Major attack on Israel by Hamas

[ohio jones]

Are you suggesting that the Jews have no need to obey Jesus' command to "resist not evil" or to "turn the other cheek"?

As you know, most New Covenant Christians do not apply that passage the same as Anabaptists. MOST denominations believe Jesus was referring to "petsonal" enemies and do not see that as a mandate for a country to not engage in war if necessary. For example the video of the Son of Hamas leader who was involved in Hamas himself, became a Christian. A Jesus follower. Yet he believes and is presently stating Israel was left with no choice but war. So you see he interprets that passage differently than Anabaptists.

Apparently they do read it, it they believe that it applies only to petsonal enemies and not to war.

I wouldn't consider Jews to be New Covenant Christians nor a denomination.

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.

Whether it's gonna happen or not, they should treat each other kindly Scripture teaches it.

[Bootstrap]

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.

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (12 August 1949)

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?

The articles quotes refer to “occupying powers”. Israel has not, as of yet, occupied Gaza.

You aren't answering my questions. But let me respond to this: I think Israel has occupied Gaza since 1967. Palestine has not been allowed to exist as a nation. It has not been allowed to control its own imports or exports or its own borders.

I recognize that some disagree, here's a description of the two views:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ce/675798/

Israel believes it “disengaged” from Gaza in 2005 when it completely withdrew its military and civilians from the area. With this withdrawal, Israel and the United States—as well as many international legal, military, and foreign policy experts—argue that Israel ceded the effective control needed under the legal definition of occupation, therefore ending the occupation. Still, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant recently stated that after the conflict, Israel would “no longer have ‘responsibility for life in the Gaza Strip,’” seemingly confirming a level of ongoing engagement.

In contrast, many prominent international institutions, organizations and bodies—including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN General Assembly (UNGA), European Union (EU), African Union, International Criminal Court (ICC) (both Pre-Trial Chamber I and the Office of the Prosecutor), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch—as well as international legal experts and other organizations, argue that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories including Gaza since 1967.1 While they acknowledge that Israel no longer had the traditional marker of effective control after the disengagement—a military presence—they hold that with the help of technology, it has maintained the requisite control in other ways.

[Bootstrap]

Hamas is responsible for the feeding and safekeeping of its own people. They have the necessary supplies to do so but have chosen to use them for war. If there is a group of people terrorizing the Gazans and violating the Geneva Convention it is in fact Hamas.

Both Israel and Hamas are terrorizing these people.

But do the math. There are 30,000 Hamas militants according to some estimates. There are over 2,000,000 civilians. Food for 30,000 soldiers will not feed 2,000,000 civilians. And yes, in any conflict, the 30,000 people with the guns get the food first, the 2,000,000+ civilians suffer. So what does Israel want to accomplish here? Hamas militants will have food. Starving Palestinians and making them watch their children get killed by bombs ... not a great strategy for long-term peace.

Israel is denying 2,000,000 civilians food, water, electricity, medical services, and even the ability to live safely in their own homes. Hamas is not bombing residential neighborhoods in Gaza or cutting off people's cellphone service so they cannot call an ambulance or see if their friends and family are OK when they hear bombs.

Both Hamas and Israel bear guilt for their own actions. This is not moral equivalence - their guilt is not the same. But Israel is killing a lot of civilians. Some with bombs, some with starvation and thirst and closing down medical facilities precisely when they are most needed. Saying Hamas is evil doesn't make this right.

[Soloist]

Did either of these two countries sign that portion of the convention?

[GaryK]

Israel is denying 2,000,000 civilians food, water, electricity, medical services, and even the ability to live safely in their own homes. Hamas is not bombing residential neighborhoods in Gaza or cutting off people's cellphone service so they cannot call an ambulance or see if their friends and family are OK when they hear bombs.

Israel agrees to allow 100 trucks of humanitarian aid into Gaza each day — official

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-ag ... -official/

[HondurasKeiser]

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.)

This is sad and tragic. I don’t feel the need to justify Israel’s every action nor do I think they’re wholly innocent. I simply believe there’s no moral comparison between Hamas’ tactics and those of Israel.

Do you really think bombing a refugee camp is ever morally justified?

No Josh, I just wrote that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I don’t believe there is a moral justification for bombing actual refugees but neither do I believe that the 2 groups are equally immoral.

[NedFlanders]

This is sad and tragic. I don’t feel the need to justify Israel’s every action nor do I think they’re wholly innocent. I simply believe there’s no moral comparison between Hamas’ tactics and those of Israel.

Do you really think bombing a refugee camp is ever morally justified?

No Josh, I just wrote that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I don’t believe there is a moral justification for bombing actual refugees but neither do I believe that the 2 groups are equally immoral.

This doesn’t seem very biblical. Protestant - yes.

At the end is God going to care even a little about being equal morally or not equally morally? Of course not - so why would a follower waste his time with such useless judgements? Except to pick sides without “picking sides.”

[Bootstrap]

Israel is denying 2,000,000 civilians food, water, electricity, medical services, and even the ability to live safely in their own homes. Hamas is not bombing residential neighborhoods in Gaza or cutting off people's cellphone service so they cannot call an ambulance or see if their friends and family are OK when they hear bombs.

Israel agrees to allow 100 trucks of humanitarian aid into Gaza each day — official

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-ag ... -official/

Yes. Now do the math - 100 trucks. 2,000,000+ civilians. Massive bombings. Do you think 100 trucks can even begin to satisfy the basic needs?

[Bootstrap]

No Josh, I just wrote that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I don’t believe there is a moral justification for bombing actual refugees but neither do I believe that the 2 groups are equally immoral.

Moral equivalence is a dead end. It only results in justifying the wrong one side does because the other side is considered worse. And both sides will say that. It's a race to the bottom. Are walking and chewing gum morally equivalent?

Each side is responsible for what it does.

And what each side does has ramifications for trying to build peace again at the end of the conflict.

[Ken]

Did either of these two countries sign that portion of the convention?

There is only one country involved here and yes Israel has signed all of the Geneva Conventions.

Israel claims they don't apply in Gaza and the West Bank because Israel says they are not independent nations. In other words, Israel's position is essentially this is an internal Israeli matter and therefore International law does not apply. Any more than international law would apply if say the US military was conducting operations in Arizona.

It is a neat "Catch 22" that Israel has concocted. Since Palestine does not exist, international law does not apply. Or so they claim.