3 ms·

Essentially that implies Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. I suspect most Israelis would find that unreasonable. Israeli civilians don't

Essentially that implies Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. I suspect most Israelis would find that unreasonable. Israeli civilians don't like being killed anymore than Palestinian civilians do. The thing that usually prevents war is that both sides lose in the end. If only one side is allowed to shoot, why would the side being allowed to shoot ever stop? They would be getting all the benefits of war with none of the drawbacks.

shprd 3y ago
> Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. The logic doesn't really follow What shots exactly? the missiles? Attack the launch sites. They're pretty clear as they expose themselves. Israel has 24/7 surveillance it shouldn't be a challenge. Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles? You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything. It seems every street in the city was indiscriminately bombed, every hospital was distroyed, and tens of thousands of civilians were murdered. That's a massacre not a "response".
- bawolff 3y ago
  > What shots exactly? I would be referring to all forms of military violence, whether that be guns, rockets or something else. I also believe if the facility was being used to conduct the war in a significant capacity, e.g. as an ammunition store or as a command and control center then it becomes fair game. Just waiting around for someone to open fire, shoot back only when they are firing, and letting them escape back to their base of operations is not a way to prevent future attacks and puts the defender at an unreasonable disadvantage. This should still be subject to the doctrine of porportionality and discrimination of course. > Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles? I never claimed that. It is especially impossible to show since hamas has not been using missiles in this conflict as far as i know. Perhaps you mean rockets? My main claim is that if the hospital is being used in any significant capacity to conduct military operations it is reasonable that it could be targeted. Whether any specific instance in this war is justified - i don't know, i don't have the full picture of what happened and i don't know what Israel knew at the time of targeting (intent matters). More to the point, i do not believe that allowing hamas impunity so long as they co-locate their activity near civilians is reasonable. > You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything. Only circumstantial based on the civilian death ratio being much lower in this conflict than in other wars where the military bombed indiscriminately. Generally crimes have an innocent until proven guiltly element. The onus is on evidence is the other way around. > That's a massacre not a "response". Whether or not it is ever justified to bomb a hospital is a very different conversation than whether the actions in this specific conflict are justified. For the latter the details matter a lot.
- kaba0 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Wolfenstein98k 3y ago
  The attack sites are in civilian areas.
- nayaketo 3y ago
  > What shots exactly? the missiles? Attack the launch sites. What if those launch sites are top of hospitals or media buildings?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    There is no proof that ever happened... And even if, no, you do not bomb hospitals if you do not want to be the baddy.
  - GordonS 3y ago
    And when has there been a shred of credible evidence to suggest such a thing?
    - septic-liqueur 3y ago
      A lot of evidence, if you choose to believe videos coming out of IDF. But to take a step back, why would Hamas operating from hospitals, schools and mosques surprise you in any way ? Would you then think anything different of them ? This is asymmetrical warfare. Of course they would use anything they can to create an advantage. Let's not kid ourselves. It's the same as using human shields. That's just how this type of war works. You work with what you have to survive and gain an advantage
  - shprd 3y ago
    > What if those launch sites are top of hospitals or media buildings? Is that a claim or just a hypothetical scenario? If it's a claim, please provide evidance that supports hospitals were used to launch rockets. You know what is not hypothetical? the fact that Israel bombed hospitals, UN schools, churches, mosques, civilian shelters, ambulances, and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians: women, children, journalists, UN staff, Red Crescent members. You know what else isn't hypothetical? Israeli minister's call to wipe out a Palestinian village. It's not about a hospital here or there. Just me typing that sentence makes me sick. The fact that we're past the point where a hospital bombing makes a difference in illustrating the crimes committed. Sadly, the attrocities are far greater. Here are some not hypothetical Massacres and war crimes committed by Israel: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_committed_by_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_committed_b... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes - https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2017-07-16/ty-article-magazine/testimonies-from-the-censored-massacre-at-deir-yassin/0000017f-e364-d38f-a57f-e77689930000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2017-07-16/ty-article-ma...
- gryzzly 3y ago
  Why did 500 Israeli soldiers die in Gaza from your perspective?
  - shprd 3y ago
    > Why did 500 Israeli soldiers die in Gaza from your perspective? Are saying you committed massacres and bombed hospitals, UN schools, mosques, churches, and ambulances, as some sort of retaliation? leveling the entire place, displacing a million, and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians most of whom were women, children, medical staff and red cross members because...? enlighten me please
    - gryzzly 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - gryzzly 3y ago
      [flagged]
tsimionescu 3y ago
When the IRA was periodically attacking UK institutions and killing civilians, did the UK feel entitled to level Belfast and say that the IRA is to blame? This war in Palestine is much closer to a civil war than to any country-to-country combat, especially since Palestine is simply not an independent country. Since Israel is in control of the Gaza strip for 50+ years (explicit military control till the 2005, still in full control of their borders today), it is on them to treat this as authorities in any country are expected to treat insurgencies on territory they control, not as if they were attacked by a foreign country.
- bawolff 3y ago
  The british controlled the police in northern ireland, Israel does not control the police or other government functions insude Gaza. (As an aside it should be noted that that conflict is orders of magnitude less violent. If the IRA did what Hamas did, i suspect belfast would be leveled) At most israel control their border with gaza (but not egypt's border with gaza) the sea access and air access. A blockade no doubt, but not donestic government functions. Whether or not gaza is independent is complicated, since they have some features of independence but not others and don't quite squarely fit in either camp. Nonetheless if your suggestion is that israel should have called in whatever their equivalent of a police swat team is - that's impossible because hamas controlled all domestic government functions in gaza. You can't use domestic police techniques on land where you only control the border but not the land itself.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  Northern Ireland/UK was not similar to Gaza/Israel at all. The UK was always Northern Ireland's government and controlled all state functions. A better comparison is Mainland China/Taiwan: according to various outsiders, the two are the same country supposedly, but in reality they function as two different states, with entirely separate governments. The main difference between these situations (aside from Taiwan being an island) is that China actually wants Taiwan, whereas Israel really doesn't want Gaza.
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
prmoustache 3y ago
> Essentially that implies Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. I suspect most Israelis would find that unreasonable. Israeli civilians don't like being killed anymore than Palestinian civilians do. We are talking about Gaza. The only Israelis being shot there are Israeli militari attacking the Gaza strip. If you are talking missiles, well Israel should abandon the colonies and create a no man's land where no civilian, be it Israeli or Palestinian, can go, and only shoot those that trespass. If you are talking missiles, Israel has air defense systems.
- bawolff 3y ago
  > We are talking about Gaza. The only Israelis being shot there are Israeli militari attacking the Gaza strip. What exactly do you think happened on oct 7? > If you are talking missiles, well Israel should abandon the colonies and create a no man's land where no civilian, be it Israeli or Palestinian, can go, and only shoot those that trespass. They did do that to Gaza in 2005. That is how we arrived at the current situation.
  - GordonS 3y ago
    > They did do that to Gaza in 2005. That is how we arrived at the current situation. No, they didn't "do that to Gaza" - Israel has kept Gaza under a brutal blockade, by air, land and sea. Israel kept the place like an open air prison, and had it surrounded by military outposts and remotely operated guns. Hundreds of civilians were shot in 2023 prior to Oct 7th, including peaceful protesters.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      The person i was responding to didn't say israel should stop the blockade. They said israel should dismantle their colonies. Which they did in Gaza in 2005. There are no colonies currently in gaza. It should also be noted that the blockade happened in 2007, so there was a 2 year period there. In any case, the israeli withdrawl is one of the key historical facts that lead to the current geopolitical context.

