Israel's options are an invasion of Gaza, which will result in mass death (on both sides) and destruction; a siege of Gaza, which will punish Palestinian civilians the most; or doing nothing/making concessions, which Hamas will take as confirmation that pogroms *work* and be further emboldened.
I'm sure glad I don't have to be the one responsible for choosing the way forward.
He was pretty clearly referring to Hamas terrorists not civilians but you cleverly framed it that way. Have been following you lately and see that you think you are a clever debater who can win any argument with clever killer comebacks. And you are clever and obviously know it But it’s not persuasive. It’s progressive hand holding.
Code of proportionally is always used by the anti Israel crowd. Never heard such comments by this crowd when talking about Ukraine. The allies killed the Nazis, many civilians died but the Germans knew that there is a cost to “electing” and supporting their killers. Total defeat needs to happen so the population of Gaza understands there are effects of supporting your leaders, Hama. The decapitated innocents while sleeping in their beds do deserve “proportionality.” Maybe a complete and total decimation of Hama and total occupation and rebuilding of this area with sane partners can be the final solution for peace. Now is not the time for you to be clutching your pearls about proportionality. Those people beheaded while sleeping demands that.
Proportionality is a requirement of the laws of war. You can't just say that we're at war, anything goes.
Despite the anarchic nature of international politics, it's generally accepted (at least in the West) that you have to draw the line *somewhere*, based on recognition of our shared humanity, even of our enemies. This is exactly why Hamas's atrocities against civilians are so horrifying.
During wartime, the laws of war require protection of non-combatants, including civilians as well as soldiers who surrender or are captured. They can't be tortured, raped, summarily executed, starved, or worked to death.
Attacks on military targets may endanger non-combatants. The laws of war recognize this, and require *proportionality*: the risk to non-combatants must be proportional to the military benefit of the action. Bombing an entire city, for example, as happened on both sides during World War II, violates the laws of war. Destroying a dam or nuclear power plant is prohibited if it would release deadly forces endangering civilians. Smart bombs which miss their target and kill civilians do *not* violate the laws of war, provided that reasonable precautions were taken to prevent this from happening.
The whole siege can be avoided if Hamas death squad members and their leadership come forward and join the fifteen hundred of their terrorist brethren laying dead on the Israeli side of the border. That would be proportional and avoid touching any others, even the Palestinian ghouls seen celebrating the immolation of a raped kidnapped Israeli woman.
I somehow doubt Hamas would go for that proportional solution, but as you pointed out, I need the Leftist pro Palestinian crowd to explain what is proportional to a massacre of a thousand plus civilians.
Israel's invasion of Gaza will make the question of a siege moot. That Israelis let things get to the point where Hamas could mount its invasion is a measure of their incompetence. That said, they're smart, tough, & ruthless (compared to Hamas, which is merely cruel), and in fighting Hamas they will kill thousands of innocent people and wreck what little Gaza has in the way of infrastructure, hospitals, schools, & viable industry. The big question is, How will this end? Israel hasn't the resources to pacify & govern Gaza. Who in Gaza can sue for peace? And what would peace look like?
Nobody knows how it’ll end, just like nobody did in WW2. Like WW2, the fight is necessary. It’s a nauseating thing to go to war, but now there is no choice but to destroy Hamas.
In case folks missed is the Israeli government apparently accidently sent out a shelter in place warning to everyone in the country via a government ap on people's phones Hawaii style. Which is another reminder that while hardly the top line issue here recent events really have shattered the image (perhaps myth?) of the super ruthless, super capable, all knowing Israeli security services. Does not inspire confidence for a big invasion/possible occupation of some/all of Gaza in the future. We could be looking at another "Blind Into Baghdad" moment [or insert your preferred analogy here].
Our assumption is that Israel's siege/invasion will be effective. Maybe so, but Hamas seems to have learned from Ukraine efforts against the Russians and been innovative in their tactics. It's possible they have also planned for a resistance to the Israeli measures.
Gaza has a border with Egypt. Could the goal of sealing the border with Israel be to change the focus of Gaza's foreign policy away from Israel and towards Egypt?
OK, so to use an analogy, say that there was a civil war in the US: Texas vs the rest of the US. The rest of the US wins and one part of the losing Texans are sequestered in El Paso. Do you think there is any chance that those losing Texans would focus more on Mexico instead of on the US-settled parts of Texas?
It's an unrealistic scenario. After WWII there were lots of refugee groups, from India and Pakistan in the east to Czechoslovakia in the west. The Palestinians are doubly unique: they are the only group which refused resettlement and they are the only group which refused a state of their own. Texans aren't that dumb.
You write that "the Gaza strip is littered with innocent civilians." Littered? So innocent civilians are litter? Of course you don't mean to say that. But you did.
Sorry, Arrr, I don't get the relevance of your link. I'm not a social justice warrior. I was just pointing out what, given the context, is a particularly unfortunate choice of words. The gist of my comment was: Maybe edit more carefully before posting next time.
