Israel at war

[Valcazar]

This creepy AI shit is out of control.

 

[shack]

Do you have the intelligence report that justified Israel killing 46 journalists?

Yes, I do.

My intelligence tells me that that is a fake report from a hugely partisan pro-Palestinian source.

Did Reuters report this? It would be huge news.

 

[Frankfooter]

And how is the deaths of 19,000 Gazans, mostly civilians, many of them children, going to help reduce that hate?



And look at how much the international sanctions have hurt Russia. Meanwhile bring up Hamas in the UN and the conversation quickly turns to, "Sanction Israel for illegal settlements," instead. Something might get done if you eliminate that counter-argument. Nothing gets done otherwise. Isn't some chance better than no chance?



Very distributing. Disturbing enough that other countries might not want to see this continue and actually do something about Iran and Lebanon if they weren't so focused on Israeli war crimes.



They also aren't illegally occupying land, except for Russia currently who is also getting attacked every day. Terrorists live within our borders; we are not out of reach. We could be hit any day. I realize life seems peaceful and such a thing seems unimaginable, but that's reality. There is a lot of work and resources that goes into preventing them. The CAF, CSIS, CSE, RCMP and every other major police force have counter-terrorism departments and those guys aren't just sitting around every day waiting for an attack.

Israel has these resources too, but what they don't have is a secure border or friendly nations surrounding them. And as long as the have no international support, that's always going to be true. They could completely take over Gaza and the attacks would still keep coming. So what then? Go to war with Iran? Just war after war after war until there is no antisemetic terrorist groups left?

At some point Israel's response to terrorist attacks is going to have to become one of policing and international pressure. Whether that happens before the millions of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank are killed or after, it eventually becomes the reality. I'm proposing maybe the death of millions of civilians isn't worth it if you just achieve the same end result anyway.



I literally work in aviation. So I visit an airport almost every day.

9/11 could literally occur every day. The flimsiest lock ever on the flimsiest door ever is not stopping anyone. Airline magazines have the thinnest paper you can find because the weight savings results in millions of dollars saved per year. They're certainly not putting reinforced steel on the door. However safe you are in an airplane bathroom is about how safe the pilots are in the cockpit.

What is stopping it is international support. Terrorists can only walk across our border from one place, and we're friendly with them and share intelligence. They can come by boat, but all our neighbours within reasonable boating distance of us are friendly and share intelligence. Places that have unfriendly borders and no terrorist attacks achieve it thanks to international support. Example: Golan Heights. It would be the most devastating place to launch attacks from. Crucial Israeli water supply and an elevated position make it strategically advantageous. But international support has allowed a permanent multinational peacekeeping force there.

Where's the multinational peacekeeping force in Gaza and the West Bank? Nowhere. Because there's no international appetite to help thanks to illegal occupations.



Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49. You can move people only if imperative military reasons demand, but they must be kept within the borders of the occupied territory if at all possible. Regardless, they must be allowed to return home as soon as possible. Re-settlement, as you put it, is a war crime.



Pakistan is not occupied territory. It's not a war crime to deport illegal refugees and immigrants from your country, but it is a war crime to attack a territory, occupy it militarily, and then deport the people you don't like from it. The best example is what the Soviet Union did with the Tartars in Crimes. War crime.



Then Israel should leave the occupied territory if it's no longer worth fighting about.

These "gripes" didn't end 75 years ago, they are ongoing. The West has no peace treaty with North Korea, which is why there's a heavy military presence there. Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt which is why the Sinai is no longer Israeli occupied, and lo and behold, no terrorist attacks from it either. That peace process is also credited with causing Egypt to drift and eventually leave the Soviet sphere of influence.

Israel is still at war with Syria and the unofficial state of Palestine. The 4th Arab Israeli War has never been fully settled or ended. In large part because Syria demands either the return of Golan or peace talks, and while Israel stated they were prepared to enter peace talks they never attended any of the actual talks and have never left the Golan.

Let's be very clear here: Israel does not claim to own the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights, or the West Bank. They have never made any formal claims of annexation, and they do not recognize it as annexed. They themselves say, "We do not own this land."

So you say these are "75 year old gripes not worth fighting about", but if that's the case Israel should either annex the land or end its occupation. The problem is they're aware annexation is going to cause problems and they don't want to leave it. The West Bank in particular is a huge money maker. But these doesn't change anything: it's occupied territory and therefore it's illegal for Israel to settle there.

