Gaza as it stands today.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It's Genocide as punishment

If Israel's enemies laid down their weapons there would be peace.  If Israel laid down its weapons there would be no more Israel. 

[CF DolFan]

^^^ 100% True

[Spider-Dan]

Hoodie, the problem with your "safety" argument is that you are also arguing that the Palestinians deserve what they are getting (because they celebrated 10/7, and also because Hamas hasn't released all the hostages).  So it's not about "safety"; it's about punishment, explicitly intended to change behavior.

It is like Trumpists arguing that Democratic leaders should be rounded up because they are facilitating a secret child sex trafficking ring... and also because their dishonest "climate change" policy is making gas unaffordable.  The first argument, if true, makes the second irrelevant.

[Fau Teixeira]

Everyone knows you can't protect your citizens without a few war crimes here and there. And videos of IDF soldiers sniping at children. You know.. those kids would probably grow up to at the very least cheer on Hamas at one point, so it's better to kill them when they're little. Israel is doing a favor to the Palestinians even, they don't have to use so much wood for coffins. It's very altruistic if you think about it.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Hoodie, the problem with your "safety" argument is that you are also arguing that the Palestinians deserve what they are getting (because they celebrated 10/7, and also because Hamas hasn't released all the hostages).  So it's not about "safety"; it's about punishment, explicitly intended to change behavior.

It is like Trumpists arguing that Democratic leaders should be rounded up because they are facilitating a secret child sex trafficking ring... and also because their dishonest "climate change" policy is making gas unaffordable.  The first argument, if true, makes the second irrelevant.

Two things can be true at the same time. 

1. Israel does allow baby formula into Gaza just not unverified powder that could be used as an explosive.

AND

2. *I* a private individual who does not set policy for Israel but did lose a friend on Oct 7th and has zero sympathy for those that cheered her death. 

I don't agree with how Israel has conducted the war.  The first convey of food and medical supplies that entered Gaza was in exchange for the release of hostages.  Now aid flows in unconditionally, I feel that is a mistake I would only trade aid for hostages. 

If I was in charge the deal would be either return the hostages or the entire territory starves.  But alas my position is not the position of Israel. If I was in charge by now one of two things would have happened:  the hostages would have been released or the almost entire population of Gaza would have starved to death.  I would feel perfectly comfortable with the idea that their deaths were the sole responsibility of Hamas.  But alas that is not what Israel had done so don't confuse how I would like to see the war be conducted with how it is being conducted.   My calculations for acceptable civilian casualties is significantly higher than the IDF's. 

Israel has conducted this conflict with greater concern for the enemies civilian population than is typical during a war.  I would not. 

[Spider-Dan]

Your position on acceptable conduct during a war is, at the very least, clearly stated.

I guess my only question is: do you believe that "war crimes" is a category that should even exist?  If your position is that the intentional starvation of children is a justifiable tactic during wartime*, why even have rules of war?

Israel has conducted this conflict with greater concern for the enemies civilian population than is typical during a war.

Israel's demonstrated "concern" for Palestinian civilians in Gaza has been dramatically less than the concern the US military demonstrated towards Afghani or Iraqi civilians during either of the post-9/11 wars.

*note: I recognize that you reject claims that this is what Israel is currently doing.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I guess my only question is: do you believe that "war crimes" is a category that should even exist?  

I do believe war crimes as a category should and do exist, but they can only be followed if both parties agree to follow them.  

It is a war crime to use ambulances to transport weapons.    It is also a war crime to fire on your enemies ambulances.  But if you enemy routinely uses ambulances to transport weapons, it is not a war crime to blow up you enemies weapon transports.  And if you can't determine which are real ambulances and which are weapon transports that is the fault of your enemy if you also destroy some actual ambulances.  

It is a war crime to label TNT as baby food.  It is also a war crime to prevent babies access to food. But if you enemy is using baby food shipments to smuggle TNT it is not a war crime to block that smuggling even if it prevents some food distribution.  