shprd 3y ago

> Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. The logic doesn't really follow What shots exactly? the missiles? Attack the launch sites. They're pretty clear as they expose themselves. Israel has 24/7 surveillance it shouldn't be a challenge. Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles? You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything. It seems every street in the city was indiscriminately bombed, every hospital was distroyed, and tens of thousands of civilians were murdered. That's a massacre not a "response".

bawolff 3y ago
> What shots exactly? I would be referring to all forms of military violence, whether that be guns, rockets or something else. I also believe if the facility was being used to conduct the war in a significant capacity, e.g. as an ammunition store or as a command and control center then it becomes fair game. Just waiting around for someone to open fire, shoot back only when they are firing, and letting them escape back to their base of operations is not a way to prevent future attacks and puts the defender at an unreasonable disadvantage. This should still be subject to the doctrine of porportionality and discrimination of course. > Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles? I never claimed that. It is especially impossible to show since hamas has not been using missiles in this conflict as far as i know. Perhaps you mean rockets? My main claim is that if the hospital is being used in any significant capacity to conduct military operations it is reasonable that it could be targeted. Whether any specific instance in this war is justified - i don't know, i don't have the full picture of what happened and i don't know what Israel knew at the time of targeting (intent matters). More to the point, i do not believe that allowing hamas impunity so long as they co-locate their activity near civilians is reasonable. > You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything. Only circumstantial based on the civilian death ratio being much lower in this conflict than in other wars where the military bombed indiscriminately. Generally crimes have an innocent until proven guiltly element. The onus is on evidence is the other way around. > That's a massacre not a "response". Whether or not it is ever justified to bomb a hospital is a very different conversation than whether the actions in this specific conflict are justified. For the latter the details matter a lot.
kaba0 3y ago
[flagged]
Wolfenstein98k 3y ago
The attack sites are in civilian areas.
nayaketo 3y ago
> What shots exactly? the missiles? Attack the launch sites. What if those launch sites are top of hospitals or media buildings?
- hef19898 3y ago
  There is no proof that ever happened... And even if, no, you do not bomb hospitals if you do not want to be the baddy.
- GordonS 3y ago
  And when has there been a shred of credible evidence to suggest such a thing?
  - septic-liqueur 3y ago
    A lot of evidence, if you choose to believe videos coming out of IDF. But to take a step back, why would Hamas operating from hospitals, schools and mosques surprise you in any way ? Would you then think anything different of them ? This is asymmetrical warfare. Of course they would use anything they can to create an advantage. Let's not kid ourselves. It's the same as using human shields. That's just how this type of war works. You work with what you have to survive and gain an advantage
- shprd 3y ago
  > What if those launch sites are top of hospitals or media buildings? Is that a claim or just a hypothetical scenario? If it's a claim, please provide evidance that supports hospitals were used to launch rockets. You know what is not hypothetical? the fact that Israel bombed hospitals, UN schools, churches, mosques, civilian shelters, ambulances, and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians: women, children, journalists, UN staff, Red Crescent members. You know what else isn't hypothetical? Israeli minister's call to wipe out a Palestinian village. It's not about a hospital here or there. Just me typing that sentence makes me sick. The fact that we're past the point where a hospital bombing makes a difference in illustrating the crimes committed. Sadly, the attrocities are far greater. Here are some not hypothetical Massacres and war crimes committed by Israel: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_committed_by_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_committed_b... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes - https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2017-07-16/ty-article-magazine/testimonies-from-the-censored-massacre-at-deir-yassin/0000017f-e364-d38f-a57f-e77689930000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2017-07-16/ty-article-ma...
gryzzly 3y ago
Why did 500 Israeli soldiers die in Gaza from your perspective?
- shprd 3y ago
  > Why did 500 Israeli soldiers die in Gaza from your perspective? Are saying you committed massacres and bombed hospitals, UN schools, mosques, churches, and ambulances, as some sort of retaliation? leveling the entire place, displacing a million, and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians most of whom were women, children, medical staff and red cross members because...? enlighten me please
  - gryzzly 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - gryzzly 3y ago
    [flagged]

