Israel vs Hamas (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Looks like the fight is on with Israeli soldiers and civilians amongst the dead already. Question becomes, how long before we get dragged into this?

Netanyahu says Israel is ‘at war’ after Hamas launches surprise attack, takes hostages | CNN

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the country was “at war” on Saturday, after Palestinian militants in Gaza fired a deadly barrage of rockets and sent gunmen into Israeli territory in a major escalation of the long running conflict between the two sides.

www.cnn.com

 

[DaveXA]

You are being hysterical.

People are asking what us complainers think Israel should have done. I provided what I think they should have done.

I don't think Israel has made good choices since 10/7. I guess that makes me a Hamas supporter.

I actually liked what you suggested about Israel reaching out to the US and I would say NATO and build a strong coalition and consensus for a joint response.

That said, Israel is led by a proud, ultra-nationalist leader in Bibi, who doesn't trust anyone to do their job for them.

I don't think your alternative was ever given consideration tbh. I wish it were an option though.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[SaintForLife]

Very informative and interesting. Full text of the post:

Immediately prior to the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, #Hamas had terrible and declining support among Gazans, who saw it and not Israel or Egypt as primarily responsible for widespread poverty. Arab Barometer completed surveys in Gaza on October 6. Among the results:

"Only 16 percent blamed externally imposed economic sanctions" for widespread poverty and food shortages. 31 percent "identified government mismanagement as the primary cause of food insecurity in Gaza."

"Only 40 percent said that freedom of expression was guaranteed to a great or moderate extent, and 68 percent believed that the right to participate in a peaceful protest was not protected or was protected only to a limited extent under Hamas rule."

"73 percent of Gazans favored a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the eve of Hamas’s October 7 attack, just 20 percent of Gazans favored a military solution that could result in the destruction of the state of Israel." 54 percent of Gazans favored a two-state solution.

Writing in @ForeignAffairs, @AmaneyJamal and @mdhrobbins of @ArabBarometer, show that in the past Gazans rally around support when Israeli military actions ramp up, as they are now. That's understandable--as is @Israel's need to defend itself and remove Hamas, a governing group that is committed to the eradication of Israel.

I hope that Israel's hunt for Hamas leadership is swift, effective, and targeted in such a way that it allows Gazans and Israelis to reach a lasting peace in the near future.

What Palestinians Really Think of Hamas

Before the war, Gaza’s leaders were deeply unpopular—but an Israeli crackdown could change that.

www.foreignaffairs.com

 

[Heathen]

Hamas lives and works among the people for this very reason. They believe that surrounding themselves with civilians will either deter an enemy from attacking them or if they do attack people like you will say their enemy is committing war crimes. Hamas purposely sets itself up this way.

They are war crimes.. But just so I understand your position (feel free to correct me):

Because of the way Hamas strategizes, or because “Israel has the right to defend itself” - mass civilian slaughter is justified, “just a part of war” etc in one scenario…but terrorist in nature and a war crime in another?

Help me point out the difference where one is any more justified than the other.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

They are war crimes.. But just so I understand your position (feel free to correct me):

Because of the way Hamas strategizes, or because “Israel has the right to defend itself” - mass civilian slaughter is justified, “just a part of war” etc in one scenario…but terrorist in nature and a war crime in another?

Help me point out the difference where one is any more justified than the other.

Well, let me ask you. If you're attacked by an enemy that represents a people, in a particular place, that hides among those people on purpose, how to do you fight back without killing some of the very civilians your enemy hides behind?

There's no Ft. Ord or Paris Island in Gaza. Hamas uses the civilian infrastructure for its purposes.

BTW, as distasteful as it is, bombing civilians is nothing new. Now that doesn't make in right, but it just shows that countless bombing campaigns have targeted civilians over the years, many from nations and leaders we respect.

"WWII (1939–1945) involved sustained strategic bombing of railways, harbours, cities, workers' and civilian housing, and industrial districts in enemy territory. Strategic bombing as a military strategy is distinct both from close air support of ground forces and from tactical air power.[29]During World War II, many military strategists of air power believed that air forces could win major victories by attacking industrial and political infrastructure, rather than purely military targets.[30]Strategic bombing often involved bombing areas inhabited by civilians, and some campaigns were deliberately designed to target civilian populations in order to terrorize them and disrupt their usual activities. International law at the outset of World War II did not specifically forbid the aerial bombardment of cities – despite the prior occurrence of such bombing during World War I (1914–1918), the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), and the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945).