It is a war crime to put a military base under a hospital.  It is also a war crime to target a hospital.  But if you enemy puts a military bunker under a building also used as a hospital it is not a war crime to destroy military bunker regardless of the impact on the hospital.  

It is a war crime to place a missile system next to a daycare center.  It is also a war crime to target a daycare system.  But if you enemy places a missile system next to a daycare center and the daycare center is destroyed when you targeted the missile system then that is not a war crime.  

It is truly amazing how many so called "civilian targets" in Gaza had secondary explosions. 

This not a two wrongs make a right thing, it is a frustration of purpose.  Palestine terrorist blowing up an Israeli civilian bus (a war crime, that has been carried out multiple times) does NOT give Israel the right to start targeting Palestinian civilian buses.  But using civilian buses as troop transports would.

    

[Spider-Dan]

You just said:

If I was in charge the deal would be either return the hostages or the entire territory starves.

If you are defining that action as "frustration of purpose" (and not "two wrongs make a right"), then you are saying that any time a civilian group is not doing what you want - in this case, forcing Hamas militants to surrender their hostages - you are then morally justified in killing all of them.  This response would not be considered a "war crime" because you consider every Palestinian civilian (including the children) to be "a party" to the war crimes Hamas is committing, thereby justifying direct action (that would otherwise be considered war crimes) against all Palestinian civilians.  Correct?

Allow me to give a hypothetical example:

Al-Qaeda clearly and unambiguously violated the rules of war with their attack on 9/11.  The Taliban refused to hand him over.  So George W. Bush has millions of leaflets airdropped over Afghanistan that say, "Either you hand over Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda conspirators, or we will kill every single human in this country."  Bin Laden is not surrendered.
Is following through on that threat a war crime?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You just said:

If you are defining that action as "frustration of purpose" (and not "two wrongs make a right"), then you are saying that any time a civilian group is not doing what you want - in this case, forcing Hamas militants to surrender their hostages - you are then morally justified in killing all of them.

Okay maybe a bit too strong.  But you don't need to supply your enemies during a conflict. 

If Hamas agreed to allow Israel to distribute food directly to the population without interference, I would have agreed to such terms.  But the only way a truck was going in that Hamas was able to seize would be in exchange for hostages.   

[masterfins]

I was a supporter of Israel and was all for their retaliation after the initial attack.  BUT Netanyahu is a war criminal and should be hung.  Israel is committing genocide against all Palestinians, killing thousands of women and children, while starving them to death.

[Dave Gray]

I was a supporter of Israel and was all for their retaliation after the initial attack.   ...  Israel is committing genocide against all Palestinians, killing thousands of women and children, while starving them to death.

This is exactly where I'm at.

Like, I was supportive at first.  You can defend and respond.  It's like...sure, stand up to a bully after an attack.  ....maybe even give it worse than you got to dissuade further bullying.  But this is killing a bully's entire family for 18 months.


And I absolutely care about the safety and security of Israel and for every hostage to be returned.  I just don't think this makes things safer for Israel, Gaza, or the hostages.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

This is exactly where I'm at.

Like, I was supportive at first.  You can defend and respond.  It's like...sure, stand up to a bully after an attack.  ....maybe even give it worse than you got to dissuade further bullying.  But this is killing a bully's entire family for 18 months.


And I absolutely care about the safety and security of Israel and for every hostage to be returned.  I just don't think this makes things safer for Israel, Gaza, or the hostages.

So what would you have them do?  Withdraw without the hostages?  With Hamas in control of Gaza? 

[Dave Gray]

So what would you have them do?  Withdraw without the hostages?  With Hamas in control of Gaza? 

I think you just have to be more targeted in whatever assault you have and take responsibility for civilians.  I'm not a military expert, but from what I understand, that would be some kind of temporary occupation.


