10,000 Dead for Nothing. Just Revenge and to Create Homelessness. Hoping to Force the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians.
What donyou think will happen to Israel when the majority you're talking about has their way in a "democracy"? What do you think will happen to the jews? The talking points here are simply "75 years of oppression and occupation where in reality, it goes beyond 75 years that jews were the receiving end of that claim.We are not talking about Hamas doing anything or being incharge in an ideal state.
Yes, as we've been saying.Israel has wiped 25% of Gaza off the map
Is your argument that Israel attacking Gaza for 17 years, with bombs and blockade has made them so angry you don't think they can live peacefully with Israelis so you need to keep dropping more bombs on them?What donyou think will happen to Israel when the majority you're talking about has their way in a "democracy"? What do you think will happen to the jews? The talking points here are simply "75 years of oppression and occupation where in reality, it goes beyond 75 years that jews were the receiving end of that claim.
Unsurprisingly, this attack on Gaza has increased hate crimes on Muslims, Palestinians and Jews.Here's another moderate muslim
Your post is way too much for me to respond to, aside from noting that what you claim are my rhetorical "riddles" were actually genuine informational questions.People here have championed for Israel to kill more Gazans and argued that Hamas needs to give in first. I said they are a terrorist organization and that it's unreasonable to expect them to give in. People asked me what my view was, and I think that's fair of them. It's unfair of me to criticize other people's views if I don't offer my own. So I did.
I think it is less insane to expect Israel to be reasonable than it is to expect terrorists to be reasonable. Neither will happen in my life time. But at the very least, I'm not championing for a bigger and bigger and bigger bodycount only for the status quo to be maintained. Yes, my proposal is almost as unlikely as theirs, but at least it isn't cheering for more dead civilians and at least I'm not expecting terrorists who have only ever committed war crimes by killing civilians to be reasonable people. All I'm offering is an alternative to hope for rather than killing more civilians to achieve nothing different from the status quo.
Hamas offered to trade hostages weeks ago.But let me concentrate on one salient point. NO COUNTRY is going to let a terrorist organization which just attacked it get away with keeping the hostages and repeating the action next week. When 9/11 happened, the US essentially trashed the Middle East for the next decade and did much dumb stuff. Israel is far more focused.
The IRA were not defeated through killing them but through negotiations.Not responding with overwhelming force to a terrorist attack will be perceived as weak and will achieve nothing. HAMAS will simply repeat the attack next month, by which time Natanyahu would be out of power and probably assassinated by Israelis. You cannot negotiate or "play nice" with terrorists; you have to destroy them.
Again, if you argue that you should do what Hamas does then you argue that you are a terrorist too.And if they render that difficult by using human shields, you cannot let that deter your operations. Because it is far too easy for HAMAS to commit its own war crimes and then claim immunity under international law by setting up its HQ in a hospital and surrounding itself with 100's of civilians.
While I understand the war crime / proportionality argument, it is very easy to "create" an inevitable war crime simply by doing exactly what HAMAS is doing. And that's my necessity argument. I'm sorry I put it in quotes and confused you. Necessity is a legal argument where one chooses the lesser of 2 evils. I added "dire" for flourish.
No, the UN has specifically stated that Israel, as an occupying power, does not have the right to self defence. That is a faulty legal argument, aren't you a lawyer?HAMAS could attack Israel every week from now to eternity - or as long as it has Iranian rockets to fire. Clearly the game has changed radically and suddenly in the ME. Israel has a right of self defence.
You accept IDF propaganda and now defend terrorist attacks on hospitals.
You accept IDF propaganda and now defend terrorist attacks on hospitals.
You already admitted that all your accusations are bullshit.everytime you gaslight and lie about my post i will pull up up your racist, anti-semitic and terror supporting posts
You're saying you asked a very specific question about whether the UN got involved in a specific conflict between two specific parties during a specific decade because you didn't know if they did and couldn't find it on Google and just wanted to know if they did and not because you were going to make a point about it?Your post is way too much for me to respond to, aside from noting that what you claim are my rhetorical "riddles" were actually genuine informational questions.
That's your example to justify this? Estimates are that 4.5 million people died in the various conflicts in the wake of 9/11. Has the threat of Islamic terrorism been eliminated? Nope. Has it been reduced? Nope. In fact, there are now more Islamic terror groups and they're bigger.But let me concentrate on one salient point. NO COUNTRY is going to let a terrorist organization which just attacked it get away with keeping the hostages and repeating the action next week. When 9/11 happened, the US essentially trashed the Middle East for the next decade and did much dumb stuff. Israel is far more focused.
So the same. Kill no one and achieve nothing, or kill 4.5 million people and achieve nothing. Why pick the death? What's the gain? To not look weak? Is image that important?Not responding with overwhelming force to a terrorist attack will be perceived as weak and will achieve nothing.
First off, sending in police and special forces, as I've suggested, is not "playing nice". Secondly, you can't destroy them. They will always be there. So if the goal is to destroy them you're going to fail.HAMAS will simply repeat the attack next month, by which time Natanyahu would be out of power and probably assassinated by Israelis. You cannot negotiate or "play nice" with terrorists; you have to destroy them.
Special forces could meet the conditions of the Conventions and minimize the loss of civilian lives. The will always be some collateral damage, but surgical raids by social forces have the chance to meet the humanitarian responsibilities where bombing a hospital does not.And if they render that difficult by using human shields, you cannot let that deter your operations. Because it is far too easy for HAMAS to commit its own war crimes and then claim immunity under international law by setting up its HQ in a hospital and surrounding itself with 100's of civilians.
I think you'd have a hard time arguing for murder as a necessity in any court of law in a situation like this. If your neighbor kills your wife, you killing his entire family, buying down his house and the houses of everyone who is nice to him in retaliation is far more likely to merit the insanity defense then the necessity one.While I understand the war crime / proportionality argument, it is very easy to "create" an inevitable war crime simply by doing exactly what HAMAS is doing. And that's my necessity argument. I'm sorry I put it in quotes and confused you. Necessity is a legal argument where one chooses the lesser of 2 evils. I added "dire" for flourish.
"As long as it has Iranian rockets to fire." Precisely. So you're setting up for war with Iran next? Same argument? Bomb hospitals and schools and neighborhoods? And if Syria and Lebanon start, them next? Maybe go after Russia for good measure?HAMAS could attack Israel every week from now to eternity - or as long as it has Iranian rockets to fire. Clearly the game has changed radically and suddenly in the ME. Israel has a right of self defence.