Israel vs. the rest of the world?

[Amadeus]

17 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I can't believe people are parroting Hitler's antisemitic arguments, albeit with a different target, in 2024.

Can’t believe anyone would post something like this but here we are. 

[HeliX]

4 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

Can’t believe anyone would post something like this but here we are. 

I don't think it's wrong to call out arguments that have racist roots (though I'm not suggesting you do, or are racist - for the record) when you see them.

On reflection it was wrong to mention your nationality, though it wasn't intended to land as harshly as it seemed to, but that's my fault not anyone else's.

[HeliX]

38 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

I think your post is wholly disingenuous.

Where has Amadeaus tried to justify killing a lot of people?

Yeah fair cop. I've been arguing with arseholes who use the "See, nobody wants them anyway!" argument (whilst very much using that as a justification for the destruction and killing in Gaza) on other platforms and it's bled, wrongly, over into my posting here.

[Chinahand]

41 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I can't believe people are parroting Hitler's antisemitic arguments, albeit with a different target, in 2024.

HeliX genuinely get a grip. Amadeus is not parroting Hitler's antisemitic arguments.

My goodness, despicable ad hominin. Be a gentleman and accept this is too far.

[HeliX]

18 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

HeliX genuinely get a grip. Amadeus is not parroting Hitler's antisemitic arguments.

My goodness, despicable ad hominin. Be a gentleman and accept this is too far.

The argument that "it should tell you something" that the surrounding countries "don't want them" is very much the argument Hitler made about the jews. And it's an evil one whoever it's made about, or by.

Edit: you are right though, the objection to the argument stands without any reference to Hitler necessary. And it was unkind of me.

Edited April 1 by HeliX

[Non-Believer]

If it wasn't for a small amount of ground considered "holy" by both creeds the problem (simplistically) could be solved by creating two separate states.

[HeliX]

Fairly serious escalation: https://news.sky.com/story/israel-gaza-hamas-latest-middle-east-live-updates-sky-news-blog-12978800

[TheTeapot]

No point in objecting, just get told to shut up by old racist people. 

'It's war, bad things happen'

 

 

Edited April 2 by TheTeapot

[Jerome]

Neither side wants to end hostilities or yield. So I'm honestly hoping Israel just gets on with it quick and dirty. 

The international community won't do anything about it but at least the suffering will end faster.

[HeliX]

 

 

[P.K.]

5 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

No point in objecting, just get told to shut up by old racist people. 

'It's war, bad things happen'

@TheTeapot

I trust that first sentence wasn't directed at me?

After all, I don't feel old at all...

At least you're finally starting to grasp the basics that war is a very nasty, dirty, miserable business. We should never allow ourselves to go to war.

Unfortunately if attacked you have no other choice but to get out there and kill the enemy.

[John Wright]

6 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

No point in objecting, just get told to shut up by old racist people

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

I trust that first sentence wasn't directed at me?

After all, I don't feel old at all.

That’s very revealing

4 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Unfortunately if attacked you have no other choice but to get out there and kill the enemy.

 However that “get out there” isn’t carte blanche to use force without restriction. There’s supposed to be a proportionality limit in so far as civilians are concerned.

“the incidental and involuntary harm caused to the civilian population during a military attack must not be excessive in relation to the direct military advantage gained”.

Theres a good summary of the law of war, and what various international courts and tribunals have established as being allowable, or illegal. And it’s not just death or injury, but damage to infrastructure that damages the life of civilians.

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/proportionality/#:~:text=According to the ICTY%2C the,the direct military advantage gained.

[Sheldon]

14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

There's a good summary of the law of war, and what various international courts and tribunals have established as being allowable, or illegal. And it’s not just death or injury, but damage to infrastructure that damages the life of civilians.

The "law of war" tends to be applied retrospectively, long after the civilians are already dead and their towns destroyed.

In the meantime: "Rules in a knife fight? There's no rules!"

[John Wright]

22 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

The "law of war" tends to be applied retrospectively, long after the civilians are already dead and their towns destroyed.

In the meantime: "Rules in a knife fight? There's no rules!"

However they are known, and should inform actions, if they don’t then those who breach know the potential consequences.

And it informs observers as to whether the actions of one side, the other, or both, are acceptable.

And two wrongs don’t make a right.

Nor, for that matter, does criticising Israel’s conduct of the war, settling of the West Bank, or Zionism make me antisemitic. Neither does me criticising Hamas terror attacks make me antisemitic ( both Jews and Palestinians are semites ) or anti Palestinian.

To many on here, and elsewhere, confuse Israel and  being ethnically or religiously or culturally Jewish, you can criticise the state and its politics without being anti semitic. It’s the same with Hamas and the population of Gaza. 

[P.K.]

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

That’s very revealing.

I suppose it does say something about my sense of humour...

 

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

However that “get out there” isn’t carte blanche to use force without restriction. There’s supposed to be a proportionality limit in so far as civilians are concerned.   

“the incidental and involuntary harm caused to the civilian population during a military attack must not be excessive in relation to the direct military advantage gained”.

There's a good summary of the law of war, and what various international courts and tribunals have established as being allowable, or illegal. And it’s not just death or injury, but damage to infrastructure that damages the life of civilians.

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/proportionality/#:~:text=According to the ICTY%2C the,the direct military advantage gained.

In this case the civilian population are being used as "human shields". Of course, the reason this is done by Hamas is simply because they hope it might give the IDF pause. Because they know that all the IDF actions will be played out and judged in the UN and the court of western public opinion and so do the Knesset. As Hamas are totally amoral they just view it as a useful tactic to use despite any civilian casualties that their actions may cause. Because they simply view civilians as expendable.

Therefore I'm not sure that “the incidental and involuntary harm caused to the civilian population during a military attack must not be excessive in relation to the direct military advantage gained” is relevant in a conflict against a terrorist insurgency who by their very nature are civilians! Also there are no formal declarations of war by the states involved, no territory to be gained or lost, no conventional military advantage to be gained and only one party can possibly be sanctioned. It seems subjective as well.