who holds the moral highground : Israel, or Muslims?

[peacefan]

Hamas leaders sit safely in Qatar and we found Bin Laden in Pakistan, our buddies

dealing with militant death cults while retaining the moral highground is not an easy task.
hence the delays to success, and the relatively high collateral damage count.
note : it is our enemies' goal to create as much damage as possible on our side.
and they have struck first in every instance.

 

[Shusha]

how about safe return of remaining hostages?

Temporary pause, rather than a ceasefire. Sure. But Israel offered a seven day pause, in exchange for the remaining hostages. Hamas refused.

how about peace?

Peace? Like a permanent peace? They've have to disavow their wish to kill Jews (never mind the raping, burning, torturing, beheading, and abducting). They've have to give up their notion of destroying Israel and re-covering territory for the caliphate. They've have to renounce violence as a means to developing their own state, and then have a long, long period where they prove it. Once ALL THAT is done, I think peace can be considered.

Meantime, I think we are going to have to force peace on them. Or rather, they have forced us to force peace on them. Wouldn't have been Israel's first choice.

 

[Shusha]

... and the relatively high collateral damage count ...

I would really love to have a serious discussion with someone (you?) about comparing incidental harm in various wars. When people, sometimes rather casually, toss around claims like this, I really would like to know the comparisons they are using.

 

[peacefan]

I would really love to have a serious discussion with someone (you?) about comparing incidental harm in various wars. When people, sometimes rather casually, toss around claims like this, I really would like to know the comparisons they are using.

ok, sure..

what do you define as 'incidental harm'?

 

[toomuchtime_]

ok, sure..

what do you define as 'incidental harm'?

Harm to civilians or civilian infrastructure incidental to an attack on a military target as opposed to harm to civilians or civilian infrastructure being directly targeted, otherwise known as collateral damage.

The term, incidental does not imply the lives and property of people harmed are unimportant, but that under international law there is no equivalence between directly targeting civilians and harming them as the result of an attack on a military target. Directly targeting civilians is always a war crime, but if the rules of International Humanitarian Law are followed, affirming the military necessity of destroying the target, advising civilians to vacate the area in advance of the attack and not using means in excess of what is necessary, are followed then the incidental harm to civilians is not a war crime.

International Humanitarian Law has been built up since WWII to try to reduce the horrendous civilian casualties of that war. IHL is the product of the collective wisdom of the world on how to reduce civilian casualties to their bare minimum that is consistent with the objective of the war, which in this case is the destruction of Hamas in order to prevent future attacks on Israeli civilians, and since Israel meticulously follows International Humanitarian Law, we can be assured that although the Hamas casualty number may seem high, they are the bare minimum necessary to destroy Hamas and protect Israeli civilians from future attacks.

 

[Shusha]

ok, sure..

what do you define as 'incidental harm'?

What toomuchtime said.

Reasonably foreseeable, but unintended harm occurring as a consequence of engaging in acts of warfare against legitimate military targets under the operational necessity to achieve the military goal.

I prefer this term over "collateral damage" as that language skews towards a broader definition of unacceptable overall losses without consideration of military objectives and goals.

Specifically, I've seen very raw, rough comparisons made (in which Israel ALWAYS seems to come up short) based on total number of casualties, casualties over a span of time; ratio of (presumed) combatants to (presumed) non-combatants; number of casualties in certain occupations; number of child casualties either as a total or as a ratio; size of munitions used; and others.

What I rarely see is the math on how these claims that Israel is "worse than" are calculated. What I never see is any conversation about the conditions that the military in question is operating under and how this affects the comparisons. So my question, to those who have more military understanding than I do, is: when you claim a "relatively high collateral damage count", how are you making that calculation?

 

[rylah]

Good to see the Freedom Fighters driving the Israeli terrorists back home to their Mummies .
See the supposed crack elite Golani Brigade sustained such severe losses that they have been sent home to rest and to overcome stress and fatigue .

You cannot send half trained amateurs to fight seasoned professionals .

The Israelis are good at dropping bombs on women and children but not very good at hand to hand fighting .

So carry on brave Freedom Fighters . Do your best to rid us of an insane bunch of Child Killers

Islamist trash talk.

What hand-to-hand battle?

Hamas barely see the light of day hiding in tunnels.

 

[Lisa558]

The moral high ground goes to the side that does NOT seek out babies to decapitate, bake to death in an oven, or set on fire.

 

[rylah]

OP let me ask You a question - is it moral to prevent cruelty,
specifically, such that is in harsh contrast to Your culture,
when the result is prolonging the conflict?

 

[rylah]

The moral high ground goes to the side that does NOT seek out babies to decapitate, bake to death in an oven, or set on fire.

The cruelty of abuse among Muslims to other Muslims,
is the lowest point of human condition today.

22 Arab states at war with each other,
their treatment of Israel is used as
example to other MENA "infidels".

Do Sinwar and Haniyeh
deserve a bullet?

Or a high tree?