I don't want to come across like I have all the answers, but I can see with my eyes that this is wrong, so I've been listening to some experts and from what I understand, using similarities like the US war in Afghanistan, it isn't a good strategy to hit a place and then leave it in rubble, only to return and hit it again later.  You will kill a lot of people, but it's the wrong people and it's never-ending and doesn't actually help solve anything.  You have to have a sustained presence where you drive out the baddies, but then work with the locals to build back functioning, healthy control of the civilian population.  This isn't my plan, so if you "at" me with questions, I probably won't be able to answer them, but I heard some experts saying that this plan was similar to how the US push with "the surge" worked for us.

You can't starve your way out of this.


Also, I don't think that Hamas cares about the citizens of Gaza.  They are not living there amongst these people and are instead fighting an ideological war that they, themselves aren't paying the price for.  This isn't a traditional situation of two warring nations with a government representative of the good of its people.  The terrible optics actually help Hamas.  They want this.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think you just have to be more targeted in whatever assault you have and take responsibility for civilians.  I'm not a military expert, but from what I understand, that would be some kind of temporary occupation.


I don't want to come across like I have all the answers, but I can see with my eyes that this is wrong, so I've been listening to some experts and from what I understand, using similarities like the US war in Afghanistan, it isn't a good strategy to hit a place and then leave it in rubble, only to return and hit it again later.  You will kill a lot of people, but it's the wrong people and it's never-ending and doesn't actually help solve anything.  You have to have a sustained presence where you drive out the baddies, but then work with the locals to build back functioning, healthy control of the civilian population.  This isn't my plan, so if you "at" me with questions, I probably won't be able to answer them, but I heard some experts saying that this plan was similar to how the US push with "the surge" worked for us.

You can't starve your way out of this.


Also, I don't think that Hamas cares about the citizens of Gaza.  They are not living there amongst these people and are instead fighting an ideological war that they, themselves aren't paying the price for.  This isn't a traditional situation of two warring nations with a government representative of the good of its people.  The terrible optics actually help Hamas.  They want this.

So fundamentally you agree with the need for Israel to occupy Gaza and root out the terrorists.  But you disagreed with some tactics at least as it is portrayed in the media. 

Israel is not targeting civilian, however civilians are often in the way.  Ending US support for Israel would likely make the situation worse for the people of Gaza  If the US stopped sending Israel precision weapons, Israel would have two choices: end the operation or switch to gravity bombs and artillery.  I think we both know that Israel would choose the latter and that would increase not decrease the collateral damage. 

More food enters Gaza on a daily basis now than before Oct 7.  There are some distribution problems but that normal in a conflict zone. 

And while what is happened in Gaza today is not genocide or a famine.   But we might be one or two terrorist attacks away from it becoming one.  The original plan in 1948 was for a two state solution of peaceful coexistence.  The Jews accepted the two state solution, the Arabs did not and in 1948 attempted to kill every Jew in the middle east.  They tried again in 1956, 1967, 1973 etc.  Most in Gaza do not want a two state solution, they want genocide of the Jews.  Unless things change at some point Israel is going to conclude the only way the war will end is with the total annihilation of one side or the other and that they would rather be Cain than Abel.    Hopefully the side that currently is demanding annihilation chooses coexistence before the side that has been in favor of coexistence for 80 years switches to choosing annihilation.   

[Dave Gray]

So fundamentally you agree with the need for Israel to occupy Gaza and root out the terrorists.

Not necessarily, but I understand it.

But you disagreed with some tactics at least as it is portrayed in the media. 

I mean....it's really just a simple belief that in the modern world, if you wage a war on a region, especially in cases like this where you're not fighting an army, but an idea, that you have a reasonable responsibility to mitigate civilian suffering/loss.  This not only doesn't seem to do that, but it seems intentional, being used as punishment from Netanyahu, who I think is a bad person, acting in bad faith.


It's very possible that the US removing assistance will cause Israel to lash out.  In that case, at least we won't be aiding in it.  That's a little bit of "look what you made me do" that Spider was talking about.  I don't think it's appropriate for Israel to indiscriminately continue to cause the starvation death of civilian children.  I don't think that position is so far out there.  The bargaining chip that the US has is to withhold assistance if they do not comply, so I think it appropriate to use that chip.