IDF begins evacuating civilians from eastern Rafah northward

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Hamas, because it considers all Israelis combatants, is waging genocide.

 

[Shusha]

Hamas, because it considers all Israelis combatants, is waging genocide.

Hamas committed an act of genocide on October 7 because the INTENT was to kill (or capture) every living being because of their national identity.

 

[Shusha]

Many. Most accusations of genocide are not.

Would you list some States who have been accused of genocide, without committing one?

International courts have dealt with the following cases:

Rwanda 1994
Srebrenica (Serbia) 1995
Darfur (Sudan) 2003
Rohingya (Myanmar) current
Ukraine (Russia) current
Gaza (Israel) current

This list suggests to me that the term "genocide" is indeed getting squishy, as neither the Ukraine/Russia conflict nor the Gaza/Israel conflict would appear to meet the standards of genocide.

 

[Shusha]

I disagree. Being aware of something does not mean you can do anything about it or are responsible for it. Does not suddenly make you a fair target or a militant. As Americans, we are all aware of what out country did with Gitmo or to go further back, some of tbe atrocities in Vietnam. What does that make us?

I'd argue that there is a certain complicity when hostages, weapons, and tunnels are in your house, your places of worship, your children's schools, as opposed to "the government is doing something bad far away". This, at least to me, implies a direct involvement in the conflict.

Now, I'm not necessarily arguing that storing weapons in your house makes you a combatant (though I'm not sure I'm NOT arguing that either), but simply pointing out that there is no moral equivalence between killing people because they reside in Israel and killing people because there are weapons stored in that location.

 

[Coyote]

I'd argue that there is a certain complicity when hostages, weapons, and tunnels are in your house, your places of worship, your children's schools, as opposed to "the government is doing something bad far away". This, at least to me, implies a direct involvement in the conflict.

Gaza is not a house. It is a region the size of Connecticut inhabited by several million people and dense housing.

A direct involvement or a passive involvement?

Out of curiosity, what exactly should they do…tell Hamas, no you can’t put your weapons in this school? What do you think Hamas would do?

Now, I'm not necessarily arguing that storing weapons in your house makes you a combatant (though I'm not sure I'm NOT arguing that either), but simply pointing out that there is no moral equivalence between killing people because they reside in Israel and killing people because there are weapons stored in that location.

There is no moral equivalence there, agree. However if the principles of proportionality are violated during the conflict, then it can become a war crime and that is morally equivalent.

And I vehemently disagree that the civilian population should be considered combatants. This type of argument reminds me of an argument I’ve heard brought up in IP to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks on civilians. The argument is along the lines of: since most Israelis serve in the military they can be considered military targets along with their residence. This is not a good argument to make.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And, Coyote, that is why Hamas must die.

 

[Coyote]

Would you list some States who have been accused of genocide, without committing one?

International courts have dealt with the following cases:

Rwanda 1994
Srebrenica (Serbia) 1995
Darfur (Sudan) 2003
Rohingya (Myanmar) current
Ukraine (Russia) current
Gaza (Israel) current

This list suggests to me that the term "genocide" is indeed getting squishy, as neither the Ukraine/Russia conflict nor the Gaza/Israel conflict would appear to meet the standards of genocide.

So…I think the term can seem squishy because there isn’t one body that recognizes it (and politics can play a role).

For example, genocide can be recognized by individual countries but not by others.

Then you have tbe ICC, which investigates many cases, based on referrals by other countries, most of which aren’t determined to be genocide by the court. So just because it is being investigated, doesn’t mean it has been ruled genocide.

Then you have genocides recognized by significant consensus among scholars.

Also I think people tend to conflate war crimes with genocide.

I agree Russia and Gaza do not belong on the genocide list.

 

[Mac-7]

So…I think the term can seem squishy because there isn’t one body that recognizes it (and politics can play a role).

For example, genocide can be recognized by individual countries but not by others.

Then you have tbe ICC, which investigates many cases, based on referrals by other countries, most of which aren’t determined to be genocide by the court. So just because it is being investigated, doesn’t mean it has been ruled genocide.

Then you have genocides recognized by significant consensus among scholars.

Also I think people tend to conflate war crimes with genocide.

I agree Russia and Gaza do not belong on the genocide list.

If things go as hoped (at least by me), Hamas will be broken as a fighting force.

Then the Pal civilians will have a chance to reject violence and accept peace

But you and I both know they wont do it

Bleeding heart fools will pour billions into Gaza to rebuild the damage and the violence will merely pause while arab radicals lick their wounds and prepare for the next round of bloodshed

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If things go as hoped (at least by me), Hamas will be broken as a fighting force.

