I’m going to say I don’t believe me and you can have further productive dialogue on the topic, and wish you well.
No. Everybody has a cell phone and there are security camera’s all over the place.
The only course of action to achieve this is to conquer the areas where rockets are launched and establish a zone of stability where the local people can build a free and productive society.
Because clearly the Palestinians don’t have the intentions or ability to achieve this.
An invasion has never resulted in any kind of stability in the past and I see no reason to believe it would do any better if attempted now.
An invasion as you describe would result in dozens or hundreds killed on both sides, in a prolonged and painful insurgency under occupation leading to even more civilian deaths, Israeli soldiers being captured and after years of painful imprisonment exchanged for dozens of Hamas terrorists being released from Israeli custody, and another Intifada. Not to mention will ensure peace is delayed by another generation. Even if Hamas’ behavior would justify such actions, and arguably it already has, it wouldn’t lead to any kind of positive outcome and would be a big step back.
Also, I really don’t think that the Palestinians lack the ability to do so, so much as they are ruled by Hamas, a dictatorial government that directly benefits from a lack of prosperity and is quite skilled at propaganda.
I mean, yeah, that’s on Israel. I don’t see what is so wrong with right of return. You were kicked out of where you lived by an occupying force. You’d like to go back to where you were kicked out of. That Israel will fight a war for all time before it agrees to let people go back to where they were forcibly removed is pretty much on Israel here.
I don’t think that it is a defect of thinking to want back what was taken from you. The UN convention universal human rights, Geneva conventions and at least two UN resolutions also contain this “defect of thinking”.
Right, strike back at Hamas. Not at the civilians who happen to have been imprisoned in Gaza, who have no ability to leave.
Do you see what I am saying here? When you say, “simply refusing to strike back at Hamas when Hamas strikes at them”, that’s just a strawman, as I do think that Israel should strike back at Hamas.
The problem is that they are not striking Hamas, they are striking civilians.
I don’t know how that follows. I was pointing out that Israel, and you, are excluding any middle here. They don’t have to respond by killing civilians.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. I offer them no defense. OTOH, it the IDF is not a terrorist organization, then they should probably have a defense for their actions.
And yet, they do kill children who had nothing to do with rockets being fired toward Israel.
If there was virtually no improvement in the situation, then they weren’t doing a very good job of it.
You have millions of people living in desperate poverty. They are living in that condition because of the actions of Israel. It takes more than a half hearted aid package to overcome that.
Once again, Israel taking offense because their ineffective overtures of alleviating the pain that they have cause are not well accepted is a choice of Israel.
Yeah, but how much good does that do when you also killed that guy’s family, so he’s ready to take up arms against Israel now?
Yes, they are, not sure how that relates to them blowing up civilian buildings.
Sometimes, but not usually in the civilian buildings that they destroy. By the time they are bombed, Hamas has cleared out with its equipment
Hamas is destroying them right now, firing them into the Iron Dome, landing them in fields.
I’m not missing that. That is specifically what I am saying.
It’s not the fault of the civilians who are killed or left homeless. Is it the fault of Israel that it launches military attacks against Gaza from bases that are out of range of Hamas’s rockets? I’m sure that Hamas would be happy to fire its rockets at military bases, but they are hidden behind civilian areas.
I don’t simply disagree that a military has a right to defend its country. If after all this, you actually think that is my position, then we are having such a fundamental issue with communication that I doubt we can resolve it, and I don’t know that I care to try.
What Israel is doing is utterly ineffective if their goal is to stop the violence. All they are doing is getting vengeance. Vengeance upon people who had nothing to do with it.
But, just as a quick hypothetical. You think that using force to defend your home is reasonable, correct?
So, do you think that
These people should be immune to prosecution for murder? They were just protecting their home. Sometimes, that defense will cause collateral damage.
I don’t disagree that some of the actions that the allies took in WWII should be considered war crimes. It’s a tangent that I don’t know we need to go down in this thread, but it fair to point out that that’s another reason why the actions in WWII shouldn’t be used to justify the actions being taken now.
But many of the other civilian buildings destroyed were not used to launch rockets either (I mean even according to the IDF; they are suggesting they were used for storage or other military uses, and often no reason is given at all).
In terms of the specific framing you’ve chosen here, I would say that in general* you are of course entitled to shoot back at someone that’s shooting at you. But the question is, what about all the other times when that justification is not there?
* I say “in general” as of course there are edge cases but they may not be relevant to this conflict. For the sake of simplicity let’s put them to one side and say it’s always justified to shoot back.