Strategic bombing during World War II began on 1 September 1939 when Germany invaded Polandand the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) began bombing Polish cities and the civilian population in an aerial bombardment campaign.[31] As the war continued to expand, bombing by both the Axis and the Allies increased significantly. The Royal Air Force, in retaliation for Luftwaffe attacks on the UK which started on 16 October 1939, began bombing military targets in Germany, commencing with the Luftwaffe seaplane air base at Hörnum on the 19-20 March 1940.[32] In September 1940 the Luftwaffe began targeting British civilians in the Blitz.[33] After the beginning of Operation Barbarossain June 1941, the Luftwaffe attacked Soviet cities and infrastructure. From February 1942 onward, the British bombing campaign against Germany became even less restrictive and increasingly targeted industrial sites and civilian areas.[34][35] When the United States began flying bombing missions against Germany, it reinforced British efforts. The Allies attacked oil installations, and controversial firebombings took place against Hamburg (1943), Dresden (1945), and other German cities.[36]"

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DaveXA]

Well, let me ask you. If you're attacked by an enemy that represents a people, in a particular place, that hides among those people on purpose, how to do you fight back without killing some of the very civilians your enemy hides behind?

There's no Ft. Ord or Paris Island in Gaza. Hamas uses the civilian infrastructure for its purposes.

BTW, as distasteful as it is, bombing civilians is nothing new. Now that doesn't make in right, but it just shows that countless bombing campaigns have targeted civilians over the years, many from nations and leaders we respect.

"WWII (1939–1945) involved sustained strategic bombing of railways, harbours, cities, workers' and civilian housing, and industrial districts in enemy territory. Strategic bombing as a military strategy is distinct both from close air support of ground forces and from tactical air power.[29]During World War II, many military strategists of air power believed that air forces could win major victories by attacking industrial and political infrastructure, rather than purely military targets.[30]Strategic bombing often involved bombing areas inhabited by civilians, and some campaigns were deliberately designed to target civilian populations in order to terrorize them and disrupt their usual activities. International law at the outset of World War II did not specifically forbid the aerial bombardment of cities – despite the prior occurrence of such bombing during World War I (1914–1918), the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), and the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945).

Strategic bombing during World War II began on 1 September 1939 when Germany invaded Polandand the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) began bombing Polish cities and the civilian population in an aerial bombardment campaign.[31] As the war continued to expand, bombing by both the Axis and the Allies increased significantly. The Royal Air Force, in retaliation for Luftwaffe attacks on the UK which started on 16 October 1939, began bombing military targets in Germany, commencing with the Luftwaffe seaplane air base at Hörnum on the 19-20 March 1940.[32] In September 1940 the Luftwaffe began targeting British civilians in the Blitz.[33] After the beginning of Operation Barbarossain June 1941, the Luftwaffe attacked Soviet cities and infrastructure. From February 1942 onward, the British bombing campaign against Germany became even less restrictive and increasingly targeted industrial sites and civilian areas.[34][35] When the United States began flying bombing missions against Germany, it reinforced British efforts. The Allies attacked oil installations, and controversial firebombings took place against Hamburg (1943), Dresden (1945), and other German cities.[36]"

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And it's happened in numerous wars since. Russia has a long history of razing cities to the ground and they've done that in Ukraine as well. None of those examples makes it right, but it's long been a characteristic of war. Few people find it acceptable, but nearly every country with a large standing military has done it at some point in their history. And same can be said of Israel.

That said, I think Israel has used up all of their goodwill at this point and they'll have to tread carefully if they want their allies to continue to support them.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

..................................

That said, I think Israel has used up all of their goodwill at this point and they'll have to tread carefully if they want their allies to continue to support them.

Yeah, while I try to support Israel I cringe, understatement, every time I see a picture of the bomb damage in Gaza. The Palestinians there are so helpless.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, while I try to support Israel I cringe, understatement, every time I see a picture of the bomb damage in Gaza. The Palestinians there are so helpless.

And I would hope we all cringe and not lose our humanity. No matter how much I support Israel, it still hurts to see those images of Palestinians suffering.

 

[samiam5211]

Biden should grant TPS to any Palestinians currently in the US.

I doubt it would help many people. There might be a few from the west bank that were here visiting, but probably not many from Gaza. they shouldn't have to go back right now. We shouldn't even be deporting anyone back to there right now. If they are dangerous we can detain them pending removal, but if they just came to visit and stayed longer than they were supposed to, we can at least wait until the war is over to force them to go back.

It would at least be something, and would at least be a start towards trying to earn a little good will in the Region.

I'm sure Fox would say that Biden gives citizenship to Hamas if he did though.

 

[Lapaz]

Biden should grant TPS to any Palestinians currently in the US.

I doubt it would help many people. There might be a few from the west bank that were here visiting, but probably not many from Gaza. they shouldn't have to go back right now. We shouldn't even be deporting anyone back to there right now. If they are dangerous we can detain them pending removal, but if they just came to visit and stayed longer than they were supposed to, we can at least wait until the war is over to force them to go back.

