HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 4:51 pm
Placing entire populations under siege is perfectly conventional when the enemy of of the besiegers has chosen to embed themselves within the civilian population.
Did the U.S. worry about opening up supply lines to Japan or Germany when prosecuting the initial phases of the WWII? Was the U.S. thus engaged in terrorism?
After World War II, the Fourth Geneva Convention was created precisely to protect civilians during armed conflict, in response to that kind of thing. It is now against international law. The United States has certainly committed war crimes since then too, but that doesn't make it OK.
Under Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, parties to a conflict are obligated to ensure that civilians have access to adequate food, medical supplies, and other essentials. Additionally, Article 59 of the Convention prohibits the destruction of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.
When you say "perfectly conventional", you do realize it is considered a war crime? Are you saying it should not be? Or that it's entirely moral? Or that you think it is an effective military strategy that will make Palestinians want to love Israelis and make Gaza easier to govern in the long run? What are you claiming here?
How do you think this plays out as a strategy? What is the military objective of starving and killing lots of civilians? How does that lead to the eventual peace that they want to build? What's the next step after that?
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 4:51 pm
Placing entire populations under siege is perfectly conventional when the enemy of of the besiegers has chosen to embed themselves within the civilian population.
Did the U.S. worry about opening up supply lines to Japan or Germany when prosecuting the initial phases of the WWII? Was the U.S. thus engaged in terrorism?
After World War II, the Fourth Geneva Convention was created precisely to protect civilians during armed conflict, in response to that kind of thing. It is now against international law. The United States has certainly committed war crimes since then too, but that doesn't make it OK.
Under Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, parties to a conflict are obligated to ensure that civilians have access to adequate food, medical supplies, and other essentials. Additionally, Article 59 of the Convention prohibits the destruction of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.
When you say "perfectly conventional", you do realize it is considered a war crime? Are you saying it should not be? Or that it's entirely moral? Or that you think it is an effective military strategy that will make Palestinians want to love Israelis and make Gaza easier to govern in the long run? What are you claiming here?
How do you think this plays out as a strategy? What is the military objective of starving and killing lots of civilians? How does that lead to the eventual peace that they want to build? What's the next step after that?
I guess they could try to copy the United States' method of peace-building in Japan.
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 10:11 am
Your response about how you think Israel should respond to the worst attack in it's history was telling because it offered extremes that no one desires e.g. wiping out all Palestinians or that are untenable e.g. maintaining the status quo or demanding that darn Palestinians get rid of Hamas on their own. What? Get rid of Hamas or what, Boot?
I don't think that's a fair description of my response, so let me copy my response below.
I said that you have to have a military objective, and that the military objective needs to be linked to an end game.
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 1:41 pm
So how then should Israel respond? You started a thread on that and spent a lot of time decrying the atrocities of Israel but never really got around to answering your own question.
I think it's a very difficult question to answer.
But I think it starts here: What are the military and diplomatic goals? What does getting to peace look like? In the long run, I think there are only a few possibilities for a long-term peace:
Israel wipes Palestinians off the face of the earth or deports them to other places, terrorism ceases, and the Arab world does not respond violently. This seems entirely unrealistic to me.
Israel tries to maintain the status quo - gradually wiping out Palestinian rights, controlling their borders, telling them what they can import and export, preventing them from having economic viability, building new settlements on what is currently Palestinian land, protecting Jews who commit atrocities against Palestinians, trying to undermine the Israeli Supreme Court to erode their basic human rights, and hoping that Palestinians will be willing to go along. This seems entirely unrealistic to me.
Israel demands that Palestinians appoint a negotiating partner that is committed to peaceful negotiations, not Hamas, and is willing to offer Palestinians either a viable state of their own or full citizenship in Israel. This would be very hard, but seems much more possible.
I think the military strategy should be built largely on the peace they want to build in the end.
Without a clear military objective, aligned with a diplomatic objective, it's just a lot of killing.
So back to you: Are there possibilities I missed? How would you go about working toward a long-term peace, and what military objectives are compatible with that?
What do you think the military objective should be? And the long-term diplomatic objective? How are the various things you seem to be justifying related to a clear military objective?
How many civilian deaths are justified in order to get one legitimate military target?
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 4:51 pmFor 36,000th time - Israel has attempted to mitigate civilian losses by encouraging them to move to the south of Gaza.
The UN doesn't think they are safe in the South either:
... the situation for the more than two million people trapped in the Gaza Strip is catastrophic.
They have now endured a siege and continuous bombardment for 23 days. According to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, more than 8,000 people have been killed – 66 per cent of whom are said to be women and children. Tens of thousands more have been injured.