This is actually why they are called settlers. Canadians moving to a new subdivision that was forest or prairie 5 years ago aren't called settlers because it's Canadian territory. Israelis aren't just "moving" to homes to in the West Bank or Gaza because nether place is Israel. "Settling" is illegal because it's unfair. You tell your civilians to go live in a place you don't own, and then what happens? You either have to refuse to give it back in peace talks because your people live there now or force your civilians from their homes. It's not fair to them, or the people they've displaced who are now homeless.

For your idea of just "let it go" to work, Israel needs to pick one: annex or end the occupation. Until then, these aren't 75 year old gripes, they are ongoing gripes. If Israel annexed these territories today, then in 75 more years from now you could call them 75 years old. But as of right now, they are current.


Let's pretend they do have a plan. They kill all Hamas and eliminate all stockpiles, then return to their old routine. Nothing changes. More attacks, more criticism of Israel, more death, more war.

The status quo doesn't work. Over 21,000 people, mostly civilians, a lot of them children, have been killed on both sides with this status quo. That's a lot of death for nothing to change and everyone to keep doing the same thing. How many people need to die before something else is tried? Maybe that something else will fail too. But surely it's better than the status quo and hoping something changes.

I do not understand anyone that supports these actions. Thousands of civilians die for the save thing we had on October 6th. A bunch of death for nothing to change. Don't you get sad at the pointlessness of all those dead people? And all they have to say to justify it is that they think the terrorists should be the bigger man and be reasonable first? C'mon. Just try something, anything, different from "kill a bunch more civilians and see if that changes anything."

Demographics.

Israel can't annex the West Bank because then they'd have to make Palestinians citizens and give them the vote. They'd be the majority.
But they also won't keep trying to take more of Palestine.

Opinion | Amid the Mourning, Israel's Settlement Enterprise Celebrates a Great Victory

 

[DinkleMouse]

They decided to bomb Hamas, not civilians. It's not Israel's fault that Hamas stays and operates within civilian areas.

You can keep repeating the same thing over and over. It's still a war crime.

I have never argued Hamas wasn't embedded in the civilian population, knowingly endangering them. I have never given Hamas a pass on that. Hamas is guilty of war crimes for doing that. Hamas are terrorists and war criminals. Fact.

But that doesn't absolve Israel of its responsibilities as a belligerent in an armed conflict. Deliberately killing civilians in the manner Israel has been doing it is also a war crime. Fact.

If you condone war crimes in this situation, how far do you go? How many Palestinian civilians would Israel have to kill for you to say, "Ok now, that's too far"? Is there any number? Would you support the genocide of all Palestinians to eliminate Hamas if that's what it took? If not, is a million too many? 250,000? 100,000? 50,000? Where do you draw the line on civilian deaths?

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, I do.

My intelligence tells me that that is a fake report from a hugely partisan pro-Palestinian source.

Did Reuters report this? It would be huge news.

So you have nothing to back up your claims.
Of course.

 

[DinkleMouse]

Yes, I do.

My intelligence tells me that that is a fake report from a hugely partisan pro-Palestinian source.

Did Reuters report this? It would be huge news.

You're going to need to change your title soon. If you see "intelligence report" and answer with "my intelligence", you're clearly going full strawman and a nitpicker would point out those are two different things.

 

[shack]

We do know that. 9000+ dead Palestinians with more than half of them being children and women, is enough evidence.

It is not proof.

It is enough evidence that Hamas is hiding in places where civilians will get killed. And Hamas does not give a shit.

 

[Valcazar]

Saying 'it may be happening' should most definitely not be enough to justify killing 10,000 people.

I completely agree.
But that is very different from saying Hamas doesn't do it.
Especially if you don't define human shields only as "forcing someone to be one through threats".

 

[Klatuu]

Did they?
Link?

No link at the moment. But I just listened to Wolf Blitzer announce it before a report from Gaza was broadcast by Jeremy Diamond.

 

[shack]

Those are hypotheticals and speculative.

Just the same as you are doing.

Unless you are privy to Israeli intelligence reports you are hypothesizing and speculating.

 

[DinkleMouse]

Demographics.

Israel can't annex the West Bank because then they'd have to make Palestinians citizens and give them the vote. They'd be the majority.
But they also won't keep trying to take more of Palestine.

Opinion | Amid the Mourning, Israel's Settlement Enterprise Celebrates a Great Victory

No they don't. Annexation is illegal and only legitimized by international recognition. Nothing says you have to grant citizenship to the people there because you're technically not allowed to do it anyway.