Perhaps it's just pettifoggery, but that phrase really struck me, and I may not be the only one who reacted to it. So I think it's worth pointing out.
Wars, ongoing epidemic, and escalating random violence...
My hypothesis (it's not nearly formed enough to be a theory) is that every couple of generations, humans engage in activities seemingly dedicated to culling the entire species. It's almost like a biological imperative, and since we're no longer subject to natural population control, we improvise to replicate the effects of being subject to natural population control.
.....it does seem as if humanity as a whole is going through one of its periodic purges.
I wonder if you take the Israeli right at their word, the preferred solution is ethnic cleansing. First there are air and ground attacks. Then there is “safe passage” into Egypt. When nobody remains in Gaza, problem solved.
Well, if you are concerned with ‘The Right’ you are choosing to avoid mentioning that Hamas are a religious Right terrorist organization, and if Israel’s goal (as you claim) is to ethnically cleanse poor Palestinians what do you make of the Hamas charter that explicitly calls for ethnic cleansing and genocide. You may have missed it, but they gave the pro Palestinian Left an example of exactly what they mean. Oddly, the pros act as if their Pals never carried out on this promise a few days ago.
Well I think it is like the “right” in the US wanted to push the natives into smaller and smaller “territories” and the native Americans wanted to push the EuroAmericans out. Lots of bloodshed ensued. I used the term “Israeli Right” because they have been the ones saying it out loud. I agree with you on Hamas.
I agree with you on some Trumper like grosses in the current Israeli government, but not that Israel’s policy is to push out anyone. There are millions of both Arab Israeli citizens and Palestinians in the country. Israel has no such policy, for Hamas what happened on October 7 is what Palestinian liberation looks like. It would be honest for their supporters to accept this reality, maybe reevaluate their support.
How would you describe the policy in the West Bank? To me it’s seems the same as American policy toward Native Americans In the 19th and 20th century. I think that in Israel, it is the right that is honest in articulating this policy.
That is an incredibly clueless statement, TBH. Nobody has moved Palestinians to a reservation. Arab Israeli towns and villages have grown, they move to cities the same as Jewish Israeli citizens. West Bank cities have all grown. It’s a weird ethnic cleansing claim when there are many million more of both Arab Israelis and Palestinians.
Israel's options are an invasion of Gaza, which will result in mass death (on both sides) and destruction; a siege of Gaza, which will punish Palestinian civilians the most; or doing nothing/making concessions, which Hamas will take as confirmation that pogroms *work* and be further emboldened.
I'm sure glad I don't have to be the one responsible for choosing the way forward.
He was pretty clearly referring to Hamas terrorists not civilians but you cleverly framed it that way. Have been following you lately and see that you think you are a clever debater who can win any argument with clever killer comebacks. And you are clever and obviously know it But it’s not persuasive. It’s progressive hand holding.
Code of proportionally is always used by the anti Israel crowd. Never heard such comments by this crowd when talking about Ukraine. The allies killed the Nazis, many civilians died but the Germans knew that there is a cost to “electing” and supporting their killers. Total defeat needs to happen so the population of Gaza understands there are effects of supporting your leaders, Hama. The decapitated innocents while sleeping in their beds do deserve “proportionality.” Maybe a complete and total decimation of Hama and total occupation and rebuilding of this area with sane partners can be the final solution for peace. Now is not the time for you to be clutching your pearls about proportionality. Those people beheaded while sleeping demands that.
Bob Drew
Proportionality is a requirement of the laws of war. You can't just say that we're at war, anything goes.
Despite the anarchic nature of international politics, it's generally accepted (at least in the West) that you have to draw the line *somewhere*, based on recognition of our shared humanity, even of our enemies. This is exactly why Hamas's atrocities against civilians are so horrifying.
During wartime, the laws of war require protection of non-combatants, including civilians as well as soldiers who surrender or are captured. They can't be tortured, raped, summarily executed, starved, or worked to death.
Attacks on military targets may endanger non-combatants. The laws of war recognize this, and require *proportionality*: the risk to non-combatants must be proportional to the military benefit of the action. Bombing an entire city, for example, as happened on both sides during World War II, violates the laws of war. Destroying a dam or nuclear power plant is prohibited if it would release deadly forces endangering civilians. Smart bombs which miss their target and kill civilians do *not* violate the laws of war, provided that reasonable precautions were taken to prevent this from happening.
The whole siege can be avoided if Hamas death squad members and their leadership come forward and join the fifteen hundred of their terrorist brethren laying dead on the Israeli side of the border. That would be proportional and avoid touching any others, even the Palestinian ghouls seen celebrating the immolation of a raped kidnapped Israeli woman.
I somehow doubt Hamas would go for that proportional solution, but as you pointed out, I need the Leftist pro Palestinian crowd to explain what is proportional to a massacre of a thousand plus civilians.
