Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran … War

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Disagree. Some members give Israel carte blanche with no attempt to criticise the current campaign but they, thankfully, seem in the minority.

Just to clarify, in terms of what Israel "has to do", how many dead civilians, women, children and babies, are "allowable" before you would say enough? 1000, 5000, 10000, 20000? If you sanction these deaths, you must be prepared to say how many can die before you would say enough, stop?

And how many Israelis do Hamas have to kill before Israel have the right to strike back, even though Hamas surround themselves with their own civilians for protection?

You are not being realistic. Hamas must be eliminated to stop all of this. The civilian losses are down to the cynical behaviour of Hamas.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And how many Israelis do Hamas have to kill before Israel have the right to strike back, even though Hamas surround themselves with their own civilians for protection?

You are not being realistic. Hamas must be eliminated to stop all of this. The civilian losses are down to the cynical behaviour of Hamas.

In what way is 13,000 dead and razing northern Gaza to the ground not striking back? Although I will concede that the majority of the dead are women and children so unlikely to be Hamas so there could be more said about the ‘success’ rate?

[Sephiroth]

War brings death. Israel has to smash Hamas - no doubt about it (though jfman won't concede this). See WW2 for details.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

War brings death. Israel has to smash Hamas - no doubt about it (though jfman won't concede this). See WW2 for details.

Nobody disputes the overarching ambition, just questioning whether the slaughter of thousands of civilians and destruction of the homes/property of millions makes it more achievable.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And how many Israelis do Hamas have to kill before Israel have the right to strike back, even though Hamas surround themselves with their own civilians for protection?

You are not being realistic. Hamas must be eliminated to stop all of this. The civilian losses are down to the cynical behaviour of Hamas.

I am being very realistic here - yes, these people are really dead, in the real world.

So I ask again: what number of dead Palestinian civilians would you baulk at? 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, what?? What is the number you are content to see die in order that Israel can pursue it war aims?

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:08 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

War brings death. Israel has to smash Hamas - no doubt about it (though jfman won't concede this). See WW2 for details.

I'll ask you this question: what number of dead Palestinian civilians would you baulk at? 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, what?? What is the number you are content to see die in order that Israel can pursue it war aims?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

So I ask again: what number of dead Palestinian civilians would you baulk at? 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, what?? What is the number you are content to see die in order that Israel can pursue it war aims?

You're asking the wrong people, I would love for Israel to pursue its war aims without anyone being killed.

But Israel will do what it thinks is necessary to complete its aims and whatever we think about it is irrelevant.

I think this time Israel (Netanyahu) is emboldened to go as far as they need to go to eliminate Hamas, only an Intervention by the USA may temper them.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am being very realistic here - yes, these people are really dead, in the real world.

So I ask again: what number of dead Palestinian civilians would you baulk at? 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, what?? What is the number you are content to see die in order that Israel can pursue it war aims?

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:08 ----------



I'll ask you this question: what number of dead Palestinian civilians would you baulk at? 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, what?? What is the number you are content to see die in order that Israel can pursue it war aims?

You do like asking confected questions that have no value. It's an absolute need for Israel to defend itself, notwithstanding Hamas' cowardly use of the Gazans as a human shield.

I'll put a confected question to you: How many Israelis should be murdered by Hamas before Israel should pursue the eradication of Hamas?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You do like asking confected questions that have no value. It's an absolute need for Israel to defend itself, notwithstanding Hamas' cowardly use of the Gazans as a human shield.

I'll put a confected question to you: How many Israelis should be murdered by Hamas before Israel should pursue the eradication of Hamas?

Which brings the second question - how many Palestinian civilians is it legitimate to kill in pursuit of that ambition? On a scale from 0 to all of them.

Is there any evidence that Hamas are proactively using human shields? If you are razing entire civilian areas to the ground it’s not really credible that the people were human shields in their own homes. Similarly those who sought reasonable protection in hospital grounds, places of worship or refugee camps again weren’t held there as human shields by Hamas.

A third question would be after how many civilian deaths can Palestinians legitimately take up arms against Israel under the banner of “self defence”? If the answer is never, why not?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Which brings the second question - how many Palestinian civilians is it legitimate to kill in pursuit of that ambition? On a scale from 0 to all of them.

A useless, confected question.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And how many Israelis do Hamas have to kill before Israel have the right to strike back, even though Hamas surround themselves with their own civilians for protection?

You are not being realistic. Hamas must be eliminated to stop all of this. The civilian losses are down to the cynical behaviour of Hamas.

The killing of 13,000 people in Gaza and elimination of a lot of its infrastructure is only going to lead to a successor body in Hamas's place. We're not talking about eliminating something like smallpox. We're talking about an underlying territorial dispute and grievances by human beings on both sides of the Gaza-Israel border.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

A useless, confected question.

It’s a 100% legitimate question. Your unwillingness to answer speaks volumes.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The killing of 13,000 people in Gaza and elimination of a lot of its infrastructure is only going to lead to a successor body in Hamas's place. We're not talking about eliminating something like smallpox. We're talking about an underlying territorial dispute and grievances by human beings on both sides of the Gaza-Israel border.

Where are you going with this stupid speculation?

The corollary to your argument is that Israel should not have attacked Hamas because they would only have to do it again with its successor terrorist organisation.

What you should have said is that post-Hamas, a solution to the Gaza situation will be needed. Of course, that's impossible because the Israeli Ultras have embedded themselves in the West Bank and they are also part of the Israeli government.

So, is terrorism the answer? Is it a justifiable 'last resort'? It's a vicious circle. But the terrorism must be punished.



---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:47 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s a 100% legitimate question. Your unwillingness to answer speaks volumes.

You're exaggerating. I'm the voice of cool analysis and common sense.

You are a provocateur.

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s a 100% legitimate question. Your unwillingness to answer speaks volumes.

As does your unwillingness to answer his question, it works both ways.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Where are you going with this stupid speculation?

The corollary to your argument is that Israel should not have attacked Hamas because they would only have to do it again with its successor terrorist organisation.

What you should have said is that post-Hamas, a solution to the Gaza situation will be needed. Of course, that's impossible because the Israeli Ultras have embedded themselves in the West Bank and they are also part of the Israeli government.

So, is terrorism the answer? Is it a justifiable 'last resort'? It's a vicious circle. But the terrorism must be punished.

Realistically, Hamas or a successor terrorist group cannot be eliminated but can be heavily disrupted. The Israeli government wanted revenge for the 1,400 death and some of the Palestinians will be no different in seeking revenge for the 13,000+ deaths in Gaza. Violence begets violence whether it's in the name of Hamas or another organisation. Thus, the tragic vicious circle continues.

So, if Hamas cannot be eliminated the logical conclusion to this is to resolve the territorial issue (unlikely in the short or even medium term) and to minimise the threat of incursion into Israel by better intelligence and security (more realistic).

Your penultimate paragraph is sensible.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Realistically, Hamas or a successor terrorist group cannot be eliminated but can be heavily disrupted. The Israeli government wanted revenge for the 1,400 death and some of the Palestinians will be no different in seeking revenge for the 13,000+ deaths in Gaza. Violence begets violence whether it's in the name of Hamas or another organisation. Thus, the tragic vicious circle continues.

So, if Hamas cannot be eliminated the logical conclusion to this is to resolve the territorial issue (unlikely in the short or even medium term) and to minimise the threat of incursion into Israel by better intelligence and security (more realistic).

Your penultimate paragraph is sensible.

Phew!