tsimionescu 3y ago

When the IRA was periodically attacking UK institutions and killing civilians, did the UK feel entitled to level Belfast and say that the IRA is to blame? This war in Palestine is much closer to a civil war than to any country-to-country combat, especially since Palestine is simply not an independent country. Since Israel is in control of the Gaza strip for 50+ years (explicit military control till the 2005, still in full control of their borders today), it is on them to treat this as authorities in any country are expected to treat insurgencies on territory they control, not as if they were attacked by a foreign country.

bawolff 3y ago
The british controlled the police in northern ireland, Israel does not control the police or other government functions insude Gaza. (As an aside it should be noted that that conflict is orders of magnitude less violent. If the IRA did what Hamas did, i suspect belfast would be leveled) At most israel control their border with gaza (but not egypt's border with gaza) the sea access and air access. A blockade no doubt, but not donestic government functions. Whether or not gaza is independent is complicated, since they have some features of independence but not others and don't quite squarely fit in either camp. Nonetheless if your suggestion is that israel should have called in whatever their equivalent of a police swat team is - that's impossible because hamas controlled all domestic government functions in gaza. You can't use domestic police techniques on land where you only control the border but not the land itself.
shiroiushi 3y ago
Northern Ireland/UK was not similar to Gaza/Israel at all. The UK was always Northern Ireland's government and controlled all state functions. A better comparison is Mainland China/Taiwan: according to various outsiders, the two are the same country supposedly, but in reality they function as two different states, with entirely separate governments. The main difference between these situations (aside from Taiwan being an island) is that China actually wants Taiwan, whereas Israel really doesn't want Gaza.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago

prmoustache 3y ago

> Essentially that implies Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. I suspect most Israelis would find that unreasonable. Israeli civilians don't like being killed anymore than Palestinian civilians do. We are talking about Gaza. The only Israelis being shot there are Israeli militari attacking the Gaza strip. If you are talking missiles, well Israel should abandon the colonies and create a no man's land where no civilian, be it Israeli or Palestinian, can go, and only shoot those that trespass. If you are talking missiles, Israel has air defense systems.

bawolff 3y ago
> We are talking about Gaza. The only Israelis being shot there are Israeli militari attacking the Gaza strip. What exactly do you think happened on oct 7? > If you are talking missiles, well Israel should abandon the colonies and create a no man's land where no civilian, be it Israeli or Palestinian, can go, and only shoot those that trespass. They did do that to Gaza in 2005. That is how we arrived at the current situation.
- GordonS 3y ago
  > They did do that to Gaza in 2005. That is how we arrived at the current situation. No, they didn't "do that to Gaza" - Israel has kept Gaza under a brutal blockade, by air, land and sea. Israel kept the place like an open air prison, and had it surrounded by military outposts and remotely operated guns. Hundreds of civilians were shot in 2023 prior to Oct 7th, including peaceful protesters.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    The person i was responding to didn't say israel should stop the blockade. They said israel should dismantle their colonies. Which they did in Gaza in 2005. There are no colonies currently in gaza. It should also be noted that the blockade happened in 2007, so there was a 2 year period there. In any case, the israeli withdrawl is one of the key historical facts that lead to the current geopolitical context.