Open to Judgement: UN complicity in 7th Oct. massacre

That is problem with your argument. It’s inherently dishonest.

You are attempting to claim that disagreeing with Israel’s TACTICS means one doesn’t want Hamas gone and that is completely false.
If I am incorrect that you were suggesting a ceasefire or cessation of hostilities on Israel's part, then I apologize for my error.
 
The problem with that argument is you can use it to justify anything under “military objectives”.
Except that I am not doing any such thing. I gave four very specific military objectives. You expressly agree with two of the four as objectives as self-defense. Your arguments against the other two don't seem to disagree with the objective as self-defense, and I assert that you would also agree rescuing hostages and destroying military infrastructure are military objectives compatible with self-defense.
This is where Israel’s military solution is failing. How many hostages have they gotten out from it? Almost none. In fact they have ended up killing some of them, possibly many. The majority have been released through negotiation.
Negotiation following military pressure and military losses, with the return of 120 of hostages, including many of the most vulnerable. I'm not sure I would call that a failure. The losses of the lives of hostages at the beginning of the war were more likely as the IDF learned where the hostages were, and how they were being housed and moved. The IDF has known for weeks where Sinwar is. They also know that he is surrounded by hostages.
They have forced more than half of Gaza’s population into Rafah. Why?
You know the answer to this. To evacuate them from areas of fighting. Shame Egypt won't let them evacuate to real safety. Ought to be a war crime, that.
I am not a military expert, none of us are. But Israel has moved well beyond “self defense”.
You have failed utterly to prove that in this post.
 
Is it really? Because when you describe what Hamas did its Israeli victims, you use emotive language….but you object when it is used in regards to Palestinian victims? Come on. You can’t have it both ways here.
No, I don't believe I did. I typically use the terminology "atrocities". Checking on my post, I detailed objectively the atrocities committed by those who invaded Israel that day.
 
Israel’s stubborn refusal to consider more targeted attacks over wholesale destruction isn’t a good look.
Okay, then, let's talk tactics.

What tactics SHOULD Israel use (have used)? What precautions should Israel have taken that they didn't take? How will those tactics have achieved the objectives, while reducing civilian deaths? What standards should we apply, globally, in terms of civilian deaths in urban warfare?

Keeping in mind:

The four self-defense goals that I think we can agree on: retrieval of the hostages; destruction of the militia units; death or capture of the leaders; destruction of the military infrastructure.

500 miles of tunnels protecting the militia and hiding the hostages, which are trapped, full of IEDs, have multiple secret and hidden entrances in civilian structures with civilians in residence.

Active, hostile militia wearing civilian clothing and mixing in with the civilian populations, moving from location to location, using weapons stored in civilian structures (houses, mosques, hospitals, schools) to fire at the IDF, then exiting the location, without weapons, as civilians, only to move to the next location and take up arms again.

Hostages and militia being transported in civilian transport, including ambulances.

Children being used as spotters for the militia to locate and target IDF.

Tens of thousands of rockets being fired from inside civilian locations, including places of refuge.



Be specific and thorough. Take your time. I'll wait.
 
something a tad less than ethnic cleansing would be apropos

~S~
Sounds like you got nothing but soundbytes. Fine, I'll play.

Define "ethnic cleansing" in this context and describe the specific actions Israel took which fit this definition.
 
Sounds like you got nothing but soundbytes. Fine, I'll play.

Define "ethnic cleansing" in this context and describe the specific actions Israel took which fit this definition.
Definition(s) Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group, which is contrary to international law.


~S~
 
That is problem with your argument. It’s inherently dishonest.

You are attempting to claim that disagreeing with Israel’s TACTICS means one doesn’t want Hamas gone and that is completely false.
No, it's completely true. Since no one, including you, is able to provide another way of getting rid of of Hamas, rejecting Israel's military action, which strictly abides by International Humanitarian Law, means you are rejecting getting rid of Hamas.
 
Israel's military action, which strictly abides by International Humanitarian Law
nothing could be further from the truth

the zionist trolls here went right into an anti-UN campaign the day after the UN voted to oust gaza genocide, and haven't stopped since

now the only 'news' comes from the IDF, or lucky journalist that makes it out

~S~
 
nothing could be further from the truth

the zionist trolls here went right into an anti-UN campaign the day after the UN voted to oust gaza genocide, and haven't stopped since

now the only 'news' comes from the IDF, or lucky journalist that makes it out

~S~

I've been anti-UN for decades.
Haven't you?
 
something a tad less than ethnic cleansing would be apropos

~S~
Maybe the Oct. 7 Al Aqsa Flood Operation that the Hamas animals were planning for years wasn’t such a great idea? Waddaya think.
 
nothing could be further from the truth

the zionist trolls here went right into an anti-UN campaign the day after the UN voted to oust gaza genocide, and haven't stopped since

now the only 'news' comes from the IDF, or lucky journalist that makes it out

~S~
You don't like the fact that Israel has not only followed International Humanitarian Law since the start of the war but also far exceeded it requirements but with the whole world's eyes focused on the war no credible source can provide any specifics on any claim Israel violated IHL.

The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. It does not include political groups or so called “cultural genocide”.

So clearly there is no genocide in Gaza no matter how much you wish there were.
 
Another country gone down the toilet and turned into a shithole.
Successful and stable countries usually don't attack Israel.

Framing a minority to deflect frustration is the daily
politics of the Islamist narrative, but searching for
a Jew under the bed, usually turns out to be
the last resort of a death wish.
 
What bullshit. 13 people are accused of helping the Hamas incursion into Israel. From an organization with 30,000 workers.

I bet more Jews are in Israeli prisons right now, convicted of killing other Jews.
 
What bullshit. 13 people are accused of helping the Hamas incursion into Israel. From an organization with 30,000 workers.

I bet more Jews are in Israeli prisons right now, convicted of killing other Jews.

Why are there 30,000 workers 75 years after their poor choices turned some into refugees?
How many Jews are still refugees today?
 

Forum List

Back
Top