It would at least be something, and would at least be a start towards trying to earn a little good will in the Region.

I'm sure Fox would say that Biden gives citizenship to Hamas if he did though.

One problem I have with granting admission to Palestinians is that Hamas was elected by Palestinians and was popular. So while there are a large number of innocent Palestinians, a majority are complicit.

 

[Lapaz]

Yeah, while I try to support Israel I cringe, understatement, every time I see a picture of the bomb damage in Gaza. The Palestinians there are so helpless.

I cringe as well, but I believe a majority of Palestinians support Hamas. That doesn’t justify killing non-combatants and civilians, but separating the combatants from the innocents is complicated.

 

[DaveXA]

Biden should grant TPS to any Palestinians currently in the US.

I doubt it would help many people. There might be a few from the west bank that were here visiting, but probably not many from Gaza. they shouldn't have to go back right now. We shouldn't even be deporting anyone back to there right now. If they are dangerous we can detain them pending removal, but if they just came to visit and stayed longer than they were supposed to, we can at least wait until the war is over to force them to go back.

It would at least be something, and would at least be a start towards trying to earn a little good will in the Region.

I'm sure Fox would say that Biden gives citizenship to Hamas if he did though.

I don't really have an issue with that. But it's certainly something worth paying attention to.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

I cringe as well, but I believe a majority of Palestinians support Hamas. That doesn’t justify killing non-combatants and civilians, but separating the combatants from the innocents is complicated.

I’m not at all sure that a majority of them support Hamas - they’ve not held an election for decades, and used intimidation to win the first time. But you are extremely correct about separating the combatants from the civilians. Hamas is a terrorist group and a political party. They are all Palestinian, though. Presumably they all have relatives and family that are ordinary civilians. It’s not a bright line of demarcation between Hamas and ordinary Palestinians.

 

[Heathen]

Well, let me ask you. If you're attacked by an enemy that represents a people, in a particular place, that hides among those people on purpose, how to do you fight back without killing some of the very civilians your enemy hides behind?

There's no Ft. Ord or Paris Island in Gaza. Hamas uses the civilian infrastructure for its purposes.

I've said I don't have the answer - it's a tough scenario, no doubt. But I don't think it's the only potential answer.
Humans have accomplished mind bending feats against innumerable odds...but this issue within war is one that just can't be solved? I don't buy it.

Why even have rules of war or international laws if mass civilian casualty in war 'just happens'?

If Israel was protecting their people in slaughtering Palestinian civilians - as many seem to, albeit solemnly, accept..Was Hamas' attack and slaughter of civilians justified? Using the same logic and adding known context of Israel's unfair rule over that land, a point can be made.

To be clear, no one is advocating for that. But the logic, very clearly, falls apart when asking a wider range of questions.

I have argued and I think there is simple and available evidence in speech and in action to Israel committing genocide.

Consider the following example from just a day ago, foregoing decades of other examples:
(Saturday, Oct. 28) Netanyahu excerpt in speech, comparing Palestinians/Hamas to Amalekites:
'You must remember what Amalek has done to you', he said. If you've read much into the Bible - Amalek was the town Israelites (under Saul) were commanded to destroy Amalek including massacring all women, children and animal.

I feel that this very conversation would be so much different if it were in our own country or closer to home. Or even if the roles were reversed.

The fact that it isn't a new thing is irrelevant to me, because 'it's happened before' doesn't seem like a good answer to why it should happen now.

Call me a crazy person, but I think there are other options to mass civilian slaughter to work toward a solution in this war - and it is disturbing to me that so many of us seem to shrug it off as the 'price of war'.

 

[Heathen]

One problem I have with granting admission to Palestinians is that Hamas was elected by Palestinians and was popular. So while there are a large number of innocent Palestinians, a majority are complicit.

Complicit to what?

 

[Heathen]

And I would hope we all cringe and not lose our humanity. No matter how much I support Israel, it still hurts to see those images of Palestinians suffering.

Truly curious here...what does 'I support Israel' mean, exactly?

I see many Americans who say this and I can only guess that it is primarily through a religious context (may be wrong).

I don't understand why anyone could be supportive of that regime in any way. Defend their right to exist in peace? Of course..And I believe you'll find that's the consistent view of most. But their policies of explicit rights deprivation, segregation and dispossession against the Palestinian people are indefensible.

 

[samiam5211]

One problem I have with granting admission to Palestinians is that Hamas was elected by Palestinians and was popular. So while there are a large number of innocent Palestinians, a majority are complicit.

I am just talking about letting the ones who are here currently, stay until the war is over. That is the sort of thing we almost always use TPS for.

Anyone here would most likely have relatives here in the US that they were visiting. Not many people from Gaza are getting visitor visas to come to the US.