 

[mandrill]

And how is the deaths of 19,000 Gazans, mostly civilians, many of them children, going to help reduce that hate?

No. But they're going to hate anyway.

And look at how much the international sanctions have hurt Russia. Meanwhile bring up Hamas in the UN and the conversation quickly turns to, "Sanction Israel for illegal settlements," instead. Something might get done if you eliminate that counter-argument. Nothing gets done otherwise. Isn't some chance better than no chance?

Russia's been wounded, but not injured to the point it withdraws from Ukraine.

Very distributing. Disturbing enough that other countries might not want to see this continue and actually do something about Iran and Lebanon if they weren't so focused on Israeli war crimes.

Dream on. Betcha Russia ramps up its cooperation with Iran and the 2 countries work through their proxies to undermine the West all the more.

They also aren't illegally occupying land, except for Russia currently who is also getting attacked every day. Terrorists live within our borders; we are not out of reach. We could be hit any day. I realize life seems peaceful and such a thing seems unimaginable, but that's reality. There is a lot of work and resources that goes into preventing them. The CAF, CSIS, CSE, RCMP and every other major police force have counter-terrorism departments and those guys aren't just sitting around every day waiting for an attack.

Israel has these resources too, but what they don't have is a secure border or friendly nations surrounding them. And as long as the have no international support, that's always going to be true. They could completely take over Gaza and the attacks would still keep coming. So what then? Go to war with Iran? Just war after war after war until there is no antisemitic terrorist groups left?

Isn't that the reality for Israel on a permanent basis?

At some point Israel's response to terrorist attacks is going to have to become one of policing and international pressure. Whether that happens before the millions of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank are killed or after, it eventually becomes the reality. I'm proposing maybe the death of millions of civilians isn't worth it if you just achieve the same end result anyway.

Where's the multinational peacekeeping force in Gaza and the West Bank? Nowhere. Because there's no international appetite to help thanks to illegal occupations.

Interesting. Did a UN force go into Serbia and Croatia for instance in the 1990's?

You're also dealing with the political unfeasibility of any of what you suggest to the Israeli electorate. If Netanyahu was to do what you suggest, I would rate his projected lifespan at days, not weeks. That's how long he lives, not how long his party stays in power.

Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49. You can move people only if imperative military reasons demand, but they must be kept within the borders of the occupied territory if at all possible. Regardless, they must be allowed to return home as soon as possible. Re-settlement, as you put it, is a war crime.

Don't the Israelis have a "dire necessity" argument for moving out the Gazans, if Gaza is used increasingly as a Iranian terror proxy?

Pakistan is not occupied territory. It's not a war crime to deport illegal refugees and immigrants from your country, but it is a war crime to attack a territory, occupy it militarily, and then deport the people you don't like from it. The best example is what the Soviet Union did with the Tartars in Crimes. War crime.

I think you misunderstand the Crimea situation. The Russians have an argument that Crimea is Russian territory and the Tartars were moved elsewhere in Russia.

Again, see my "dire necessity" argument re Israel and Gaza above. And when does occupied territory stop being "occupied territory"?... 75 years?

Is Quebec "occupied territory" because of Wolfe in 1759? Do the Cherokee have the right to reclaim Georgia?

These "gripes" didn't end 75 years ago, they are ongoing. The West has no peace treaty with North Korea, which is why there's a heavy military presence there. Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt which is why the Sinai is no longer Israeli occupied, and lo and behold, no terrorist attacks from it either. That peace process is also credited with causing Egypt to drift and eventually leave the Soviet sphere of influence.

Israel is still at war with Syria and the unofficial state of Palestine. The 4th Arab Israeli War has never been fully settled or ended. In large part because Syria demands either the return of Golan or peace talks, and while Israel stated they were prepared to enter peace talks they never attended any of the actual talks and have never left the Golan.

Let's be very clear here: Israel does not claim to own the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights, or the West Bank. They have never made any formal claims of annexation, and they do not recognize it as annexed. They themselves say, "We do not own this land."

So you say these are "75 year old gripes not worth fighting about", but if that's the case Israel should either annex the land or end its occupation. The problem is they're aware annexation is going to cause problems and they don't want to leave it. The West Bank in particular is a huge money maker. But these doesn't change anything: it's occupied territory and therefore it's illegal for Israel to settle there.