The scale of the horror people are experiencing in Gaza is really hard to convey. People are becoming increasingly desperate, as they search for food, water and shelter amid the relentless bombing campaign that is wiping out whole families and entire neighborhoods.
In their desperation, people have resorted to breaking into UN warehouses in search of food and water. Dehydration is an increasing concern, as is the possibility of the spread of disease and other health concerns due to unsafe water and breakdown in sewage treatment services.
More than 1.4 million people are internally displaced in Gaza, and hundreds of thousands of children, women and men are crammed into overcrowded shelters and hospitals. Many of these people have moved south in search of safety. But the reality is that nowhere is safe and we simply don’t have enough essential supplies to provide for the survival of internally displaced people at this scale.
As we heard from [UNICEF] Executive Director [Catherine] Russell, the health care system is in tatters. Patients lie on the floors and in corridors. Surgeons are operating without anesthesia. Out of an estimated 50,000 pregnant women, 5,500 are due to deliver within the next 30 days. For the 1,000 patients dependent on dialysis and the 130 premature babies in incubators, life hangs by a thread as hospital backup generators run on fumes. Some 9,000 cancer patients are not receiving adequate care.
We are deeply concerned by allegations of military installations in the close vicinity of hospitals and the request by Israeli authorities for hospitals, including Al Quds and Shifa, to be evacuated – there is nowhere safe for these patients to go, and for those on life support and babies in incubators, moving would almost certainly be a death sentence.
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 4:51 pmFor 36,000th time - Israel has attempted to mitigate civilian losses by encouraging them to move to the south of Gaza.
The UN doesn't think they are safe in the South either:
There have also been Israeli strikes south of the evacuation line. Twenty-six people were killed sheltering in a wedding hall at the Nuseirat refugee camp.
This week, almost two-thirds of the casualties from Israeli strikes occurred in the southern part of the enclave, the Gaza Health Ministry said Wednesday. The figures could not be independently verified by The Post. In attempts to counter questions about the body count in Gaza, the Gaza Health Ministry released a document Thursday that it said contains names and other details of those killed.
The Israeli military did not respond to a request for comment regarding civilians killed in central and southern Gaza. The Gaza Health Ministry says more than 7,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war began Oct. 7, following the deadly raid into Israel by Hamas militants who killed more than 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostages.
HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 4:51 pmFor 36,000th time - Israel has attempted to mitigate civilian losses by encouraging them to move to the south of Gaza.
Hamas did the same thing. They encouraged all Israelis to leave as well. Had Israelis done as Hamas had asked there would have been on casualties on 10/7.
In point of fact, there is no accepted international law of war that allows a warring party to demand that civilian populations get out of their way.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Apparently, a bomb hit a refugee camp. I don't see how this is sensible and it is severely damaging Israel's reputation in the international setting (which is important) and is also going to enrage and further radicalise Palestinians. It seems to me it is possible to conduct a ground assault and even air strikes, etc. but avoid bombing a literal refugee camp.
The IDF spokesman confirmed that yes the refugee camp got killed but they were targeting some Hamas leader who they believed to be present on site there, according to CNN (which I realise is not the most reliable source of news, but the news clip has the spokesman saying it himself.)
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 6:37 pm
Maybe the OT references to "love your neighbor and hate your enemy" also applied only to "petsonal" enemies....
So then if that was the "only" case, how do you explain the fact that God Himself TOLS the Isrealites to kill every man woman and child in certain places? This is what Jews know.
Matthew 5:43-45 wrote:Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Not sure if you realize this or not. Jews do not read the New Testament. Do you honestly think they read that passage? They are not Christians or under New Covenant teachings by Jesus and Apostles. I'm merely trying to make you see from "their point of view from their history with God the Father"
Yes, they are both literal neighbours and should choose to treat each other kindly.
Not gonna happen Scripture teaches it. I'm surprised at the lack of understanding Scripture/prophecy/radical Islam goals. Until people do they will not get the bigger picture.
The Bible never talks about Islam at all.
Well duh!
But you willnever understand what's happening with knowing little about radical Islam.
Yes, they are both literal neighbours and should choose to treat each other kindly.
Not gonna happen Scripture teaches it. I'm surprised at the lack of understanding Scripture/prophecy/radical Islam goals. Until people do they will not get the bigger picture.
Scripture can always be misused to justify atrocities. I think that using Deuteronomy to justify the killing of innocent people in Gaza is terrible theology.
It's not just Scripture to a Jew. They have always dealt with war. It's always been a part of their heritage being under the Old Covenant to this day. It's strange to have tobpiint these things out.