Hamas Israel War

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If the whiners could provide the Israelis with the definite locations of Hamas military targets, then no problem. There isn't a clearly defined front line with targets in open view to aim at.

The onus isn’t on Hamas to present itself for annihilation. The absence of that doesn’t justify carpet bombing civilian areas, bombing churches, hospitals, refugee camps, etc.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

@Andrew & @Pierre

You may consider comparisons with WW2 unhelpful, but I disagree. The psychology of war is eternal, imo. Hatred and/or territory.

Please remember, that I'm tilting at the position being taken by jfman, whose posts are very one sided.

As to Andrew's remark about "standards" - no, the Geneva Convention applied then as it does now.

Technology has changed. People's access to a range of media that provides a more rounded view of events, and information more rapidly and graphically have changed. People's reaction to the Dresden bombings would likely have been different if they saw the results on their TV screens every morning.

And whilst the law always plays catch up to technology and social change, that has changed too, as Hugh has outlined.

---------- Post added at 09:34 ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

If the whiners could provide the Israelis with the definite locations of Hamas military targets, then no problem. There isn't a clearly defined front line with targets in open view to aim at.

It's not really a constructive way to engage with others by calling them whiners. You wouldn't call someone that in a debate down the pub so why do it online?

[nomadking]

So where are these clearly defined targets? They are mixed in with other buildings. The whole area is one giant front line.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The onus isn’t on Hamas to present itself for annihilation. The absence of that doesn’t justify carpet bombing civilian areas, bombing churches, hospitals, refugee camps, etc.

Hiding/shielding enemy combatants in civilian areas, churches, hospitals, refugee camps etc is also a war crime.

So what does Israel do if it has to go through human shields to achieve its objectives?

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.ne...OHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Rubinstein and Roznai argue that an attack that would be disproportionate ought to be considered proportionate, if the presence of civilians is due to the wrongful actions of the enemy. They use the term "impeded party" to describe the burden placed on the attacking party under international humanitarian law norms. They point out that "attacking party" has traditionally been synonymous with the aggressor, but that it is often the attacker who is "defending democracy" and acting in self-defence when they use force in response to a prior attack.

Interesting, even-handed (imho) article in today’s Times Comment section

Is this a just war? Let’s apply some tests

To be morally legitimate, military action requires a righteous cause — but also a fair chance of achieving its objectives

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9...6f9b9155c3c2d1

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hiding/shielding enemy combatants in civilian areas, churches, hospitals, refugee camps etc is also a war crime.

So what does Israel do if it has to go through human shields to achieve its objectives?

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.ne...OHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

A lovely thought experiment is just that, regardless of how well educated the thinkers are.

A quick skim does however point to wider considerations around proportionality- including necessity. Considering the minimal threat Hamas actually pose to Israel - there is no “clear and present danger” from Hamas to Israel who have more than adequate defensive capabilities to defend themselves from rockets.

It’d be interesting to know if Israel are keeping tabs on what “legitimate” military target is being destroyed for each of the thousands of bombs being destroyed since there’s probably now more than 1 bomb per Hamas militant.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Interesting, even-handed (imho) article in today’s Times Comment section

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9...6f9b9155c3c2d1

It's a fair article. I think everybody will in agreement that an invasion of Gaza will be bad for everyone - all round, with absolutely no certainty that the IDF will be able meet their two objectives. On that point he is correct, and uses that argument to say the war is not just because for a just war you need to be able see the outcomes.

But he offers no ideas on what Israel should do, instead.

His quote from Aquinas, that he then ignores is also prescient:

a war can be just if it is the expression of a rightful intention to promote good and forestall evil

Hamas are the very embodiment of evil.

[jfman]

And what’s displacing a million people and raining bombs down on them, cutting off electricity, fuel and food supplies if it’s not evil?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

And what’s displacing a million people and raining bombs down on them, cutting off electricity, fuel and food supplies if it’s not evil?

The IDF does not = Hamas, if you want to try to twist that false equivalence go ahead, as you have several times.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The IDF does not = Hamas, if you want to try to twist that false equivalence go ahead, as you have several times.

I’m not claiming the IDF are equal to Hamas. They’re only following orders, as the military saying goes.

I’m asking if the description I made, on its own merit, without being conflated with the actions of anyone else, could be considered evil?

I think if on a human level your answer is no, or starts ‘but…’ you have a problem.

[Pierre]

I don't think it's evil. If it was the IDFs one and only objective to purely kill civilians, cause terror and fear to make a political point, take pleasure in the suffering and rejoice at all the deaths...

Then I would call them evil.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't think it's evil. If it was the IDFs one and only objective to purely kill civilians, cause terror and fear to make a political point, take pleasure in the suffering and rejoice at all the deaths...

Then I would call them evil.

Nobody said it was “purely” an objective to kill civilians - merely that it was a specific and controllable outcome from their actions.

If Israel’s point isn’t political, then what is it?

I’m certain somewhere in Israel there will be people taking pleasure and rejoicing. If we can have one person in this thread alone - then it’s certainly going to be a not insignificant minority of Israelis who have a vested interest.

I’d love the thoughts of those Stanford academics on specifically the blocking of food and water in aid convoys. When and where can that be justified? What military objective is achieved?

[nomadking]

In the absence of clearly defined targets, what else is Israel expected to do? Nothing, but wait until the next attack?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

In the absence of clearly defined targets, what else is Israel expected to do? Nothing, but wait until the next attack?

Nobody has suggested Israel “do nothing”.

Israel will always be waiting for the next attack regardless.

[tweetiepooh]

I think "evil" would be greatly impacted by motivation. Acts can be terrible but not evil.