Israel's invasion of Gaza will make the question of a siege moot. That Israelis let things get to the point where Hamas could mount its invasion is a measure of their incompetence. That said, they're smart, tough, & ruthless (compared to Hamas, which is merely cruel), and in fighting Hamas they will kill thousands of innocent people and wreck what little Gaza has in the way of infrastructure, hospitals, schools, & viable industry. The big question is, How will this end? Israel hasn't the resources to pacify & govern Gaza. Who in Gaza can sue for peace? And what would peace look like?
Nobody knows how it’ll end, just like nobody did in WW2. Like WW2, the fight is necessary. It’s a nauseating thing to go to war, but now there is no choice but to destroy Hamas.
In case folks missed is the Israeli government apparently accidently sent out a shelter in place warning to everyone in the country via a government ap on people's phones Hawaii style. Which is another reminder that while hardly the top line issue here recent events really have shattered the image (perhaps myth?) of the super ruthless, super capable, all knowing Israeli security services. Does not inspire confidence for a big invasion/possible occupation of some/all of Gaza in the future. We could be looking at another "Blind Into Baghdad" moment [or insert your preferred analogy here].
Our assumption is that Israel's siege/invasion will be effective. Maybe so, but Hamas seems to have learned from Ukraine efforts against the Russians and been innovative in their tactics. It's possible they have also planned for a resistance to the Israeli measures.
Death. Death and more death. Innocents and combatants alike. Just more death.
Gaza has a border with Egypt. Could the goal of sealing the border with Israel be to change the focus of Gaza's foreign policy away from Israel and towards Egypt?
OK, so to use an analogy, say that there was a civil war in the US: Texas vs the rest of the US. The rest of the US wins and one part of the losing Texans are sequestered in El Paso. Do you think there is any chance that those losing Texans would focus more on Mexico instead of on the US-settled parts of Texas?
If Mexico was the only source of resources and employment.
History is against you. Israel has offered a state to the Palestinians multiple times, most recently in 2008. The Palestinians have always refused.
In this scenario, Mexico is providing zero employment opportunities.
It's an unrealistic scenario. After WWII there were lots of refugee groups, from India and Pakistan in the east to Czechoslovakia in the west. The Palestinians are doubly unique: they are the only group which refused resettlement and they are the only group which refused a state of their own. Texans aren't that dumb.
Huh? The Palestinian Authority wants a state of its own. Israel won't give it to them.
You write that "the Gaza strip is littered with innocent civilians." Littered? So innocent civilians are litter? Of course you don't mean to say that. But you did.
https://open.substack.com/pub/cindykaplan/p/an-open-letter-to-the-social-justice
Sorry, Arrr, I don't get the relevance of your link. I'm not a social justice warrior. I was just pointing out what, given the context, is a particularly unfortunate choice of words. The gist of my comment was: Maybe edit more carefully before posting next time.
Perhaps it's just pettifoggery, but that phrase really struck me, and I may not be the only one who reacted to it. So I think it's worth pointing out.
Alright, understood.
Wars, ongoing epidemic, and escalating random violence...
My hypothesis (it's not nearly formed enough to be a theory) is that every couple of generations, humans engage in activities seemingly dedicated to culling the entire species. It's almost like a biological imperative, and since we're no longer subject to natural population control, we improvise to replicate the effects of being subject to natural population control.
.....it does seem as if humanity as a whole is going through one of its periodic purges.
I wonder if you take the Israeli right at their word, the preferred solution is ethnic cleansing. First there are air and ground attacks. Then there is “safe passage” into Egypt. When nobody remains in Gaza, problem solved.
Well, if you are concerned with ‘The Right’ you are choosing to avoid mentioning that Hamas are a religious Right terrorist organization, and if Israel’s goal (as you claim) is to ethnically cleanse poor Palestinians what do you make of the Hamas charter that explicitly calls for ethnic cleansing and genocide. You may have missed it, but they gave the pro Palestinian Left an example of exactly what they mean. Oddly, the pros act as if their Pals never carried out on this promise a few days ago.
Well I think it is like the “right” in the US wanted to push the natives into smaller and smaller “territories” and the native Americans wanted to push the EuroAmericans out. Lots of bloodshed ensued. I used the term “Israeli Right” because they have been the ones saying it out loud. I agree with you on Hamas.
I agree with you on some Trumper like grosses in the current Israeli government, but not that Israel’s policy is to push out anyone. There are millions of both Arab Israeli citizens and Palestinians in the country. Israel has no such policy, for Hamas what happened on October 7 is what Palestinian liberation looks like. It would be honest for their supporters to accept this reality, maybe reevaluate their support.
How would you describe the policy in the West Bank? To me it’s seems the same as American policy toward Native Americans In the 19th and 20th century. I think that in Israel, it is the right that is honest in articulating this policy.
That is an incredibly clueless statement, TBH. Nobody has moved Palestinians to a reservation. Arab Israeli towns and villages have grown, they move to cities the same as Jewish Israeli citizens. West Bank cities have all grown. It’s a weird ethnic cleansing claim when there are many million more of both Arab Israelis and Palestinians.