I think the answer is basically in your question. I’m arguing, as I think most here are, regarding the ethical issues here. To call it a “war crime” means talking about a specific legal definition, and that’s a different (though of course related) discussion. I’m not a lawyer, so can’t really go there.
Regarding the burden of proof, I am speaking somewhat rhetorically when I say that the burden of proof lies with the bomber; there is of course no such formal standard. But, the point is, there have been a number of bombings recently that could be for bad reasons (e.g. negative press) and so the international community have asked for evidence of the justification of those bombings. I share such concerns, and hope that such evidence is forthcoming, even if I don’t see it myself.
And in the meantime. it’s wholly wrong for some here to imply that I need to prove that those targets weren’t being used by Hamas.
Not that I disagree with everything you said, but this analogy is flawed for a number of reasons, chief among them that you can and should call the police to handle vandalism on the United States; when Hamas, the authority in Gaza, launches rockets - who do you call to put a stop to it?
You are probably right. I’m not sure why you continue to misconstrue my position on the topic, but it does make any discussion pretty much fruitless.
Is that the same as journalists?
We’ve all seen the pictures and videos of buildings destroyed, people killed and wounded. Doesn’t seem to do much for quite a number of people.
You mean Gaza? It already is conquered. The occupation is what is leading to these problems.
They certainly don’t have the resources. What with embargoes and destruction of what little they do have.
All analogies are flawed. An analogy without a flaw isn’t an analogy at all, it’s just a description.
I’d say that the biggest flaw is that, unlike the vandal, the people in Gaza are forced to be there. It would be like complaining that you locked someone in your garage, and they are damaging it while trying to get out. (Of course, the flaw in that analogy would be that it was originally their garage in the first place.)
The other being that there is no authority over Israel either. Meaning that there is no one to charge them for the murder of an innocent bystander.
I don’t know that they didn’t. The article doesn’t say that they did, but if they had, I’m sure that the police didn’t give them the answer that they wanted. The police are limited in what they can do, and it is likely that they would not be able to put a stop to it.
I’d say the UN, the international community as a whole, or other Arab nations.
But, the point is, people can justify anything in the name of “defense”. Innocent people who have absolutely nothing to do with rockets being shot into Israel are being killed. They are just bystanders, just trying to live their lives as best possible in the conditions that they are forced to live in.
As long as Israel keeps building the settlements, I don’t think they can really claim the moral high ground. Is it THAT important to them to have those settlements where they are? I don’t like the idea of displacing people, but unfortunately displaced people are just part of the conflict there and it’s not going to go away for the time being. Would it be that hard or politically unfeasible for Israel to settle those people somewhere else, with heavy financial compensation?
I suspect that even if Israel ends the settlements, there’s still going to be terrorist attacks against them. Would it be “enough” for them to use the concession of the settlements as a justification for retaliation against further attacks? I really don’t know. I suspect that a lot of the world is still going to criticize Israel no matter what they do or don’t do, but at least in the diplomatic community, the settlements seem like an obstacle to de-escalating the conflict.
I don’t know if Gaza is super “occupied” right now. This isn’t 1985. Not that there was a shortage of refugee camps back then, but it was easier for ordinary people to come by a living (cf. unemployment rates, lack of border barrier, etc)
I’m pretty sure that would require a UN resolution and the US won’t even allow the UN to issue a “Cease Fire” request. What do you think the chances are that US would vote to allow UN peace keeping troops into Gaza or West Bank. You know Israel would have absolute fits about it.
An occupation doesn’t have to have troops on the ground.
https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/occupied-territory/
I’d say that Gaza falls under the authority of the IDF.
Right, that’s the whole point. Israel would have fits if they turned the authority over to someone else.
They won’t “call the cops”, they want to take care of the problem themselves.
Looks like a ceasefire may be imminent, thankfully
Something that I think should be noted is that when you attack another country with bombs, that is an act of war. Retaliatory strikes, targeting military targets, is allowed. They are not constrained only to the launch sites of the bombs, i.e. if Syria launches a rocket at Turkey from a specific place, Turkey is not constrained against launching a counter attack against a building believed to be Syrian military intelligence. I’m not familiar with IDF saying it is leveling buildings simply because they want to, but because of similar reasons for Hamas, I’ve seen reports of buildings used by Hamas as command centers, Hamas leadership residences, Hamas weapons depots etc. Just to be clear, when you start a shooting war more than just your gun that you shot the bullet with is a valid target for retaliation.