Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Then if the attack came from the West Bank you’d have a point, but it came from Gaza, which has effectively been a defacto independent Palestinian state since 2005.
---------- Post added at 20:39 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------
Which is it then?
|
I think we’re at crossed purposes but agreeing?
Hamas in Gaza will use Israel’s aggression in other areas as just another reason to continue. It’s all intrinsically interlinked.
---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
To draw a parallel:
In 1938, Germany was given the go ahead to seize the Sudentenland, which they'd settled with Germans. This gave them the courage to invade Poland and we all knew what followed.
We went to war with Germany and ultimately zapped them with all the collateral damage (on both sides) that ensued.
War is war and none of you can suggest how Hams can be eliminated other than linking their barbarism to finding a solution for the West Bank.
If the West Bank Palestinians took up arms against Israel in frustration of the behaviour of Israel's Ultras (seizing land in the West Bank and other crimes), there would be some sympathy for the Palestinians unless they crossed the red line that Hamas chose to cross.
There's the difference and your linkage to the West Bank situation is a distraction.
|
Well for one it’s not just Israeli ultras seizing land in the West Bank it’s IDF reservists with the backing of the other security services.
Secondly a lot of the rules for armed conflict were born from ww2
By your logic we can only ask questions if we’re able to provide answers would pretty much put and end to science and philosophy
War may be war but it has rules and the actions of one party don’t justify the actions of others