You seem to be of the opinion that the Israelis don’t do the same, thus making them in some way ‘better’.
You, sir, are very, very naïve.
Cite?
It’s my life and I’m not going to give it up easily or willingly. I will do anything and everything to make sure that you (not “you”, of course) proceed me into the afterlife.
I personally find Terr’s post less than persuasive that reporters in Gaza only report what Hamas wants them to report, I’ve never heard any credible reports of the Israel governments threatening reporters who said things they didn’t like so I’m not sure I understand your post.
Are you suggesting they do?
Sorry, but I’m honestly not sure I follow. Are you arguing that they would not do it unless there was a sensible reason? And as such, if they do it, there’ must be a sensible reason?
I would dearly love to believe there was a good justification for the deaths of the civilians caught up in this. Not the Hamas militants, obviously. Screw them, they can die by the sword, they made their choices.
I’m talking purely about the civilians who died. I don’t see the reason, the sense. I can see a score of reason why these deaths actually could increase the risk against Israel. That’s not hard, you can easily conjecture the hackneyed orphan dedicating their life to vengeance for the death of their parents (perhaps without cape or batcave). More importantly though, what about the really apparent threats, such as ISIS or other resourced and trained outfit using the leverage of local outrage to establish a local presence and really put a threat right within strike range of Israel.
That’s what I don’t understand. Why did nearly a thousand civilians have to die, when all it seems to do is increase the threat to Israel. Please, someone, explain this.
Again, could you answer the question. Do you believe there are limits to what a person can do under the cause of self defence? Preferably without reference to a juvenile you/me narrative? Or if you need to do it in those terms, how many members of my family do you feel justified in killing, if you think I might be a threat to you? Or how many of my neighbours?
At what point does your right to self preservation conflict with the right to life of others who aren’t actually part of that threat?
First, explain how you know that “nearly a thousand civilians” died.
Doorhinge, let me ask you this. Suppose there’s a powerful man, call him Israel, ensconced in an impregnable fortress equipped with super-high-tech defenses capable of deflecting any (for practical purposes) attack. Along comes this madman, call him Hamas, who walks up and starts lobbing grenades at the fortress. However, these are easily incinerated by the fortress defenses, and the man inside isn’t ever in any real danger. For good measure, however, Hamas happens to have surrounded himself with a three-child-thick ring of 5 year-olds. Citing his legitimate right to self-defense, Israel strafes the whole lot of them with machine gun fire until Hamas is dead, which happens to require killing all the five year-olds too.
Does your moral instinct tell you this is an ok thing to do? If not, would you care to explain why this doesn’t basically reflect the form of the situation at hand?
Seriously, is that your only response?
What number do you feel is accurate? Please feel free to use that number in explaining why it was best they had to die. Don’t hide behind fog of war/sophistry/whatever, just explain why those deaths were a good thing for Israel.
It’s not “the only response” - it is a question to begin the debate. How do you know that “a thousand civilians” died? Is that hard to answer?
What if you found out that out of the 1100 dead in Gaza, 700 were combatants. Would that change your opinion? What if you found out that EVERY other “asymmetric” operation, whether fought by USA, Russians, British, French or others had a much higher ratio of civilian to combatant casualties? Would that change your opinion?
It would depend on whether one includes Hamas police as innocent civilians, young Gazan men as innocent civilians, or a population that voted in Hamas as innocent civilians. That’s the nature of terrorists using human shields – they play the blame game, trying to assign blame on their opponent for the deaths of their shields, knowing that a lot of third parties will by into it.
If your family and/or neighbors are helping or assisting in your attempts to murder me, I consider them, and you, to be fair game and expendable. Everyone who helps you try to murder me. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Israel has a right to defend it’s residents from the repeated, murderous, rocket attacks sent by bloodthirsty Palestinian Hamas.
You “don’t see” why essentially any military actions in Gaza are likely to kill civilians?
The alternative is, of course, to not undertake military actions in Gaza. Meaning, to allow Hamas to shoot without using any military means to prevent them.
The issue, I would imagine, is this: is destroying rocket crews and blowing up infiltration tunnels - that is, the actual and quite legitimate military targets - in point of fact, helping to prevent Hamas from successfully carrying out attacks? The only way of knowing that would be to experiment - to let Hamas do what it wants in Gaza without taking any military efforts to stop them.
What if, unhindered by Israelis shooting them and blowing up their stuff, Hamas then succeeds in killing lots of Israeli civilians? Why, then you are back at square one.
So no, you have no comment other than to query if it’s really a thousand people. As if, for example, if it was 500 people, there would be a different reason for them to die.
Let’s be frank here, you have no intent to honestly answer just how Israel benefited from these deaths. If I come out with a number here so stupidly low that you cannot possibly query it, say a hundred, you will cite it as evidence of Israel’s efforts to keep casualties to the minimum. If I say anything higher, you will try to draw the debate to some argument over actual numbers.
Could we perhaps use Israellycool’s total number for civilian deaths? For some reason I can’t find an actual figure, but perhaps you could locate one. Or by all means put forward another suggestion for an actual civilian death toll to date.
So you believe every Palestinian is complicit in Hamas’ attacks on Israel?
So, no, you cannot answer how you know how many civilians died?
Sorry, was I unclear? I responded to Alessan’s question “How does killing Palestinians benefit Israel?” to say that I was hoping for an answer.
Could you perhaps advise?
The issue isn’t the total number of civilian deaths. Obviously, civilian deaths in no way advance Israel’s interests - and if they did, given the disproportion of military power, Israel could very easily kill hundreds of thousands.
The issue is whether, in carrying out attacks on what are universally considered legitimate military targets such as rocket launchers shooting at Israeli civilians, Israel has - or has not - taken the appropriate precautions to ensure that civilian deaths (which are more or less inevitable in undertaking any military action in a populated place and when fighting against a foe that uses “human shields”) are as few as possible, commensurate with achieving those valid military goals.
That’s the proper analysis.
Civilians die in wars. Sometimes innocent civilians. Pick a war that you think was justified, then tell me what the proportion of combatants killed vs “innocent civilians” killed was on the losing side.
Unless you think that no war is ever justified. Which means there is nothing to debate here, really.
Certainly. It is not in Israel’s interests to kill civilians, but it is in Israel’s interests to shoot at weapons aimed at Israel - which, given where those weapons are located, will inevitably result in civilian casualties.
So killing civilians does not advance Israel’s interests one bit, but is an unfortunate effect of undertaking activities which do in fact advance Israeli interests.
As stated in my post above, the issue of whether such attacks on the part of Israel are “justified” depends on the typical “just war” analysis - basically, whether the military objectives are “proportional” to the risks to civilians.