Then the Pal civilians will have a chance to reject violence and accept peace

But you and I both know they wont do it

Bleeding heart fools will pour billions into Gaza to rebuild the damage and the violence will merely pause while arab radicals lick their wounds and prepare for the next round of bloodshed

I hope you are wrong, but fear the worst.

 

[Mac-7]

I hope you are wrong, but fear the worst.

Wrong in what way?

 

[gtopa1]

well i;m sure they're just a matter of time Kondor

But Israel is surrounded by quite a few PO'd muzzies

I don't believe they'll simply sit this all out, do you???

~S~

This is only a bit play between Iran and the Saudis. SA is going to be instrumental in being a barrier to Iran. It is not a BAD thing but Israel must be on guard always ....as it has been for years. 10/7 is such an outlier though; "Heads will roll" as they should!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

You can't kill Hamas because it isn't a person but a political movement..

Just like Nazism was a "movement"....a far more costly exercise to stamp it out but the West did so.

Greg

 

[Kondor3]

well i;m sure they're just a matter of time Kondor

But Israel is surrounded by quite a few PO'd muzzies

I don't believe they'll simply sit this all out, do you???

~S~

One enemy at a time... for now it is best to concentrate fiercely on the scum of Hamas...

 

[gtopa1]

There is no need to "kill" Hamas; it is just necessary to destroy its ability to launch large scale attacks like Oct 7. That's what this war is all about.

Hamas must die as both a Military and Political entity. Ordinary Anti-Semitism can be handled in a number of ways.

Greg

 

[BackAgain]

IDF begins evacuating civilians from eastern Rafah northward​

Because they are really really bad at trying to commit “genocide.”

Our lefturds are so obviously retarded and stupid.

 

[gtopa1]

I think this may all be over in a week. The problem is…..once Israel Has wiped out HAMAS, how do the hostages get released?

Offer rewards for handing them over no questions asked; a good and cheap tactic. Either that or they will be murdered buy Hamas and their supporters. I am sadly braced for any outcome. That over a hundred were already freed is a miracle in itself. I pray there will be more but I am not optimistic.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

According to polls Hamas is indigenous within Gaza

Hamas terrorists are not outside agitators like the George Soros mercenaries on US college protests

Hamas is pals

Pals are Hamas

Poll: Over 70% Palestinians still maintain Hamas ‘correct’ to commit Oct. 7 atrocities

* * *

www.timesofisrael.com

Hi Mac; I view Hamas as just another Stalinist wannabe group using old animosities to their advantage. Get rid of (murder) internal opposition and then hold on to power by ALL means necessary. Now it does NOT appear to be working for them.

Greg

 

[Mac-7]

Hi Mac; I view Hamas as just another Stalinist wannabe group using old animosities to their advantage. Get rid of (murder) internal opposition and then hold on to power by ALL means necessary. Now it does NOT appear to be working for them.

Greg

My impression is that Pal civilians fully support Hamas

 

[gtopa1]

My impression is that Pal civilians fully support Hamas

I would agree that too many do but if being an opponent means death then there is a possibility of a "cleanout" by local victims/families on the Romanian model.



Greg

 

[Shusha]

Gaza is not a house. It is a region the size of Connecticut inhabited by several million people and dense housing.

I was being literal. Literally, if there is a tunnel, or weapons, or hostages in your house.

A direct involvement or a passive involvement?

That could arguably be direct involvement.

Out of curiosity, what exactly should they do…tell Hamas, no you can’t put your weapons in this school? What do you think Hamas would do?

Well, yes. That is exactly what they should do. The question on the table is if they want to do it. I'd guess no.

There is no moral equivalence there, agree. However if the principles of proportionality are violated during the conflict, then it can become a war crime and that is morally equivalent.

Nope. Still not morally equivalent. Killing people because they reside in a place is not the same as getting your proportionality formula "wrong" by someone's standard.

Proportionality is not an exact science and weighing military necessity against how many lives are not "too many" is a complicated business. It is entirely possible for one expert to claim that twenty non-combatants lives is within the acceptable proportionality for a precision strike on X location with X expected military gain and another expert to claim another number.

And I vehemently disagree that the civilian population should be considered combatants.

I'm not making the argument that civilians should be considered combatants. Persons who take part in the hostilities lose their protected status and ARE combatants. The discussion would be: What constitutes "takes part in the hostilities"? Again, it's not a defined, exact science.

This type of argument reminds me of an argument I’ve heard brought up in IP to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks on civilians. The argument is along the lines of: since most Israelis serve in the military they can be considered military targets along with their residence. This is not a good argument to make.

Reservists are considered non-combatants. I think we both agree this is a bad argument. But it is not an argument I am making.