewGun]

- double post delete