This is actually why they are called settlers. Canadians moving to a new subdivision that was forest or prairie 5 years ago aren't called settlers because it's Canadian territory. Israelis aren't just "moving" to homes to in the West Bank or Gaza because nether place is Israel. "Settling" is illegal because it's unfair. You tell your civilians to go live in a place you don't own, and then what happens? You either have to refuse to give it back in peace talks because your people live there now or force your civilians from their homes. It's not fair to them, or the people they've displaced who are now homeless.

For your idea of just "let it go" to work, Israel needs to pick one: annex or end the occupation. Until then, these aren't 75 year old gripes, they are ongoing gripes. If Israel annexed these territories today, then in 75 more years from now you could call them 75 years old. But as of right now, they are current.

The Gazans lost their right to freely enter the rest of Palestine 60 years ago. It ain't coming back. It's time for them to move on.

Let's pretend they do have a plan. They kill all Hamas and eliminate all stockpiles, then return to their old routine. Nothing changes. More attacks, more criticism of Israel, more death, more war.

The status quo doesn't work. Over 21,000 people, mostly civilians, a lot of them children, have been killed on both sides with this status quo. That's a lot of death for nothing to change and everyone to keep doing the same thing. How many people need to die before something else is tried? Maybe that something else will fail too. But surely it's better than the status quo and hoping something changes.

I do not understand anyone that supports these actions. Thousands of civilians die for the save thing we had on October 6th. A bunch of death for nothing to change. Don't you get sad at the pointlessness of all those dead people? And all they have to say to justify it is that they think the terrorists should be the bigger man and be reasonable first? C'mon. Just try something, anything, different from "kill a bunch more civilians and see if that changes anything."

That's why my solution would be to deport the Gazans to Egypt and end the enclave once and for all.

 

[DinkleMouse]

It's war. War is hell. There will be a time when. Israel can be judged. Right now it's a question of survival.

Hamas has never posed any serious threat to either end the Israeli state or successfully commit genocide of the Jewish people.

 

[richaceg]

I completely agree.
But that is very different from saying Hamas doesn't do it.
Especially if you don't define human shields only as "forcing someone to be one through threats".

Hamas has improvised their MO...suicide bombing isn't as effective as the attack in Oct 7....inflict as much damage, enough to to pass Israelis and when they retaliate....make sure there are civilians where they fire rockets....and what do you get? Victims from "genocide"... and they still get to fire their rockets at Israel at the same time....are there Palestinians being used as human shields? There are, and there are also Palestinians who are willing to be human shields....

 

[Frankfooter]

I completely agree.
But that is very different from saying Hamas doesn't do it.
Especially if you don't define human shields only as "forcing someone to be one through threats".

That is one of the bigger issues here.
Define 'human shield' and give terms where its clearly using civilians as human shields.

The traditional definition has been one of taking civilians by force as a deterrent to an attack.
Israel is now suggesting its now not even fighting, but living in civilian areas.
But Gaza is one of the mostly densely populated places on earth, so finding places that aren't filled with civilians is nearly impossible to begin with.

This is the traditional definition. Give me a definition you think covers this case.

 

[Frankfooter]

Hamas has never posed any serious threat to either end the Israeli state or successfully commit genocide of the Jewish people.

Nor do they have the weapons necessary to commit genocide against a US armed state.

 

[dirtyharry555]

My god….CNN just admitted they submit all their reports from Gaza to the IDF for censorship review.

I think we all knew they did this (ditto for every other major American news network). The truth slips out eventually.

The level of propaganda in this war would make Goebbels blush.

 

[richaceg]

Hamas has never posed any serious threat to either end the Israeli state or successfully commit genocide of the Jewish people.

Obviously they can....it will drag hezbollah and probably Syria when this war escalates further...Will Egypt and turkey take another shot at Israel when this happens? Who knows....

 

[Frankfooter]

The Gazans lost their right to freely enter the rest of Palestine 60 years ago. It ain't coming back. It's time for them to move on.

Or its time to admit that Palestine has been wiped off the maps and its time to give Palestinians under Israeli rule full citizenship including the vote.

 

[Valcazar]

That is one of the bigger issues here.
Define 'human shield' and give terms where its clearly using civilians as human shields.

The traditional definition has been one of taking civilians by force as a deterrent to an attack.
Israel is now suggesting its now not even fighting, but living in civilian areas.
But Gaza is one of the mostly densely populated places on earth, so finding places that aren't filled with civilians is nearly impossible to begin with.

This is the traditional definition. Give me a definition you think covers this case.

I will go with the definition used in international law as understood by the Red Cross.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97

It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.