Israel/Palestine thread

Let's take the wildest outlier estimates, not even peer reviewed, on ultra controversial topics

Which of those attacks started from a foreign country/territory where the perpetrators hid specifically among civilians using schools and hospitals as bases?

9 11 did and the response was quite violent.

Btw not sure if you realize killing *your own civilians* isn't the same, if Ireland had started sending rockets to northern Ireland in solidarity to the terrorists, the UK would have bombed Ireland.

Which of those groups had thousands of armed participants?

But yes the civilians casualties of the response in Gaza are lower than 20k (vs 15k+ Hamas killed) so actually a very small ratio of collateral damage

Ok cut in half. A quarter. The point is, every time something bad happens to you, it's not just "reality" that automatically go and muder a bunch of civilians for being the same race/nationality of the perpetrators.

"But they support Hamas."

Ok, someone should murder a ton of Americans for supporting Iraq, whites for supporting kkk, etc.

i was badly misled by mainstream media about hezbollah's capabilities. if i was conspiratorial minded i'd say it was a mossad psyop

The problem is you’re not even equipped to have a rational discussion about war because you don’t understand why wars are fought in the first place.

If a weaker power attacks a stronger power, they don’t get off with no consequences just because they are weaker. That’s precisely why they shouldn’t do that.

When we reward them for using war crimes like hiding behind civilians or attacking out of civilian infrastructure, we are encouraging their behavior and ensuring it happens in the future. Why wouldn’t random terrorist groups just operate exclusively out of civilian infrastructure from now on? People like you seem to think that we need to give vast deference in the media and morality to such tactics.

Ok. Again. Whatever. Use whatever numbers you like.. 20,000.

"Someone did a bad thing, now I get to execute children with a sniper rifle" is not "reality."

If a child gets executed by sniper fire and there are no other circumstances that can account for it, like it being at night or the shooting being in an active conflict zone, then yeah that’s a war crime and the individual that did it should be prosecuted.

That’s not what happens in the vast majority of the civilians you quoted. Sadly Gaza is a very dense population center and Hamas operates out of civilian buildings, even refugee camps. In those conditions, civilian casualties are inevitable.

Man you don't understand, they killed a lot of Hamas people, and Hamas uses their civilians as shield regularly.

They didn't go to kill civilians, but if they locate 3 hamas people they drone them dead and if 2 or 5 civilians are there, they can die as well.

They killed like 15k Hamas members.

If the FBI raids a compound of KKK terrorists who start answering with fire and their families are with them they can die, and so be it. Now multiply that per 1000, that's what fighting Hamas in Gaza is about.

And if there are 1000 compounds of KKK terrorists (who actively wage war against the country) with their families you still have a right to take down each and every one of them, and if all their families die with them, that's KKK fault.

You can't stop killing your enemies because their families are with them or because they make base in schools or hospitals. It's folly to suggest so and absurd to keep pounding on the topic of the poor civilians, because what we need to accomplish is to eliminate all advantages for Hamas and anyone like them to use civilians as shields.

As long as people get "horrified" because many civilians die and ask Israel to do less, Hamas and all other groups like them are incentivized to keep using the shields!

You don't negotiate with terrorists for a reason, and you don't change your response because they put civilian lives at risk, you kill everyone of them by any mean necessary when you locate them, and if civilians are there you do it anyway.

Especially because more targeted attacks risk your own soldiers lives more.

And anyway, when the most targeted attack in the history of warfare happened (the pagers exploding assassinating/putting out of combat most of Hezbollah leadership) you guys STILL decided to talk about the 10 or 20 civilians (family members of Hezbollah) who died lol.

That means the only intention is to remove all possibilities for Israel to kill it's enemies.

You can't kill groups of 10k+ people who wage war while living among civilians without killing a sizeable amount of civilians.

It's actually incredible how few civilians Israel has killed

Whatever it takes to achieve the objective.

The "child" can carry weapons, explosives, messages and so on btw

today I learned its fine to execute 8 year old children so long as it is at night. (and they are Arab ofc but that goes without saying).

It is not. In fact, it would be illegal to execute children with a sniper rifle just about everywhere.

The argument would be -

a) What collateral damage, if any, is okay when you "defend" yourself from an enemy.

b) How to approach warfare with an enemy that has built its infrastrcture as tangled as possible with civilian lives. Either by design or by necessity.

I don't know the answer to either. I'm 100% sure that the level Israel is willing to accept in question A is way too high and way higher than it used to be.
If you think Israel is strategically executing children with sniper rifles than of course they are wrong.

Ironically enough, Israel's military is not all that different than Gaza/WB/Lebanon when it comes to B. My house is a few KMs from a very not-secret secret airforce base. HaKirya, Israel's major base in Tel Aviv is the IDF headquarters and is smack down in the middle of the most populated city in the country.

It would be damn near impossible to attack HaKirya with serious weapons without causing major civilian casaulities.

This is why I hate when people say both "they (civilians in areas Israels targeting) shouldnt' be there in the first place". They don't have a choice really.
But also when people mention how Hezbollah has been targeting mostly military targets. That isn't untrue, only that it's meaningless if you are a civilian in Galilee. It is small and packed (not nearly as center Israel but still) that any military target is going to endanger the civilians around it.

Quote where I said it’s fine to execute an 8 year old child at night.

I was listing mitigating circumstances that can be used in a defense against war crimes charges. It being at night and not an execution in broad daylight of someone doing nothing can absolutely be enough to cause reasonable doubt. You think that this is call of duty where people just know exactly what’s going on at all times during war?

Post after post, people demonstrate an inability to understand how or why war is fought, like even a little bit.

I do yuv, answer is achieving the result (eradicating the enemy once and for all) is the first priority above all.

Among all strategies that guarantee that outcome, you then choose a reasonable tradeoff of your soldiers risks vs civilian collateral damage risk, ofc giving a lot more weight than 1:1 to your own people.

People claiming Israel shouldn't kill civilians never answer the "ok what else do you propose to guarantee Hamas is done forever and nothing of the sort can replace it?"

It's like they don't even admit Israel is fully morally right to attempt to pursue that outcome

Studied IR, a bit at gradschool and co published an academic paper on terrorism. That's irelevant, though.

What you said above is about the level of like, Rush Limbaugh or something. Just nonsense, grounded on nothing.

Again, there are a ton of obvious counter examples already given.

The only substantive claim you seem to make is true. I feel war should be a last resort. Civilian deaths avoided. You think the suffering of "the enemy" is a non issue.

I think that if empathy for the enemy makes you less likely to achieve your defensive goals it should be treasonous to even attempt to be empathic with the enemy.

It is a moral imperative of the first order, like the literal reason that justifies their existence, for countries to defend their citizens safety against enemies.

today I learned its fine to execute 8 year old children so long as it is at night. (and they are Arab ofc but that goes without saying).

victor, if the Palestinians were kulaks instead, would it be ok to liquidate them for the class interest of the proletariat?

There are plenty of justified reasons to think Israel is not morally just to fight their enemies, especially not in order to eradicate them.

I know you think this way. You're not alone. This is def. the philosophy of Isreal and many US policy makers. So we are largely agreed on all that.

I dont think its ok to liquidate millions of people. thats a Western ideal that seems to continue being fulfilled.

Finally, we agree on something: the Soviet Union is bad.

I posted several interviews with American doctors who saw this on a daily basis. Easy to find.

Neither the US nor Isreal have any desire to prosecute the shooters, or for us to even know it is happening.

This is one piece of evidence to my mind that Isreali response is way over any line that I would accept.