Critics of Israel: What WOULD have been the Proper Response by Israel to the Hamas Attacks?

[Billo_Really]

Okay, let's play this out to make sure I understand you. Israel ends the occupation AND lifts the blockade (two different things). The next day Hamas fires an indiscriminate rocket towards Israel. Israel can now act in self-defense, yes?

What sorts of things can Israel do in self-defense? Can they enact a sea blockade? Can they restrict the movement of items which can be used for military purposes? Can they restrict luxury items as a deterrent? Can they be relieved of a duty to provide commodities such as water, fuel, and electricity? Can they refuse to enter into trade relations? Can they restrict entry? Can they conduct a house-to-house ground invasion targeting military personnel and objectives? Can they utilize air strikes? Can they occupy Gaza (in the true sense of the word, meaning Israeli administrative control)?

I'm trying to get a sense of whether your issue with Israel's actions is more "the people of Gaza will have no quarrel with Israel, and will therefore give Israel no cause to have to defend themselves, if only the blockade would end" OR if your issue with Israel's actions is more "self-defense can never include these things".

I think your argument is inconsistent either way. I'm looking for clarification on which of these two things I should pursue in this conversation.

Yes, absolutely, all of the above! Israel would have every legal right in the world to go in and fuck up their shit! And I would stand behind Israel 100% at that point. Let's make no mistake about it, the majority of Hamas militia is a committing terrorist acts, which is unacceptable.

 

[Billo_Really]

Interesting. Is Israel legally obligated to provide electricity and water to non-Israelis? If yes, why?

That's kind of a moot point since Israel targeted the only power station feeding Gaza.

But to answer your question, no, my love, they are not obligated to give power to Gaza.

 

[Billo_Really]

BS The PLO were to continue Hitlers Goal same as these Hamas fucksm

They will not stop til they destroy Israel. That is in their Charter.

Screw them

That's the big lie you keep telling.

 

[Billo_Really]

The UN offered both countries. Israel accepted Pals declined.

Its not Israels fault they said no.

You're right, it's not.

 

[Billo_Really]

Questions for you. Does the condition of being under an occupation or blockade absolve the governing body of a nation of responsibility for war crimes under international law? What is the correct response of a sovereign nation to war crimes committed against it? Does the correct response change when the war criminals are under occupation or a blockade?

Israel, as the occupying power, is responsible for the safety of the occupied. Obviously, if Israel is the victim of war crimes, that is a separate issue. But as the occupying power, it is allowed to take steps to mitigate the problem, provided they do not target civilian infrastructure.

 

[Billo_Really]

Because savages can never be responsible for their actions...

What was your excuse for butchering babies before any blockade?

Hamas must be held accountable for civilian deaths. Targets on the Israeli military are perfectly legal.

 

[Shusha]

Yes, absolutely, all of the above! Israel would have every legal right in the world to go in and fuck up their shit! And I would stand behind Israel 100% at that point. Let's make no mistake about it, the majority of Hamas militia is a committing terrorist acts, which is unacceptable.

Great! You understand that Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, yes? You understand that within a few days of that disengagement, rockets were being fired at Israel, yes? That seems to square with your requirements for Israeli self-defense. So our real point of disagreement is that you don't consider the 2005 disengagement of Israel from Gaza as "ending the occupation". Am I understanding your position?

 

[Billo_Really]

Wrong, the siege is legal under international law and is subject only to the rules that govern every other attack on the enemy, Hamas. It becomes illegal only if there is a way of providing relief to civilians without also providing it to Hamas. If not, only the rule of proportionality holds: is the military advantage gained by siege proportionate to the collateral damage it causes.

Fuck you! I mean fuck you! It is NOT legal under IHL! You cannot collectively punish 2.2 million Gazans who have committed no crime.

 

[eagle1462010]

That's the big lie you keep telling.

2 decades kill da jews. Then they did it. Across the middle east its kill da jews from birth.

Kids strap bombs to their selfs and blow themselves up.

Thats brainwashing from birth. Has only one end

 

[Billo_Really]

Genocide is a perfectly moral protocol for the filth of evil.

Many people now understand what was addressed in the Torah.

So you are saying the Palestinians do not have a right to exist?

 

[Billo_Really]

Gloves are off. Hamas HQ in it.

You ticked some high up Hamas leaders just got hit

Grow up, bitch-boy!

 

[eagle1462010]

You're right, it's not.

So why did they say no huh???

Could it be they underestimated Israels ability to fight.

Never Again. That is what you are facing now.

 

[Billo_Really]

That's what Hamas says, but the IDF says it was a failed Islmic Jihad rocket that hit the hospital. Obviously, the IDF would have no reason to hit the hospital.

But they do anyway. They have priors.

 

[eagle1462010]

Grow up, bitch-boy!

Looks like you da biotch. Hit your own HQ. That Turbine wrapped too tight again?

 

[Billo_Really]

Use it for HQ, ammo storage, or firing rockets....its a target

Sorry, even used as an ammo dump, you still cannot target a hospital. Period.

You fuckin' dumbass!

 

[Billo_Really]

Every death is on Hamas. Be no War if they hadnt started it

You don't even have the balls to take responsibility for your own actions?

 

[Billo_Really]

Great! You understand that Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, yes? You understand that within a few days of that disengagement, rockets were being fired at Israel, yes? That seems to square with your requirements for Israeli self-defense. So our real point of disagreement is that you don't consider the 2005 disengagement of Israel from Gaza as "ending the occupation". Am I understanding your position?

No, they did not disengage! That is a lie!

 

[Billo_Really]

2 decades kill da jews. Then they did it. Across the middle east its kill da jews from birth.

Kids strap bombs to their selfs and blow themselves up.

Thats brainwashing from birth. Has only one end

You're the one doing the killing, you dishrag whore!

 

[Billo_Really]

So why did they say no huh???

Could it be they underestimated Israels ability to fight.

Never Again. That is what you are facing now.

Grow up!

 

[Shusha]

Israel, as the occupying power, is responsible for the safety of the occupied. ...

Hmmm. Interesting. I believe this speaks to the difference between an occupation and a blockade.

An occupation assumes that the occupier has some level of control over the conditions of the occupied. As examples: an occupier could prevent the use of water pipes being used as weapons; an occupier could prevent the misuse of medical supplies; an occupier could ensure fertilizer was used for agricultural purposes, rather than making bombs.

On the other hand, a blockade intends to withhold, as much as possible, the materials that could be used as weapons. And yes, even some luxury items as a deterrent. But a blockade does not prevent misuse of material.

It is my opinion that holding one party RESPONSIBLE while that party does not have CONTROL is not only grievously unfair, but is in direct opposition to the definition of "occupation".

Israel does not occupy Gaza. It hasn't since 2005. Israel can't be held responsible for things it has no control over. If you want to argue for Israel having responsibility over Gaza, you have to also offer Israel control over Gaza. Which translates to re-occupation or to annexation, both of which seem to be in opposition to your main argument that Israel needs to "end the occupation". Which is why I believe your argument is inconsistent.